UK General Election 2017

[Owen Brannigan]

The election can't come soon enough for the Tories, with every TV appearance May makes the gap will close.

Don't think these debates change anyone's minds

They will have some affect hence why the Tories don't want to see May go up against Corbyn in a head to head to debate.

Christ after Corbyns performance this morning it will be a wonder if they win any seats. What an absolute clown of a man.

Interviewer, Emma Barnett is a daily telegraph editor and has a picture of Theresa May on the banner of her Twitter header. BBC showing glorious impartiality again this morning...

Ah come on he fucked up badly, nothing to do with the interviewer or her background. Anyone with half a clue would have pounced on that when it was obvious Corbyn hadn't a clue

Absolutely but will be interesting to see what treatment May gets...Tories have no figures or costings on that issue so it'll be easier for her in that sense..

All supposed costings are nothing more than guesstimates and all Corbyn had to do was to have his figures written down in front of him as it was certain to be the first question when he was announcing such a wide ranging provision on childcare.  It showed incompetence on his behalf and on behalf of Milne who should have prepped him given the disaster so far of Labour politicians and numbers.  At worst he could have bluffed it by saying in the region of £5bn and the detail is in our costings provided to everyone.

[Owen Brannigan]

May took one of the biggest pummellings I've ever seen tonight on her head to head with Paxman.  The audience audibly laughed at her when talking about the Tories' record on NHS funding, the camera cut to a guy mouthing "bollocks, that's bollocks" as she waffled about something else and to top it off, Paxman absolutely sucker punched her (as only he can) by calling her 'a blowhard who collapses at the first sign of gunfire'!  The Tories need to get her off the TV ASAP or, dare I say it, they could lose this!?

Media consensus is that Paxman is past it and his questioning methodology was old style and ineffective by talking over the interviewee and constantly repeating questions to no effect. Paxman tried his best to goad both Corbyn and May into reacting badly to his statements and questions but failed on both instances.

Probably Paxman is now being seen in a poorer light given the performance of Andrew Neil and Krishnan Guru-Murthy.

Strange point to make but regardless.  Have you anything to bring to the table regarding Corbyn or May's performances?

Nothing strange in it.  An interview or debate of this type is heavily dependent on the interviewer or moderator to act on behalf of the public.  Paxman made a fool of himself by becoming annoyed that the Labour manifesto wasn't left wing enough and questioning Corbyn why many of his far left views were not in the manifesto.  He gave him an easy ride on most issues and found that most of the audience laughing with Corbyn and not at him as Paxman wanted.  His relentless interrupting of Corbyn gave him the sympathy of the audience. In both interviews Paxman failed to let the interviewee speak and talked over them.

As I said above both interviewees didn't fall for the goading and mockery of Paxman who was trying to get them to raise to his bait.  I saw nothing new the performances, May is horrible on TV as shown on numerous occasions and particularly on Andrew Neil interview, she lacks the ability to debate in a spontaneous manner and is too would up by the stress of the occasion to come across in a human way.  Corbyn showed a steady improvement, again helped by poor Paxman questioning of irrelevant areas, and training not to rise to the bait.  Throw in some numbers, proper questioning of his record and inexperience and you could have troubled him.  He will always come across a a decent human being with some warmth when compared to May.

On the whole nothing new in the debate.  May and Corbyn came out no worse or better than before and given the tiny audience on C4 and SKY news, the effect on the undecided is negligible.

[johnneycool]

May took one of the biggest pummellings I've ever seen tonight on her head to head with Paxman.  The audience audibly laughed at her when talking about the Tories' record on NHS funding, the camera cut to a guy mouthing "bollocks, that's bollocks" as she waffled about something else and to top it off, Paxman absolutely sucker punched her (as only he can) by calling her 'a blowhard who collapses at the first sign of gunfire'!  The Tories need to get her off the TV ASAP or, dare I say it, they could lose this!?

Media consensus is that Paxman is past it and his questioning methodology was old style and ineffective by talking over the interviewee and constantly repeating questions to no effect. Paxman tried his best to goad both Corbyn and May into reacting badly to his statements and questions but failed on both instances.

Probably Paxman is now being seen in a poorer light given the performance of Andrew Neil and Krishnan Guru-Murthy.

Strange point to make but regardless.  Have you anything to bring to the table regarding Corbyn or May's performances?

Nothing strange in it.  An interview or debate of this type is heavily dependent on the interviewer or moderator to act on behalf of the public.  Paxman made a fool of himself by becoming annoyed that the Labour manifesto wasn't left wing enough and questioning Corbyn why many of his far left views were not in the manifesto.  He gave him an easy ride on most issues and found that most of the audience laughing with Corbyn and not at him as Paxman wanted.  His relentless interrupting of Corbyn gave him the sympathy of the audience. In both interviews Paxman failed to let the interviewee speak and talked over them.

As I said above both interviewees didn't fall for the goading and mockery of Paxman who was trying to get them to raise to his bait.  I saw nothing new the performances, May is horrible on TV as shown on numerous occasions and particularly on Andrew Neil interview, she lacks the ability to debate in a spontaneous manner and is too would up by the stress of the occasion to come across in a human way.  Corbyn showed a steady improvement, again helped by poor Paxman questioning of irrelevant areas, and training not to rise to the bait.  Throw in some numbers, proper questioning of his record and inexperience and you could have troubled him.  He will always come across a a decent human being with some warmth when compared to May.

On the whole nothing new in the debate.  May and Corbyn came out no worse or better than before and given the tiny audience on C4 and SKY news, the effect on the undecided is negligible.

I didn't get to see the Corbyn part, but I did see the May part and two things came out, Paxman did labour some points very heavily but at the same time May said lots but didn't answer a good few questions directly.
Thought Paxman went a bit low with his blowhard comment and the audience seemed to think the same.

[AhNowRef]

I though the real loser was Paxman ... WTF is he like ? .. he out paxmaned himself and looked a complete tool..

Corbyn looked the more genuine as May is just an aul bluffer .. but I thought Corbyn could have been better on a few questions too .. He did the best but I think he missed a big opportunity there !!

[Owen Brannigan]

I though the real loser was Paxman ... WTF is he like ? .. he out paxmaned himself and looked a complete tool..

Corbyn looked the more genuine as May is just an aul bluffer .. but I thought Corbyn could have been better on a few questions too .. He did the best but I think he missed a big opportunity there !!

IN this whole election it is the Labour party that is missing a big opportunity to replace the Tories.  If Labour had a credible leader with a competent shadow cabinet to back him/her up then May would be in serious trouble.

[seafoid]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tx3hrpDCct8

Corbyn is credible but he's not a neoliberal

[dec]

I though the real loser was Paxman ... WTF is he like ? .. he out paxmaned himself and looked a complete tool..

Corbyn looked the more genuine as May is just an aul bluffer .. but I thought Corbyn could have been better on a few questions too .. He did the best but I think he missed a big opportunity there !!

IN this whole election it is the Labour party that is missing a big opportunity to replace the Tories.  If Labour had a credible leader with a competent shadow cabinet to back him/her up then May would be in serious trouble.

If Labour had a credible leader with a competent shadow cabinet to back him/her up then May would not have called an early general election.

[Saffrongael]

I though the real loser was Paxman ... WTF is he like ? .. he out paxmaned himself and looked a complete tool..

Corbyn looked the more genuine as May is just an aul bluffer .. but I thought Corbyn could have been better on a few questions too .. He did the best but I think he missed a big opportunity there !!

IN this whole election it is the Labour party that is missing a big opportunity to replace the Tories.  If Labour had a credible leader with a competent shadow cabinet to back him/her up then May would be in serious trouble.

If Labour had a credible leader with a competent shadow cabinet to back him/her up then May would not have called an early general election.

I saw somewhere that Tories called it as they heard rumours Corbyn wasn't going to stay on until 2020, so sure where they of victory if Corbyn was leading Labour.

[magpie seanie]

Seems like opinion polls have dried up.

[Owen Brannigan]

The voting patterns in the UK:

[armaghniac]

It is notable in the previous post that the proportion voting in the young age groups was pretty much in touch with the proportion of other groups until the early 90s. Not sure what kicked off such a rapid decline.

see below for data from Huffingtonpost of polling trends with adjustments removed. Not such a big gap at all, but since the young (as above) and less well off couldn't be arsed to vote, this is still a large Con lead.

[Mikhail Prokhorov]

It is notable in the previous post that the proportion voting in the young age groups was pretty much in touch with the proportion of other groups until the early 90s. Not sure what kicked off such a rapid decline.

see below for data from Huffingtonpost of polling trends with adjustments removed. Not such a big gap at all, but since the young (as above) and less well off couldn't be arsed to vote, this is still a large Con lead.

young people now are so rich from 20 years ago that they do not care about politics, everyone has an ipad, laptops, car when they turn 17 etc. they do not have the incentive to vote for any real change as they have it so good already

[armaghniac]

young people now are so rich from 20 years ago that they do not care about politics, everyone has an ipad, laptops, car when they turn 17 etc. they do not have the incentive to vote for any real change as they have it so good already

This theory is suspect. Older people are much richer, in general, and they do vote. Young people today have iPads, but also big student loans, something we never had.

[armaghniac]

Talk of a poll tomorrow showing Con artists losing 20 seats and a hung parliament. This would be interesting, as most of the rest would leave the EU, but not go for some of the lunatic tough talk.

[TheOptimist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40059846