This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Johnson was on PM on Radio 4 this evening, being interviewed by the brilliant Eddie Mair. If you want a good laugh (although it isn't really funny that this ignorant and incompetent buffoon is our Foreign Secretary) you can find it on BBC radio I-Player, The interview starts about 24 -25 minutes into the programme.
22
5
In reply to Rog Wilko:
He was pretty bad, but to be fair Abbot is still holding Car Crash gold and is in a class of her own.
He was pretty bad, but to be fair Abbot is still holding Car Crash gold and is in a class of her own.
Post edited at 21:17
10
15
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Can't bear to listen to Johnson tonight but agree that Eddie "you're a nasty piece of work, aren't you [Johnson]" Mair is brilliant.
Can't bear to listen to Johnson tonight but agree that Eddie "you're a nasty piece of work, aren't you [Johnson]" Mair is brilliant.
15
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
Poor man sounds as though he doesn't know whether he is coming or going, remaining or leaving!
Poor man sounds as though he doesn't know whether he is coming or going, remaining or leaving!
2
In reply to ThunderCat:
Similar level of badness for me, it looked like neither bothered preparing for the interview. DA hadn't read a report on policing and BJ hadn't read his own manifesto. At least BJ had notes I guess.
> He was pretty bad, but to be fair Abbot is still holding Car Crash gold and is in a class of her own.
Similar level of badness for me, it looked like neither bothered preparing for the interview. DA hadn't read a report on policing and BJ hadn't read his own manifesto. At least BJ had notes I guess.
In reply to FreshSlate:
DA didn't know her own brief while Boris didn't have much clue about someone else's department. DA surprised by a question she knew was coming, Boris sideswiped by a left field enquiry. Both embarrassing but hardly the same order of incompetence.
> Similar level of badness for me, it looked like neither bothered preparing for the interview. DA hadn't read a report on policing and BJ hadn't read his own manifesto. At least BJ had notes I guess.
DA didn't know her own brief while Boris didn't have much clue about someone else's department. DA surprised by a question she knew was coming, Boris sideswiped by a left field enquiry. Both embarrassing but hardly the same order of incompetence.
Post edited at 07:30
15
10
In reply to BnB:
Maybe we can start using the "Abbot" as a measure of rubbishness.
I'd put Diane at 1 Abbot, and Boris at around 0.6
> DA didn't know her own brief while Boris didn't have much clue about someone else's department. DA surprised by a question she knew was coming, Boris sideswiped by a left field enquiry. Both embarrassing but hardly the same order of incompetence.
Maybe we can start using the "Abbot" as a measure of rubbishness.
I'd put Diane at 1 Abbot, and Boris at around 0.6
9
In reply to ThunderCat:
The Abbot scale of interview incompetance, like Moh's scale of hardness or the Richter scale of earthquake magnitude. Sounds like it could be a goer. Will it be a linear scale or logarithmic?
> Maybe we can start using the "Abbot" as a measure of rubbishness. >
The Abbot scale of interview incompetance, like Moh's scale of hardness or the Richter scale of earthquake magnitude. Sounds like it could be a goer. Will it be a linear scale or logarithmic?
3
In reply to BnB:
It might not be questions on foriegn policy, but its their manifesto which they were campaigning on not very long ago, and it was a brief snap election manifesto at that. It's bread a butter stuff.
Someone clearly had prepared the notes for it or else he wouldn't have been shuffling. Obviously he had some idea that the question would have come up. I will accept that DA edges it in incompetence, but I think both were reasonably expected to know both topics.
It might not be questions on foriegn policy, but its their manifesto which they were campaigning on not very long ago, and it was a brief snap election manifesto at that. It's bread a butter stuff.
Someone clearly had prepared the notes for it or else he wouldn't have been shuffling. Obviously he had some idea that the question would have come up. I will accept that DA edges it in incompetence, but I think both were reasonably expected to know both topics.
6
In reply to BnB:
And yet Boris was the person put forward by the Government to defend the Queen's Speech. You might have thought he'd have prepared for his tour of the radio studios.
Still, if it's another nail in his political coffin, I shan't be complaining.
> DA didn't know her own brief while Boris didn't have much clue about someone else's department.
And yet Boris was the person put forward by the Government to defend the Queen's Speech. You might have thought he'd have prepared for his tour of the radio studios.
Still, if it's another nail in his political coffin, I shan't be complaining.
25
1
In reply to The Thread:
Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
Seriously. Grow up.
Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
Seriously. Grow up.
28
10
In reply to BnB:
Senior Cabinet member representing government on Queen's Speech day on major news outlet doesn't read brief. He wasn't there to answer foreign policy questions, he was there to represent the government.
Senior Cabinet member representing government on Queen's Speech day on major news outlet doesn't read brief. He wasn't there to answer foreign policy questions, he was there to represent the government.
12
1
In reply to pec:
Also, does it go negative for more than competent interviwees ? if so where is the 0 on the scale - ie just competent ?
> The Abbot scale of interview incompetance, like Moh's scale of hardness or the Richter scale of earthquake magnitude. Sounds like it could be a goer. Will it be a linear scale or logarithmic?
Also, does it go negative for more than competent interviwees ? if so where is the 0 on the scale - ie just competent ?
In reply to tony:
Wouldn't you expect a good interviewer to get the best out of an interview for their listeners by asking questions that the interviewee could be expected to give in depth answers to.
We appear to be suffering from a dearth of decent journalists and interviewers these days. It's all too often about furthering their own careers by being combative rather than informing their customers
> And yet Boris was the person put forward by the Government to defend the Queen's Speech. You might have thought he'd have prepared for his tour of the radio studios.
> Still, if it's another nail in his political coffin, I shan't be complaining.
Wouldn't you expect a good interviewer to get the best out of an interview for their listeners by asking questions that the interviewee could be expected to give in depth answers to.
We appear to be suffering from a dearth of decent journalists and interviewers these days. It's all too often about furthering their own careers by being combative rather than informing their customers
4
14
In reply to timjones:
What was wrong with the questions? He was asked what aspects of the Queen's speech addressed areas previously highlighted by the PM as "burning injustices". Given he is a senior member of the government, I would expect him to be able to address all those points in depth, rather than clearly having no idea what was in the speech at all.
What was wrong with the questions? He was asked what aspects of the Queen's speech addressed areas previously highlighted by the PM as "burning injustices". Given he is a senior member of the government, I would expect him to be able to address all those points in depth, rather than clearly having no idea what was in the speech at all.
18
In reply to BnB:
What?! A question about the content of the queen's speech on the day of the queen's speech is hardly being "sideswiped by a leftfield enquiry".
> DA didn't know her own brief while Boris didn't have much clue about someone else's department. DA surprised by a question she knew was coming, Boris sideswiped by a left field enquiry. Both embarrassing but hardly the same order of incompetence.
What?! A question about the content of the queen's speech on the day of the queen's speech is hardly being "sideswiped by a leftfield enquiry".
27
In reply to timjones:
The questions were 100% relevant to the Queen's Speech and the recent part manifesto. A good interviewer asked the right questions, comparing retaric to actual policy. The Foreign Secretary made himself look like a complete idiot.
The questions were 100% relevant to the Queen's Speech and the recent part manifesto. A good interviewer asked the right questions, comparing retaric to actual policy. The Foreign Secretary made himself look like a complete idiot.
11
In reply to MG:
Radio interviews are better twhen the questions are designed to get good information for the listeners rather than serving as some sort of quiz for the interviewers aggrandisement IMO.
Wouldn't it have been simpler and made better use of airtime to have asked a more direct question?
> What was wrong with the questions? He was asked what aspects of the Queen's speech addressed areas previously highlighted by the PM as "burning injustices". Given he is a senior member of the government, I would expect him to be able to address all those points in depth, rather than clearly having no idea what was in the speech at all.
Radio interviews are better twhen the questions are designed to get good information for the listeners rather than serving as some sort of quiz for the interviewers aggrandisement IMO.
Wouldn't it have been simpler and made better use of airtime to have asked a more direct question?
3
15
In reply to timjones:
Yes, and I would expect a senior Government minister to able to give in-depth answers to questions about the Queen's Speech. The Queen's Speech is the fundamental programme for Parliament, and should be endorsed by the whole cabinet. The fact that a senior member of the cabinet was so flummoxed does not reflect well on that cabinet minister, and either suggests a lack of preparation or a lack of engagement on his part in the Cabinet discussions which you have to assume took part when the Queen's Speech was being assembled.
Unless of course the QS was assembled in the same way as the Tory manifesto was assembled by a few selected friends of Theresa and the Cabinet wasn't given sight of it until the last minute. Given the shambles of this Government, I wouldn't put it past them.
> Wouldn't you expect a good interviewer to get the best out of an interview for their listeners by asking questions that the interviewee could be expected to give in depth answers to.
Yes, and I would expect a senior Government minister to able to give in-depth answers to questions about the Queen's Speech. The Queen's Speech is the fundamental programme for Parliament, and should be endorsed by the whole cabinet. The fact that a senior member of the cabinet was so flummoxed does not reflect well on that cabinet minister, and either suggests a lack of preparation or a lack of engagement on his part in the Cabinet discussions which you have to assume took part when the Queen's Speech was being assembled.
Unless of course the QS was assembled in the same way as the Tory manifesto was assembled by a few selected friends of Theresa and the Cabinet wasn't given sight of it until the last minute. Given the shambles of this Government, I wouldn't put it past them.
6
In reply to timjones:
Can I recommend The One Show, you can probably find out what the Prime Minister's favourite biscuit is.
Can I recommend The One Show, you can probably find out what the Prime Minister's favourite biscuit is.
20
In reply to timjones:
What, like 'What are the 'burning injustices' cited by the Prime Minister? The fact they're described in such terms suggest they might be quite important. The fact that BJ didn't have a clue doesn't reflect well on him.
> Radio interviews are better twhen the questions are designed to get good information for the listeners rather than serving as some sort of quiz for the interviewers aggrandisement IMO.
> Wouldn't it have been simpler and made better use of airtime to have asked a more direct question?
What, like 'What are the 'burning injustices' cited by the Prime Minister? The fact they're described in such terms suggest they might be quite important. The fact that BJ didn't have a clue doesn't reflect well on him.
4
In reply to The New NickB:
Would a question along the lines of "The Prime Minister recently pledged X, how will policy Y help to achieve this?" been more direct and have allowed the interviewer to make better use of airtime?
There is too much focus on trying to trip interviewees up at the expoese of informing listeners and viewers about the real nuts and bolts of governement IMO and that applies to MPs of all political leanings IMO.
> The questions were 100% relevant to the Queen's Speech and the recent part manifesto. A good interviewer asked the right questions, comparing retaric to actual policy. The Foreign Secretary made himself look like a complete idiot.
Would a question along the lines of "The Prime Minister recently pledged X, how will policy Y help to achieve this?" been more direct and have allowed the interviewer to make better use of airtime?
There is too much focus on trying to trip interviewees up at the expoese of informing listeners and viewers about the real nuts and bolts of governement IMO and that applies to MPs of all political leanings IMO.
2
9
In reply to BnB:
I don't think one's worse than the other, when you have ministers and shadow ministers looking clueless it doesn't do to compare. All we can do is despair that the people governing us aren't in the position to do so because they are best among us but because they are chancersand bullshit merchants.
I thought he might have been on a kamakazie mission, i.e. make himself look bad but show up the incompetence of TM at the same time but it's not really in his nature to be self-sacrificing for someone else's leadership bid
> DA didn't know her own brief while Boris didn't have much clue about someone else's department. DA surprised by a question she knew was coming, Boris sideswiped by a left field enquiry. Both embarrassing but hardly the same order of incompetence.
I don't think one's worse than the other, when you have ministers and shadow ministers looking clueless it doesn't do to compare. All we can do is despair that the people governing us aren't in the position to do so because they are best among us but because they are chancersand bullshit merchants.
I thought he might have been on a kamakazie mission, i.e. make himself look bad but show up the incompetence of TM at the same time but it's not really in his nature to be self-sacrificing for someone else's leadership bid
3
In reply to timjones:
I don't watch television and so probably only see a tiny fraction of political interviews (and then only excerpts). But, from what little I do see, I thoroughly agree with you. In a former professional life (industry) I used to interview loads of people and always found it a fascinating process. Being wilfully combative and thrusting yourself forward is exactly what I don't want from an interviewer. It seems bizarre that people put up with it. If I was an interviewee, I certainly wouldn't. (But, as a politician, I wouldn't last a morning - far too fond of the unburnished truth!)
You get the impression that, in the flesh, Paxman is (or at least was) a decent spud. Did he usher in this arsey, combative style?
Mick (perplexed, as always)
> We appear to be suffering from a dearth of decent journalists and interviewers these days. It's all too often about furthering their own careers by being combative rather than informing their customers
I don't watch television and so probably only see a tiny fraction of political interviews (and then only excerpts). But, from what little I do see, I thoroughly agree with you. In a former professional life (industry) I used to interview loads of people and always found it a fascinating process. Being wilfully combative and thrusting yourself forward is exactly what I don't want from an interviewer. It seems bizarre that people put up with it. If I was an interviewee, I certainly wouldn't. (But, as a politician, I wouldn't last a morning - far too fond of the unburnished truth!)
You get the impression that, in the flesh, Paxman is (or at least was) a decent spud. Did he usher in this arsey, combative style?
Mick (perplexed, as always)
2
1
In reply to tony:
I would agree with that and I would therefore prefer to hear focussed in depth questions rather than listen to the interviewer trying to prove their knowledge of stuff that the PM has said in the past.
> Yes, and I would expect a senior Government minister to able to give in-depth answers to questions about the Queen's Speech.
I would agree with that and I would therefore prefer to hear focussed in depth questions rather than listen to the interviewer trying to prove their knowledge of stuff that the PM has said in the past.
1
In reply to timjones:
But in this case they were pretty easy open questions had TM done anything to address what she had previously highlighted as the burning issues. The question was basically "ramble on about the policies in the queens speech with regard to X, Y, Z". The problem was the polices were meaningless platitudes/non-existent meaning BJ was left looking stupid. There was literally nothing he could say as there was nothing in the queen's speech to ramble on about.
> Would a question along the lines of "The Prime Minister recently pledged X, how will policy Y help to achieve this?" been more direct and have allowed the interviewer to make better use of airtime?
> There is too much focus on trying to trip interviewees up at the expoese of informing listeners and viewers about the real nuts and bolts of governement IMO and that applies to MPs of all political leanings IMO.
But in this case they were pretty easy open questions had TM done anything to address what she had previously highlighted as the burning issues. The question was basically "ramble on about the policies in the queens speech with regard to X, Y, Z". The problem was the polices were meaningless platitudes/non-existent meaning BJ was left looking stupid. There was literally nothing he could say as there was nothing in the queen's speech to ramble on about.
6
In reply to Tyler:
If that was the case don't you think that it was a poor use fo time to ask questions that invited rambling answers?
When I do a local radio interview then there is some excuse for inexperienced interviewers asking poor questions but shouldn't we expect better on a major national radio station?
> But in this case they were pretty easy open questions had TM done anything to address what she had previously highlighted as the burning issues. The question was basically "ramble on about the policies in the queens speech with regard to X, Y, Z". The problem was the polices were meaningless platitudes/non-existent meaning BJ was left looking stupid. There was literally nothing he could say as there was nothing in the queen's speech to ramble on about.
If that was the case don't you think that it was a poor use fo time to ask questions that invited rambling answers?
When I do a local radio interview then there is some excuse for inexperienced interviewers asking poor questions but shouldn't we expect better on a major national radio station?
9
In reply to timjones:
Well that's one option. Perhaps BJ could have tried to prove his knowledge of stuff the PM has said in the past. The fact that he failed even that simple test does not reflect well on him.
Of course, I don't think that there's anything wrong with a clear demonstration that the Foreign Secretary is a bumbling buffoon. That, to me, seems like a decent public service - I think the electorate deserve to know how they're being represented around the world. I'm not exactly overjoyed.
> I would agree with that and I would therefore prefer to hear focussed in depth questions rather than listen to the interviewer trying to prove their knowledge of stuff that the PM has said in the past.
Well that's one option. Perhaps BJ could have tried to prove his knowledge of stuff the PM has said in the past. The fact that he failed even that simple test does not reflect well on him.
Of course, I don't think that there's anything wrong with a clear demonstration that the Foreign Secretary is a bumbling buffoon. That, to me, seems like a decent public service - I think the electorate deserve to know how they're being represented around the world. I'm not exactly overjoyed.
10
In reply to Mick Ward:
We are talking about a specific radio interview here and Tim is way off the mark. Eddie Mair's questions were completely on topic and relevant to the disparity between the government's reteric and policy making.
We are talking about a specific radio interview here and Tim is way off the mark. Eddie Mair's questions were completely on topic and relevant to the disparity between the government's reteric and policy making.
13
In reply to timjones:
Don't see what you are saying here, Boris was given multiple opportunities to show how the government's programme met the stated aims of the prime minister. Not only could he not do so, he was clearly completely unaware of any detail in the Queen's Speech at all. To me asking a closed "how does bill y meet policy x" type question would be far inferior as it may well it does't at all. The general questions asked gave him every opportunity to explain government policy. But he couldn't. He didn't even say that the government aimed to do these things but couldn't on account of the parliamentary position.
Don't see what you are saying here, Boris was given multiple opportunities to show how the government's programme met the stated aims of the prime minister. Not only could he not do so, he was clearly completely unaware of any detail in the Queen's Speech at all. To me asking a closed "how does bill y meet policy x" type question would be far inferior as it may well it does't at all. The general questions asked gave him every opportunity to explain government policy. But he couldn't. He didn't even say that the government aimed to do these things but couldn't on account of the parliamentary position.
5
In reply to The New NickB:
I know what I like radio interviews to achieve your opinion differs.
How can a personal preference be "off mark"?
> We are talking about a specific radio interview here and Tim is way off the mark. Eddie Mair's questions were completely on topic and relevant to the disparity between the government's reteric and policy making.
I know what I like radio interviews to achieve your opinion differs.
How can a personal preference be "off mark"?
In reply to timjones:
When it is based on falsehoods.
> I know what I like radio interviews to achieve your opinion differs.
> How can a personal preference be "off mark"?
When it is based on falsehoods.
Post edited at 11:33
8
1
In reply to The New NickB:
Where the hell is there any falsehood in preferring a different style of interviewing?
> When it is based on falsehoods.
Where the hell is there any falsehood in preferring a different style of interviewing?
In reply to timjones:
You suggested that Eddie Mair asked questions that a competent politician would not be able to give in depth answers to. This is clearly preposterous bollocks.
You suggested that Eddie Mair asked questions that a competent politician would not be able to give in depth answers to. This is clearly preposterous bollocks.
13
In reply to The New NickB:
Your desire to be outraged appears to be leading you to a preposterous misinterpretation.
The aim of the questioning can be valid whilst the style and delivery is poor.
> You suggested that Eddie Mair asked questions that a competent politician would not be able to give in depth answers to. This is clearly preposterous bollocks.
Your desire to be outraged appears to be leading you to a preposterous misinterpretation.
The aim of the questioning can be valid whilst the style and delivery is poor.
In reply to timjones:
I'm not outraged despite your desire to try and twist reality.
As I said, check out The One Show.
> Your desire to be outraged appears to be leading you to a preposterous misinterpretation.
I'm not outraged despite your desire to try and twist reality.
> The aim of the questioning can be valid whilst the style and delivery is poor.
As I said, check out The One Show.
6
In reply to Rampikino:
In the same way that The Godfather defines mafia films Diane Abbot's magnum opus has defined terrible interviews for a generation. All future work in the genre will be compared to her.
> Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
> Seriously. Grow up.
In the same way that The Godfather defines mafia films Diane Abbot's magnum opus has defined terrible interviews for a generation. All future work in the genre will be compared to her.
7
2
In reply to Bob Hughes:
Over-exaggerated apology for continued nastiness towards another human being.
> In the same way that The Godfather defines mafia films Diane Abbot's magnum opus has defined terrible interviews for a generation. All future work in the genre will be compared to her.
Over-exaggerated apology for continued nastiness towards another human being.
2
In reply to Bob Hughes:
But it was actually a question about TM's acceptance speech in the last parliament. It was only about the Queen's speech to the extent of probing why little from that historical speech had made it into the present programme. It was a fair question however and the response was not quick witted. Boris might have highlighted that this was a new administration so the question was not properly framed. Or he could have gone on to point out that the PM has already tried to address the poor educational attainment of the white working classes by proposing her grammar schools policy which she would have liked to include but which was not sufficiently endorsed by the electorate, thus demonstrating her listening qualities. But he failed.
I agree with those who do not yet see the actions to match TM's rhetoric by the way.
> What?! A question about the content of the queen's speech on the day of the queen's speech is hardly being "sideswiped by a leftfield enquiry".
But it was actually a question about TM's acceptance speech in the last parliament. It was only about the Queen's speech to the extent of probing why little from that historical speech had made it into the present programme. It was a fair question however and the response was not quick witted. Boris might have highlighted that this was a new administration so the question was not properly framed. Or he could have gone on to point out that the PM has already tried to address the poor educational attainment of the white working classes by proposing her grammar schools policy which she would have liked to include but which was not sufficiently endorsed by the electorate, thus demonstrating her listening qualities. But he failed.
I agree with those who do not yet see the actions to match TM's rhetoric by the way.
Post edited at 12:49
1
In reply to timjones:
There isn't. If you prefer insipid softballs, fine. The falsehoods are you characterising the interview as combative and Mair as self-serving, it wasn't,the questions were fair and relevant.
> Where the hell is there any falsehood in preferring a different style of interviewing?
There isn't. If you prefer insipid softballs, fine. The falsehoods are you characterising the interview as combative and Mair as self-serving, it wasn't,the questions were fair and relevant.
Post edited at 12:51
8
In reply to The New NickB:
Ah, well; he got something right, at least...
> The Foreign Secretary made himself look like a complete idiot.
Ah, well; he got something right, at least...
4
In reply to The New NickB:
FFS where am I trying to twist reality!
You'd be right at home alongside the very worst of interviewers.
You appeared to suggest that they wittered on about biscuits!
> I'm not outraged despite your desire to try and twist reality.
FFS where am I trying to twist reality!
You'd be right at home alongside the very worst of interviewers.
> As I said, check out The One Show.
You appeared to suggest that they wittered on about biscuits!
1
7
In reply to MG:
Well targetted and better defined questions have nothing to do with "insipid softball"!
If used well they can be far harder than Mairs half-arsed efforts yesterday.
> There isn't. If you prefer insipid softballs, fine. The falsehoods are you characterising the interview as combative and Mair as self-serving, it wasn't,the questions were fair and relevant.
Well targetted and better defined questions have nothing to do with "insipid softball"!
If used well they can be far harder than Mairs half-arsed efforts yesterday.
2
In reply to timjones:
You are exactly right, and it goes some way to shaping the rather juvenile way politics is done in this country.
Having said that, it is nice to see a tosser like Johnson squirm, and the Two Ronnie line was a belter...
> Wouldn't you expect a good interviewer to get the best out of an interview for their listeners by asking questions that the interviewee could be expected to give in depth answers to.
> We appear to be suffering from a dearth of decent journalists and interviewers these days. It's all too often about furthering their own careers by being combative rather than informing their customers
You are exactly right, and it goes some way to shaping the rather juvenile way politics is done in this country.
Having said that, it is nice to see a tosser like Johnson squirm, and the Two Ronnie line was a belter...
1
In reply to timjones:
But policy Y mysteriously disappeared along with May's majority. Anyway, it's not Mair's job to work out which scraps of policy are supposed to tackle which issues, it's his Job to ask the government's representative to explain. They're questions he could have batted away deftly with convincing enough half answers and waffle had he done *any* prep whatsoever. This is the man we're to trust as our chief diplomat. He's entitled and hopeless, at least interviews like this go some way to exposing that.
jk
> Would a question along the lines of "The Prime Minister recently pledged X, how will policy Y help to achieve this?" been more direct and have allowed the interviewer to make better use of airtime?
But policy Y mysteriously disappeared along with May's majority. Anyway, it's not Mair's job to work out which scraps of policy are supposed to tackle which issues, it's his Job to ask the government's representative to explain. They're questions he could have batted away deftly with convincing enough half answers and waffle had he done *any* prep whatsoever. This is the man we're to trust as our chief diplomat. He's entitled and hopeless, at least interviews like this go some way to exposing that.
jk
6
In reply to timjones:
I agree. I thought that Mair was unneccessarily combative - to the point of being rude an obnoxious. But as Nick says above, Boris was there to represent the government and one would have thought he'd have boned up on a few areas.
However, the most obnoxious interview I heard yesterday was Piers Morgan in this exchange from 1.14: youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
Incredibly poor by Morgan.
> Wouldn't you expect a good interviewer to get the best out of an interview for their listeners by asking questions that the interviewee could be expected to give in depth answers to.
> We appear to be suffering from a dearth of decent journalists and interviewers these days. It's all too often about furthering their own careers by being combative rather than informing their customers
I agree. I thought that Mair was unneccessarily combative - to the point of being rude an obnoxious. But as Nick says above, Boris was there to represent the government and one would have thought he'd have boned up on a few areas.
However, the most obnoxious interview I heard yesterday was Piers Morgan in this exchange from 1.14: youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
Incredibly poor by Morgan.
1
In reply to BnB:
I agree it was a perfectly fair question and, in my view, an easy one to anticipate. Listening to the interview again, either no-one had prepared Boris for the interview or Boris hadn't read whatever had been prepared. I'd be surprised if the chief of staff or press team hadn't sent round an email or whatsapp message with talking points on the queen's speech vs agenda laid out last year and some generic blah blah about how forces opposed to the will of the people had conspired against Theresa May's ambitious reform agenda but of course they are there to serve the people, brexit will be brexity and all the rest of it.
I also agree with you about rhetoric vs delivery but it seems to me the failure lies with the rhetoric, not with the attempts to delvier. It is clear that there is just no time at all to pursue any kind of agenda which isn't brexit and promising an ambitious reform agenda was always going to be a mistake.
I agree it was a perfectly fair question and, in my view, an easy one to anticipate. Listening to the interview again, either no-one had prepared Boris for the interview or Boris hadn't read whatever had been prepared. I'd be surprised if the chief of staff or press team hadn't sent round an email or whatsapp message with talking points on the queen's speech vs agenda laid out last year and some generic blah blah about how forces opposed to the will of the people had conspired against Theresa May's ambitious reform agenda but of course they are there to serve the people, brexit will be brexity and all the rest of it.
I also agree with you about rhetoric vs delivery but it seems to me the failure lies with the rhetoric, not with the attempts to delvier. It is clear that there is just no time at all to pursue any kind of agenda which isn't brexit and promising an ambitious reform agenda was always going to be a mistake.
3
In reply to Rampikino:
Well the invitation for a comparison with Diane Abbott is in the thread title, isn't it ? so not really off topic.
> Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
Well the invitation for a comparison with Diane Abbott is in the thread title, isn't it ? so not really off topic.
2
In reply to Shani:
They have form and Boris is always incredibly hard to pin down with all the "piffle and wiff waff" so I'm not surprised that Eddie Mair took a combative stance, even if it was a little overdone. I was very surprised with Boris' inability to cope with the questions though, even i reckon I could have given him a A4 crib sheet with enough bullet points to answer the questions and a man of his supposed calibre (he's the chuffing Foreign Secretary for gawd's sake!) should have done his prep as a minimum, if not been able to cope off the cuff. Bet the Tories are wishing William Hague hadn't wandered of to the Lords, you wouldn't have seen him flounder like that!
Agreed. If you are going to give the man a platform, you have to be capable of putting his ideas to the sword if you disagree with them, not act like an ignorant obnoxious t**t.
> I agree. I thought that Mair was unneccessarily combative - to the point of being rude an obnoxious. But as Nick says above, Boris was there to represent the government and one would have thought he'd have boned up on a few areas.
They have form and Boris is always incredibly hard to pin down with all the "piffle and wiff waff" so I'm not surprised that Eddie Mair took a combative stance, even if it was a little overdone. I was very surprised with Boris' inability to cope with the questions though, even i reckon I could have given him a A4 crib sheet with enough bullet points to answer the questions and a man of his supposed calibre (he's the chuffing Foreign Secretary for gawd's sake!) should have done his prep as a minimum, if not been able to cope off the cuff. Bet the Tories are wishing William Hague hadn't wandered of to the Lords, you wouldn't have seen him flounder like that!
> However, the most obnoxious interview I heard yesterday was Piers Morgan in this exchange from 1.14: youtube.com/watch?v=unCjGjzkWJc&
> Incredibly poor by Morgan.
Agreed. If you are going to give the man a platform, you have to be capable of putting his ideas to the sword if you disagree with them, not act like an ignorant obnoxious t**t.
2
In reply to Rampikino:
Do you think that if a senior competitive politician (of any flavour) demonstrated the same level of interview horror that DA did the Labour party and its supporters wouldnt make as much capital out of it as possible? If you think they wouldn't then this is naive.
> Over-exaggerated apology for continued nastiness towards another human being.
Do you think that if a senior competitive politician (of any flavour) demonstrated the same level of interview horror that DA did the Labour party and its supporters wouldnt make as much capital out of it as possible? If you think they wouldn't then this is naive.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
It's pretty rare for me to turn R4 off but I did as soon as I heard Johnson's voice. I just can't stand to listen to an intelligent but arrogant man pretend to be more stupid than he is as cover for telling blatant lies.
There was a time when I thought he was amusing and harmless, but that time is past. He's dishonest, disloyal and entirely self-serving. He was probably the decisive difference in the referendum campaign and he didn't even believe in leaving - that too was merely a tactic to further his personal ambition. Quite a lot of the complete f*cking mess we are currently in is directly down to him, personally.
So, as far as I'm concerned Eddie Mair is free to ask him awkward questions while having him waterboarded live on radio.
> Johnson was on PM on Radio 4 this evening, being interviewed by the brilliant Eddie Mair.
It's pretty rare for me to turn R4 off but I did as soon as I heard Johnson's voice. I just can't stand to listen to an intelligent but arrogant man pretend to be more stupid than he is as cover for telling blatant lies.
There was a time when I thought he was amusing and harmless, but that time is past. He's dishonest, disloyal and entirely self-serving. He was probably the decisive difference in the referendum campaign and he didn't even believe in leaving - that too was merely a tactic to further his personal ambition. Quite a lot of the complete f*cking mess we are currently in is directly down to him, personally.
So, as far as I'm concerned Eddie Mair is free to ask him awkward questions while having him waterboarded live on radio.
18
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Feel free to drag this down to a political level - I did no such thing. I personally feel that the persistence with which this childish attack is being carried on has gone too far. I'm talking about a human being who performed poorly but has been vilified up and down the internet for it. In this case, even when she was nothing to do with the interview in question.
So answer this - when is enough enough? One earlier poster talked about this lasting a generation. Is it okay to snipe about a few poor interviews for a generation? Is it okay to continue to make someone's name mud for a generation?
Or do we grow up and stop acting like childish schoolyard juveniles?
Feel free to drag this down to a political level - I did no such thing. I personally feel that the persistence with which this childish attack is being carried on has gone too far. I'm talking about a human being who performed poorly but has been vilified up and down the internet for it. In this case, even when she was nothing to do with the interview in question.
So answer this - when is enough enough? One earlier poster talked about this lasting a generation. Is it okay to snipe about a few poor interviews for a generation? Is it okay to continue to make someone's name mud for a generation?
Or do we grow up and stop acting like childish schoolyard juveniles?
3
1
In reply to galpinos:
Aye. And you are right, Boris does like to "piffle and wiff waff" his way through an interview, so fair play to Mair for trying to take him to task. I just think that Boris's intellectual and ideological shortcomings could have been better exposed if Mair hadn't been so sensationalist and simply given Boris enough rope to hang himself. You are also right that Hague would probably have remained way more composed and generally done a better job.
That Tommy Robinson thing was unbelievable. When a spokesman for the extreme right has the intellectual upper hand, your argument is screwed. In faireness to Robinson, he has moderated his position as i understand it, and his argument that you SHOULD be able to criticise an idea (Islam), without being accused of denigrating the people (Muslims), is entirely fair. Morgan did a great diservice to the fight against extremism with his ineptitude and dog-whistle cries of 'Islamophobia'.
> They have form and Boris is always incredibly hard to pin down with all the "piffle and wiff waff" so I'm not surprised that Eddie Mair took a combative stance, even if it was a little overdone. I was very surprised with Boris' inability to cope with the questions though, even i reckon I could have given him a A4 crib sheet with enough bullet points to answer the questions and a man of his supposed calibre (he's the chuffing Foreign Secretary for gawd's sake!) should have done his prep as a minimum, if not been able to cope off the cuff. Bet the Tories are wishing William Hague hadn't wandered of to the Lords, you wouldn't have seen him flounder like that!
Aye. And you are right, Boris does like to "piffle and wiff waff" his way through an interview, so fair play to Mair for trying to take him to task. I just think that Boris's intellectual and ideological shortcomings could have been better exposed if Mair hadn't been so sensationalist and simply given Boris enough rope to hang himself. You are also right that Hague would probably have remained way more composed and generally done a better job.
> Agreed. If you are going to give the man a platform, you have to be capable of putting his ideas to the sword if you disagree with them, not act like an ignorant obnoxious t**t.
That Tommy Robinson thing was unbelievable. When a spokesman for the extreme right has the intellectual upper hand, your argument is screwed. In faireness to Robinson, he has moderated his position as i understand it, and his argument that you SHOULD be able to criticise an idea (Islam), without being accused of denigrating the people (Muslims), is entirely fair. Morgan did a great diservice to the fight against extremism with his ineptitude and dog-whistle cries of 'Islamophobia'.
In reply to Rampikino:
As are all these 'debates' - and this thread was clearly set up with starting it all going again. Diane Abbott gets off lightly in the name calling stakes, though, compared with eg Theresa May.
> Little more than school-yard name-calling, frankly.
As are all these 'debates' - and this thread was clearly set up with starting it all going again. Diane Abbott gets off lightly in the name calling stakes, though, compared with eg Theresa May.
In reply to Rampikino:
I happen to agree, slightly The difference here is that DA has in the past been pretty critical of her opponents and holds a very senior role in the opposition party and she screwed up badly in the public eye at a crucial moment, and blamed it on an illness or something. I don't condone it but I can see why certain politically minded characters want to milk this for all its worth. She would if the boot was on the other foot, I have no doubt, as I am sure many labour supporters and politician will be doing over the Boris interview recently.
We live in a society of free speech and a confrontational style of politics, which I think is a good thing. What would be your perfect alternative world? A world where politicians can say, do and behave how they like without media and public attention or scrutiny. The good thing here is that ridicule isn't limited to the opposition. We can lampoon and make fun of the party in power too, and its individuals. I suppose we could be like Russia or China where we cant take satarise or criticise the parties in power through fear of becoming political prisoners or worse, just another missing person statistic.
Granted, this has gone quite far but I ask you again if you think that if the boot was on the other foot, do you think that labour and its supporters wouldnt want to make as much of it as they could? We've already have a thread on Boris on here so it seems that UKC is quite happy to point out, with good acidic humour, our foreign minister's failings.
Lead from the front I would say. If we want a culture where this behaviour isnt the norm then we need to start by cancelling prime ministers questions as a starter for ten.
> Feel free to drag this down to a political level - I did no such thing. I personally feel that the persistence with which this childish attack is being carried on has gone too far. I'm talking about a human being who performed poorly but has been vilified up and down the internet for it. In this case, even when she was nothing to do with the interview in question.
I happen to agree, slightly The difference here is that DA has in the past been pretty critical of her opponents and holds a very senior role in the opposition party and she screwed up badly in the public eye at a crucial moment, and blamed it on an illness or something. I don't condone it but I can see why certain politically minded characters want to milk this for all its worth. She would if the boot was on the other foot, I have no doubt, as I am sure many labour supporters and politician will be doing over the Boris interview recently.
> So answer this - when is enough enough? One earlier poster talked about this lasting a generation. Is it okay to snipe about a few poor interviews for a generation? Is it okay to continue to make someone's name mud for a generation?
We live in a society of free speech and a confrontational style of politics, which I think is a good thing. What would be your perfect alternative world? A world where politicians can say, do and behave how they like without media and public attention or scrutiny. The good thing here is that ridicule isn't limited to the opposition. We can lampoon and make fun of the party in power too, and its individuals. I suppose we could be like Russia or China where we cant take satarise or criticise the parties in power through fear of becoming political prisoners or worse, just another missing person statistic.
Granted, this has gone quite far but I ask you again if you think that if the boot was on the other foot, do you think that labour and its supporters wouldnt want to make as much of it as they could? We've already have a thread on Boris on here so it seems that UKC is quite happy to point out, with good acidic humour, our foreign minister's failings.
> Or do we grow up and stop acting like childish schoolyard juveniles?
Lead from the front I would say. If we want a culture where this behaviour isnt the norm then we need to start by cancelling prime ministers questions as a starter for ten.
In reply to Rampikino:
I've ran this post through the equipment, and it's come back rated as 1.02 Abbotts
> Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
> Seriously. Grow up.
I've ran this post through the equipment, and it's come back rated as 1.02 Abbotts
3
In reply to Rog Wilko: proposing Boris to go out and talk about helping the oppressed strikes me as adding insult to injury if not actively cruel.
1
In reply to Rampikino:
That's because Diane Abbott set the standard. Hence the Abbott scale and Abbott references. Did I mention Abbott - sorry, Abbot mentioning is tawdry isn't.?Must forget about Abbott's interview, even when others are almost as bad as Abbott so references to Abbott and the Abbott scale are so tempting
That's because Diane Abbott set the standard. Hence the Abbott scale and Abbott references. Did I mention Abbott - sorry, Abbot mentioning is tawdry isn't.?Must forget about Abbott's interview, even when others are almost as bad as Abbott so references to Abbott and the Abbott scale are so tempting
3
In reply to timjones:
I couldn't disagree more. Eddie Mair's questions were extremely apposite and clearly defined. They in fact invited very precise answers but Johnson couldn't answer and it was because of his laziness in failing to prepare that he could only ramble incoherently. It was the contrast between the interviewer's carefully prepared, albeit slightly unusual line of questioning and the interviewee's complete failure to say anything meaningful which made this one of the most revealing interviews I've heard for a long time. Had I been a Conservative supporter I would have squirmed with embarrassment, but since I'm not I enjoyed hearing the bullshitter come over as incompetent.
> If that was the case don't you think that it was a poor use fo time to ask questions that invited rambling answers?
I couldn't disagree more. Eddie Mair's questions were extremely apposite and clearly defined. They in fact invited very precise answers but Johnson couldn't answer and it was because of his laziness in failing to prepare that he could only ramble incoherently. It was the contrast between the interviewer's carefully prepared, albeit slightly unusual line of questioning and the interviewee's complete failure to say anything meaningful which made this one of the most revealing interviews I've heard for a long time. Had I been a Conservative supporter I would have squirmed with embarrassment, but since I'm not I enjoyed hearing the bullshitter come over as incompetent.
7
In reply to Rampikino:
Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
Totally agree with you!
Just how many times has Abbott's interviews been referenced to in the last few weeks?
It has to be 9 times surely.
Or, maybe more like 21?
15?
18?
Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
Totally agree with you!
Just how many times has Abbott's interviews been referenced to in the last few weeks?
It has to be 9 times surely.
Or, maybe more like 21?
15?
18?
In reply to ThunderCat:
Can we also start using the "Johnson" as a measure of how much of a dick you are?
I'd put Johnson at about 10Js.
> Maybe we can start using the "Abbot" as a measure of rubbishness.
> I'd put Diane at 1 Abbot, and Boris at around 0.6
> I'd put Diane at 1 Abbot, and Boris at around 0.6
Can we also start using the "Johnson" as a measure of how much of a dick you are?
I'd put Johnson at about 10Js.
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
The fact is Abbott is an incompetent hypocritical hag, Boris is an arrogant nasty bastard, Corbyn is a left wing throwback to the seventies and May is a career politician who I am not sure why but I do not like her. The whole lot want sweeping away and we need something new, but something that recognise we do live in a terribly unequal world (not country) and that we could and should help people in other countries and that climate change is the big issue and we are the generation who could do something. Thats what I think anyway, and I off out with Jess now
The fact is Abbott is an incompetent hypocritical hag, Boris is an arrogant nasty bastard, Corbyn is a left wing throwback to the seventies and May is a career politician who I am not sure why but I do not like her. The whole lot want sweeping away and we need something new, but something that recognise we do live in a terribly unequal world (not country) and that we could and should help people in other countries and that climate change is the big issue and we are the generation who could do something. Thats what I think anyway, and I off out with Jess now
4
In reply to Lusk:
A two term scale, like climbing? Good idea. Open ended Js, and 0-1 Da. I'd put the scores at
1Da, 8Js (Abbott)
0.7Da, 9Js (Johnson)
A two term scale, like climbing? Good idea. Open ended Js, and 0-1 Da. I'd put the scores at
1Da, 8Js (Abbott)
0.7Da, 9Js (Johnson)
Post edited at 19:56
In reply to J1234:
Hi Steve,
I'm disappointed you had to use a word like hag (with its sexist overtones) to describe a female politician whose present state of mind is almost certainly a result of the appalling personal abuse she has had to suffer, mainly online, simply as a result of being a black woman who isn't afraid to put her head above the parapet. And almost all politicians are hypocritical to some degree. Otherwise I agree with most of your comments.
I assume that's Jess Phillips you're off out with. )
(Another female politician with more balls than most of her male colleagues and who gets hideously abused as a result).
Hi Steve,
I'm disappointed you had to use a word like hag (with its sexist overtones) to describe a female politician whose present state of mind is almost certainly a result of the appalling personal abuse she has had to suffer, mainly online, simply as a result of being a black woman who isn't afraid to put her head above the parapet. And almost all politicians are hypocritical to some degree. Otherwise I agree with most of your comments.
I assume that's Jess Phillips you're off out with. )
(Another female politician with more balls than most of her male colleagues and who gets hideously abused as a result).
6
2
In reply to The New NickB:
Fair enough, if that's the case.
Mick
> We are talking about a specific radio interview here and Tim is way off the mark. Eddie Mair's questions were completely on topic and relevant to the disparity between the government's reteric and policy making.
Fair enough, if that's the case.
Mick
1
1
In reply to J1234:
You don't think that Corbyn is offering anything new? You perhaps need to listen to his opinions - but open your mind before you make your mind up.
> ...Corbyn is a left wing throwback to the seventies ...The whole lot want sweeping away and we need something new,
You don't think that Corbyn is offering anything new? You perhaps need to listen to his opinions - but open your mind before you make your mind up.
1
In reply to Lusk:
Haha.
> Can we also start using the "Johnson" as a measure of how much of a dick you are?
> I'd put Johnson at about 10Js.
Haha.
Post edited at 22:09
In reply to Shani:
I actually rather respected Corbyn until he started trying to buy the election with the next generations money. No he is nothing new, spending money with no idea how to pay it back, same old same old.
I actually rather respected Corbyn until he started trying to buy the election with the next generations money. No he is nothing new, spending money with no idea how to pay it back, same old same old.
In reply to J1234:
Your macroeconomic illiteracy is evident. You need to think outside your 'household economics' and 'magic money tree' paradigm.
> I actually rather respected Corbyn until he started trying to buy the election with the next generations money. No he is nothing new, spending money with no idea how to pay it back, same old same old.
Your macroeconomic illiteracy is evident. You need to think outside your 'household economics' and 'magic money tree' paradigm.
Post edited at 22:58
5
4
In reply to Shani:
He doesn't need to. Anyone who can't see that Labour's tax plans were inadequate* for their original manifesto pledges, even before they started adding new unsupported bribes to the youth vote, has their head in the sand.
* see "behavioural change" in your textbook
> Your macroeconomic illiteracy is evident. You need to think outside your 'household economics' and 'magic money tree' paradigm.
He doesn't need to. Anyone who can't see that Labour's tax plans were inadequate* for their original manifesto pledges, even before they started adding new unsupported bribes to the youth vote, has their head in the sand.
* see "behavioural change" in your textbook
4
1
In reply to ThunderCat:
Following the media hype?
> He was pretty bad, but to be fair Abbot is still holding Car Crash gold and is in a class of her own.
Following the media hype?
1
In reply to BnB:
Unlike the fully-costed Tory manifesto...?
> Anyone who can't see that Labour's tax plans were inadequate*
Unlike the fully-costed Tory manifesto...?
3
1
In reply to captain paranoia:
The Tories don't have a "tax and spend" monkey to get off their back. Nor was there a plan to massively expand state spending in their manifesto. The headline policy laid out plans for private citizens to take responsibility for their own later years care to ease the burden on the state ffs!!
> Unlike the fully-costed Tory manifesto...?
The Tories don't have a "tax and spend" monkey to get off their back. Nor was there a plan to massively expand state spending in their manifesto. The headline policy laid out plans for private citizens to take responsibility for their own later years care to ease the burden on the state ffs!!
3
3
In reply to BnB:
Which may be true, but the Tory manifesto was almost entirely uncosted. Diverting attention to the Labour manifesto doesn't change that.
> The Tories don't have a "tax and spend" monkey to get off their back. Nor was there a plan to massively expand state spending in their manifesto. The headline policy laid out plans for private citizens to take responsibility for their own later years care to ease the burden on the state ffs!!
Which may be true, but the Tory manifesto was almost entirely uncosted. Diverting attention to the Labour manifesto doesn't change that.
4
1
In reply to BnB:
Trident ($100bn),
HS2 (£56bn),
Hinckley C (£37bn),
Cameron's failed Cancer Drug ($1.5bn),
General Election 2017 (£130m),
Boris failed London Bridge (£46m),
Boris 'no cost to tax payer' Emirates Cable Car (£24m),
Boris failed Eastury Airport (£5m),
Boris failed Water Cannons (£320K),
BREXIT (Around £15 billion a year),
Austerity (https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2017/06/could-austeritys-impact-be-persist...
> The Tories don't have a "tax and spend" monkey to get off their back. Nor was there a plan to massively expand state spending in their manifesto. The headline policy laid out plans for private citizens to take responsibility for their own later years care to ease the burden on the state ffs!!
Trident ($100bn),
HS2 (£56bn),
Hinckley C (£37bn),
Cameron's failed Cancer Drug ($1.5bn),
General Election 2017 (£130m),
Boris failed London Bridge (£46m),
Boris 'no cost to tax payer' Emirates Cable Car (£24m),
Boris failed Eastury Airport (£5m),
Boris failed Water Cannons (£320K),
BREXIT (Around £15 billion a year),
Austerity (https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2017/06/could-austeritys-impact-be-persist...
Post edited at 15:22
3
4
In reply to Shani:
Trident ($100bn),
HS2 (£56bn),
Hinckley C (£37bn),
Cameron's failed Cancer Drug ($1.5bn),
General Election 2017 (£130m),
Boris failed London Bridge (£46m),
Boris 'no cost to tax payer' Emirates Cable Car (£24m),
Boris failed Eastury Airport (£5m),
Boris failed Water Cannons (£320K),
BREXIT (Around £15 billion a year)
How many of those, particularly the high cost ones, are supported by Labour as well as the Conservatives?
In fact, it could be argued, that Trident was only included in the Labour Manifesto to appease a sizable number of borderline voters.
Expensive, both financially and morally...
Trident ($100bn),
HS2 (£56bn),
Hinckley C (£37bn),
Cameron's failed Cancer Drug ($1.5bn),
General Election 2017 (£130m),
Boris failed London Bridge (£46m),
Boris 'no cost to tax payer' Emirates Cable Car (£24m),
Boris failed Eastury Airport (£5m),
Boris failed Water Cannons (£320K),
BREXIT (Around £15 billion a year)
How many of those, particularly the high cost ones, are supported by Labour as well as the Conservatives?
In fact, it could be argued, that Trident was only included in the Labour Manifesto to appease a sizable number of borderline voters.
Expensive, both financially and morally...
1
1
1
In reply to Rampikino:
Here here!
> Any excuse to continue the unnecessary Diane Abbott sniping. You have interviews with a politician that isn't Diane Abbott, had nothing to do with Diane Abbott and yet you manage to keep a tawdry sniping campaign alive, even attempting to introduce an "Abbot scale of rubbishness".
> Seriously. Grow up.
Here here!
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Quite a list of Tory white elephants there. Jeremy Corbyn could have paid for his manifesto commitments twice out of that lot.
> Trident ($100bn),
> HS2 (£56bn),
> Hinckley C (£37bn),
> Cameron's failed Cancer Drug ($1.5bn),
> General Election 2017 (£130m),
> Boris failed London Bridge (£46m),
> Boris 'no cost to tax payer' Emirates Cable Car (£24m),
> Boris failed Eastury Airport (£5m),
> Boris failed Water Cannons (£320K),
> BREXIT (Around £15 billion a year)
> How many of those, particularly the high cost ones, are supported by Labour as well as the Conservatives?
> In fact, it could be argued, that Trident was only included in the Labour Manifesto to appease a sizable number of borderline voters.
> Expensive, both financially and morally...
Quite a list of Tory white elephants there. Jeremy Corbyn could have paid for his manifesto commitments twice out of that lot.
1
In reply to tony:
If you'd followed the thread you'd see that it was Labour's manifesto we were talking about in the first place. Any mention of the Tory one was a diversionary tactic made by others to divert from the egregious fiscal fantasies at the heart of Labour's plan.
> Which may be true, but the Tory manifesto was almost entirely uncosted. Diverting attention to the Labour manifesto doesn't change that.
If you'd followed the thread you'd see that it was Labour's manifesto we were talking about in the first place. Any mention of the Tory one was a diversionary tactic made by others to divert from the egregious fiscal fantasies at the heart of Labour's plan.
2
In reply to Root1:
Quite a list of Tory white elephants there. Jeremy Corbyn could have paid for his manifesto commitments twice out of that lot.
The most expensive ones out of that list are Trident and HS2, both of which are supported by Corbyn/Labour.
Hinkley C seems to have not been mentioned lately, but as far as I can tell, the Unions have pressurised Labour to support it to safeguard jobs.
Brexit is a total red herring, as all Governments would be subject to the same costs (negative or positive).
The remainder comes to less than £2bn.
Quite a list of Tory white elephants there. Jeremy Corbyn could have paid for his manifesto commitments twice out of that lot.
The most expensive ones out of that list are Trident and HS2, both of which are supported by Corbyn/Labour.
Hinkley C seems to have not been mentioned lately, but as far as I can tell, the Unions have pressurised Labour to support it to safeguard jobs.
Brexit is a total red herring, as all Governments would be subject to the same costs (negative or positive).
The remainder comes to less than £2bn.
In reply to FactorXXX:
You know the costs of Brexit? You're saying they're fixed? (I figured when TM was scared off Hard Brexiting, the costs would change.)
PS: Everyone, check out 'Brexit Bulldog', and Abbott vs Boris, on Dead Ringers this evening (R4). Hillarious stuff
> Brexit is a total red herring, as all Governments would be subject to the same costs (negative or positive).
You know the costs of Brexit? You're saying they're fixed? (I figured when TM was scared off Hard Brexiting, the costs would change.)
PS: Everyone, check out 'Brexit Bulldog', and Abbott vs Boris, on Dead Ringers this evening (R4). Hillarious stuff
Post edited at 19:41
In reply to Shani:
You know the costs of Brexit? You're saying they're fixed? (I figured when TM was scared off Hard Brexitibg, the costs would change.)
No, I don't know the cost of Brexit, but no matter who arranges it the cost is going to be similar. Unless of course you're saying that Labour would get us a better deal to the tune of £15bn a year i.e. a £15bn difference between their system and the Conservative one.
What's your take on Trident and HS2? Did you forget that Labour are now supporting them? Maybe the figures you supplied above (Copy & Pasted) were from before Labour changed their minds about them?
How about Hinkley? Not much information about that from either major party, but all I can really find out about Labour is that the Unions have persuaded them to support it to safeguard jobs.
The link you provided doesn't work, but a quick shifty reveals that the blogger is a Simon Wren Lewis - who just happens to be quite chummy with McDonnell and Corbyn...
You know the costs of Brexit? You're saying they're fixed? (I figured when TM was scared off Hard Brexitibg, the costs would change.)
No, I don't know the cost of Brexit, but no matter who arranges it the cost is going to be similar. Unless of course you're saying that Labour would get us a better deal to the tune of £15bn a year i.e. a £15bn difference between their system and the Conservative one.
What's your take on Trident and HS2? Did you forget that Labour are now supporting them? Maybe the figures you supplied above (Copy & Pasted) were from before Labour changed their minds about them?
How about Hinkley? Not much information about that from either major party, but all I can really find out about Labour is that the Unions have persuaded them to support it to safeguard jobs.
The link you provided doesn't work, but a quick shifty reveals that the blogger is a Simon Wren Lewis - who just happens to be quite chummy with McDonnell and Corbyn...
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Brilliant playing of the man, not the ball.
The link works if you remove the brace from the end of the URL which will be being copied in to your browser.
> The link you provided doesn't work, but a quick shifty reveals that the blogger is a Simon Wren Lewis - who just happens to be quite chummy with McDonnell and Corbyn...
Brilliant playing of the man, not the ball.
The link works if you remove the brace from the end of the URL which will be being copied in to your browser.
In reply to Shani:
Brilliant playing of the man, not the ball.
I read it earlier and to be honest, I haven't got a clue what it means! It's obvious that he doesn't like the Conservative way of dealing with the Economy, but that's only one persons opinion and doesn't mean he's right.
I'm fairly sure I could find a similar blog supporting the Conservative model and again, that would be an opinion and not necessarily right.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/could-austeritys-impact-be-persi...
Anyway, the Blog and it's content are neither here or there as it's just an opinion piece.
What do you think of the questions I asked about Trident, HS2 and Hinkley? Trident and HS2 are definitely supported by Labour and I believe Hinkley is as well. Do you think they should still be included in a list that criticises Conservative spending?
Brilliant playing of the man, not the ball.
I read it earlier and to be honest, I haven't got a clue what it means! It's obvious that he doesn't like the Conservative way of dealing with the Economy, but that's only one persons opinion and doesn't mean he's right.
I'm fairly sure I could find a similar blog supporting the Conservative model and again, that would be an opinion and not necessarily right.
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/could-austeritys-impact-be-persi...
Anyway, the Blog and it's content are neither here or there as it's just an opinion piece.
What do you think of the questions I asked about Trident, HS2 and Hinkley? Trident and HS2 are definitely supported by Labour and I believe Hinkley is as well. Do you think they should still be included in a list that criticises Conservative spending?
1
In reply to BnB:
No it wasn't. It was about Boris Johnson giving a piss-poor performance in a radio interview.
The Labour manifesto somehow got pulled into the conversation. As did the Tory manifesto.
> If you'd followed the thread you'd see that it was Labour's manifesto we were talking about in the first place
No it wasn't. It was about Boris Johnson giving a piss-poor performance in a radio interview.
The Labour manifesto somehow got pulled into the conversation. As did the Tory manifesto.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I'm wary of an appeal to authority, but his macro economic credentials are pretty robust.
Do you think Trident would be supported by Labour if it weren't for Conservative War-Horn?
> Anyway, the Blog and it's content are neither here or there as it's just an opinion piece.
I'm wary of an appeal to authority, but his macro economic credentials are pretty robust.
> What do you think of the questions I asked about Trident, HS2 and Hinkley? Trident and HS2 are definitely supported by Labour and I believe Hinkley is as well. Do you think they should still be included in a list that criticises Conservative spending?
Do you think Trident would be supported by Labour if it weren't for Conservative War-Horn?
In reply to Shani:
Do you think Trident would be supported by Labour if it weren't for Conservative War-Horn?
Are you saying that Corbyn has abandoned a lifetime of supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament based purely on not losing votes?
Anyway, how about the question of having Trident, HS2 and Hinkley on a list criticising Conservative spending? Because, if you don't include those, your list is pretty much in tatters.
Do you think Trident would be supported by Labour if it weren't for Conservative War-Horn?
Are you saying that Corbyn has abandoned a lifetime of supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament based purely on not losing votes?
Anyway, how about the question of having Trident, HS2 and Hinkley on a list criticising Conservative spending? Because, if you don't include those, your list is pretty much in tatters.
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
Corbyn doesn't write the manifesto. His support for unilateral nuclear disarmament remains intact.
The list is not exhaustive. The cost of the failings in outsourcing....most recently of probation services...
Oh, and my list was footnoted with Austerity, which doubled debt to £1.73trillion.
> Are you saying that Corbyn has abandoned a lifetime of supporting unilateral nuclear disarmament based purely on not losing votes?
Corbyn doesn't write the manifesto. His support for unilateral nuclear disarmament remains intact.
> Anyway, how about the question of having Trident, HS2 and Hinkley on a list criticising Conservative spending? Because, if you don't include those, your list is pretty much in tatters.
The list is not exhaustive. The cost of the failings in outsourcing....most recently of probation services...
Oh, and my list was footnoted with Austerity, which doubled debt to £1.73trillion.
Post edited at 22:28
In reply to Shani:
Corbyn doesn't write the manifesto. His support for unilateral nuclear disarmament remains intact.
How convenient...
I think Corbyn has pretty much had the manifesto written for the last few decades and you have to remember, that, this is a Labour party driven by Corbyn's political ideology and that includes unilateral disarmament.
To be honest, I'd have a lot more respect for him if He'd maintained his unilateral stance and let that be a major part of the Labour Manifesto. At least we would have a person comfortably saying they wouldn't use nuclear weapons in whatever circumstances, as opposed to someone who is mealy mouthed about using them. It's been a passion of his political life and he seems to have just abandoned it in an attempt to ensure that he doesn't lose what could be essential votes.
The list is not exhaustive. The cost of the failings in outsourcing....most recently of probation services...
Just how much are these extra costs?
Trident, HS2 and Hinkley are about £200bn to maintain/implement. Do they come anywhere near that?
Corbyn doesn't write the manifesto. His support for unilateral nuclear disarmament remains intact.
How convenient...
I think Corbyn has pretty much had the manifesto written for the last few decades and you have to remember, that, this is a Labour party driven by Corbyn's political ideology and that includes unilateral disarmament.
To be honest, I'd have a lot more respect for him if He'd maintained his unilateral stance and let that be a major part of the Labour Manifesto. At least we would have a person comfortably saying they wouldn't use nuclear weapons in whatever circumstances, as opposed to someone who is mealy mouthed about using them. It's been a passion of his political life and he seems to have just abandoned it in an attempt to ensure that he doesn't lose what could be essential votes.
The list is not exhaustive. The cost of the failings in outsourcing....most recently of probation services...
Just how much are these extra costs?
Trident, HS2 and Hinkley are about £200bn to maintain/implement. Do they come anywhere near that?
In reply to FactorXXX:
You don't understand how the manifesto is written do you?
And let's add on things like the Crime & Policing Commissioners - polling 15% of the electorate. What a waste.
> How convenient...
You don't understand how the manifesto is written do you?
> Just how much are these extra costs?
And let's add on things like the Crime & Policing Commissioners - polling 15% of the electorate. What a waste.
In reply to Rog Wilko:
From Private Eye;
48 the number of seats by which Labour trailed the Tories in the 2010 election, which Jeremy Corbyn wrote in the "Morning Star" was "Disastrous for new Labour."
56 the number of seats by which Labour trailed the Tories in the 2017 election , which Jeremy Corbyn called; "an amazing response from the public..."I think it's pretty clear who won the election""
Jezza may have caught diabetes off Abbott.
From Private Eye;
48 the number of seats by which Labour trailed the Tories in the 2010 election, which Jeremy Corbyn wrote in the "Morning Star" was "Disastrous for new Labour."
56 the number of seats by which Labour trailed the Tories in the 2017 election , which Jeremy Corbyn called; "an amazing response from the public..."I think it's pretty clear who won the election""
Jezza may have caught diabetes off Abbott.
4
In reply to Shani:
Naughty. You have a good understanding of macroeconomics, so don't mislead about debt. It's the deficit that continues to grow our borrowing, not the Tories. No government and no policy could, on inheriting the deficit, immediately bring debt down. And as long as there is a deficit, borrowing will continue to rise.
That's why your regular observation, that it's the Tories who borrow more, has no substance. Borrowing becomes unavoidable when the economy (and tax takings) falter. So, to borrow from the Tory copybook, whoever "cleans up the mess" has to borrow more than the ones who "inherited a strong economy". Common sense when you think about it.
Now you can argue that Austerity is the wrong policy. That stimulus is what we need. That's a tenable perspective. I happen to think that Austerity steadied the ship at a critical time but that it should have been eased some time ago. So we probably agree up to a point. But the likelihood of anti-Austerity producing a better outcome 9 years on from the crash isn't backed up by similar economies who've taken that course.
And your definition of a stimulus isn't what I saw in Corbyn's manifesto, which constituted a series of state handouts to voters, not a coherent plan for growth. 50% of the population already goes to university. How does making it less expensive stimulate more university attendance? And is that even desirable when half the degrees are Mickey Mouse already and lead no further than a call centre on national living wage?
> Oh, and my list was footnoted with Austerity, which doubled debt to £1.73trillion.
Naughty. You have a good understanding of macroeconomics, so don't mislead about debt. It's the deficit that continues to grow our borrowing, not the Tories. No government and no policy could, on inheriting the deficit, immediately bring debt down. And as long as there is a deficit, borrowing will continue to rise.
That's why your regular observation, that it's the Tories who borrow more, has no substance. Borrowing becomes unavoidable when the economy (and tax takings) falter. So, to borrow from the Tory copybook, whoever "cleans up the mess" has to borrow more than the ones who "inherited a strong economy". Common sense when you think about it.
Now you can argue that Austerity is the wrong policy. That stimulus is what we need. That's a tenable perspective. I happen to think that Austerity steadied the ship at a critical time but that it should have been eased some time ago. So we probably agree up to a point. But the likelihood of anti-Austerity producing a better outcome 9 years on from the crash isn't backed up by similar economies who've taken that course.
And your definition of a stimulus isn't what I saw in Corbyn's manifesto, which constituted a series of state handouts to voters, not a coherent plan for growth. 50% of the population already goes to university. How does making it less expensive stimulate more university attendance? And is that even desirable when half the degrees are Mickey Mouse already and lead no further than a call centre on national living wage?
Post edited at 08:17
6
In reply to BnB:
Which western economies tried that exactly?
The theory of stimulus as a response to recessionary periods is standard Keynsian economics and that is arguably still the most respected broad brush system amongst economists; despite practical government responses to recession usually being a much more complex mix for political reasons. I'd share some concern about risks of 'Corbyn giveaways' but they may be more successful in stimulating growth than say the continuation of Quantitative Easing followed by Osbourne in contrast to his rhetoric. Currently there is no clear sense of direction from the government in economic terms with the ascendant Hammond seemingly at odds with May and much of the cabinet. I do worry that when times are bad Keynes is more popular but when they are good Keynes nearly always gets ignored.
Which western economies tried that exactly?
The theory of stimulus as a response to recessionary periods is standard Keynsian economics and that is arguably still the most respected broad brush system amongst economists; despite practical government responses to recession usually being a much more complex mix for political reasons. I'd share some concern about risks of 'Corbyn giveaways' but they may be more successful in stimulating growth than say the continuation of Quantitative Easing followed by Osbourne in contrast to his rhetoric. Currently there is no clear sense of direction from the government in economic terms with the ascendant Hammond seemingly at odds with May and much of the cabinet. I do worry that when times are bad Keynes is more popular but when they are good Keynes nearly always gets ignored.
1
In reply to Offwidth:
I was imprecise with my wording. When I wrote "producing a better outcome" I meant "having produced etc". In other words I'm saying Anti-Austerity was the wrong policy at the outset of the crisis but that doesn't mean I'm in favour of Austerity for today's circumstances.
France is the obvious comparison. Hollande came to power on an Anti-Austerity ticket and departed in disgrace with employment devastated for the young. Greece less so because there was an Anti-Austerity government forced by the Troika to pursue an Austerity agenda.
I was imprecise with my wording. When I wrote "producing a better outcome" I meant "having produced etc". In other words I'm saying Anti-Austerity was the wrong policy at the outset of the crisis but that doesn't mean I'm in favour of Austerity for today's circumstances.
France is the obvious comparison. Hollande came to power on an Anti-Austerity ticket and departed in disgrace with employment devastated for the young. Greece less so because there was an Anti-Austerity government forced by the Troika to pursue an Austerity agenda.
Post edited at 13:33
1
In reply to BnB:
The rhetoric didn't match reality in France. There was nothing resembling a major Keynesian stimulus there unlike say Roosevelt and the New Deal in the US
The rhetoric didn't match reality in France. There was nothing resembling a major Keynesian stimulus there unlike say Roosevelt and the New Deal in the US
In reply to Offwidth:
And that's the problem with Corbyn's manifesto. Instead of laying out a programme of investment with the active engagement of industry and enterprise, he and Mcdonnell chose to alienate and no doubt, had they won, drive away business by hypothecating those extra corporation tax payments to an incoherent series of voter inducements. And all the while drawing a line between the people (good) and business (bad).
It could have been so much better designed don't you think?
> The rhetoric didn't match reality in France. There was nothing resembling a major Keynesian stimulus there unlike say Roosevelt and the New Deal in the US
And that's the problem with Corbyn's manifesto. Instead of laying out a programme of investment with the active engagement of industry and enterprise, he and Mcdonnell chose to alienate and no doubt, had they won, drive away business by hypothecating those extra corporation tax payments to an incoherent series of voter inducements. And all the while drawing a line between the people (good) and business (bad).
It could have been so much better designed don't you think?
2
1
In reply to Rog Wilko:
A good example of how one fairly quickly loses interest in a thread of one's own devising.
A good example of how one fairly quickly loses interest in a thread of one's own devising.
In reply to BnB:
I think any party manifesto could have been better designed by economists. In the meantime you continue to conflate politics and your clear dislike of Corbn when comparing what the two parties had proposed in economic terms. I'm not so sure Corbyn's approach would have been worse if he had won (even ignoring changes that would have occurred in government when coalition reality bit). I'm pretty sure the two most damaging economic decisions in these times when looked at through history will be post 08 austerity and brexit both made by the party claiming to be the most careful in economic terms and the most business friendly. All these austerity analogies about government deficit management being like family housekeeping are dangerous misinformation.
Labour's proposed corporation tax rates were still lower compared to most western economies. Also Labour's bad buisness message related to those trying to avoid fair payment of taxes, not business as a whole. It was strange for me hearing McDonnel being broadly pro buisness but he is now shadow chancellor and previously his was a voice mainly speaking to radical left rallies and fringe meetings in trade unions.
I think any party manifesto could have been better designed by economists. In the meantime you continue to conflate politics and your clear dislike of Corbn when comparing what the two parties had proposed in economic terms. I'm not so sure Corbyn's approach would have been worse if he had won (even ignoring changes that would have occurred in government when coalition reality bit). I'm pretty sure the two most damaging economic decisions in these times when looked at through history will be post 08 austerity and brexit both made by the party claiming to be the most careful in economic terms and the most business friendly. All these austerity analogies about government deficit management being like family housekeeping are dangerous misinformation.
Labour's proposed corporation tax rates were still lower compared to most western economies. Also Labour's bad buisness message related to those trying to avoid fair payment of taxes, not business as a whole. It was strange for me hearing McDonnel being broadly pro buisness but he is now shadow chancellor and previously his was a voice mainly speaking to radical left rallies and fringe meetings in trade unions.
Post edited at 10:24
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...