So Where Are The Condemnations Of Jc For Not Appearing?

[youngmafbog]

Mrs May was slated by some on here for saying she will not appear in a tv debate. Now we find JC did not take part either so will those who condemned Mrs May now condemn JC?

For the record, I think they were both right not to appear anywhere near this rabble.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4520230/Remoaner-politicians-line-threaten-derail-Brexit.html

[youngmafbog]

And does anyone else thing Tim has a look of a few sandwiches short of a picnic? He pulls some well weird faces.

[ichkeria]

Comments like that almost make me think they were right not to appear too.
I wanted to see a separate debate between Corbyn and May, who are the only realistic candidates for PM. I believe Corbyn was still up for this. But it was odd and unsatisfactory not to have either of them there last night. I do think Sturgeon and the newly christened "Natalie" Wood lol should be on Scottish and Welsh debates only.
I will never understand why some people are so against these debates. As long as they are properly refereed they can surely only be good.

[dannyk13]

Both Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May have been interviewed on ITV,

[cassa333]

They are right not to join the circus that is trial by media.

In any case I don't think Nicola Sturgeon should be there. She should stick Tom doing the rounds in Scotland where her MPs are.

[youngmafbog]

I'm against them because I dont think they offer anything. I want a leader that is good at their job not a tv personality. A debate between JC and TM might be useful but when you get the also rans in there it turns into a circus.

[TheChair]

JC was happy to appear, on condition that May appeared to. May would not appear for fear that she might have to give some intelligent answers.

[anneasquith]

TM knows she does not do well in debates, on pmq,s she looks like a cat caught in the headlights, why should JC attend when his opposition won't attend , just remember he fully intended to go before TM declined .

[youngmafbog]

He could still go, especially if he wanted to prove a point. Hiding behind Mrs May does not look good.

I think I must be watching a different pmq's, when I have seen it JC is the one getting punched not TM.

[ichkeria]

" A debate between JC and TM might be useful but when you get the also rans in there it turns into a circus. "

I agree to a large extent. And in answer to someone else, what is wrong with "trial by media"? That is good isn't it? Far better than "trial OF media" by politicians

[Kromovaracun]

Unfortunately, Corbyn's decision not to appear is one example of his poor sense of strategy.

Effectively, Theresa May offered him an open target - 2 hours of free air time to relentlessly bash the Conservatives with the overwhelmingly anti-tory minor parties (all of whom except UKIP are quite amenable to Corbyn). When ITV originally announced this debate, they were going to empty chair May - a really powerful statement that shows how disengaged her "submarine campaign" is.

I can sort of understand why he refused. For one thing, Sturgeon and Lucas would probably have tried to pressure him into a coalition live on TV as they did to Ed Miliband. But to me the benefits of going would have clearly outweighed the negatives.

[ToraToraTora]

they are both correct not to take part in these silly US charades.

[youngmafbog]

Is a "submarine campaign" the opposite of the pie in the sky campaign Labour are running?

[Deskdiary]

The Prime Minister was right not to appear.

These debates add absolutely nothing and, as last night showed, have a tendency to descend into petty sniping and squabbling.

The Tories look to be heading towards a significant victory, so why on earth would TM entertain appearing in a circus sideshow like this when everybody knows the irrelevant parties would pathetically be taking cheap pot-shots.

I suspect JC is secretly pleased TM has sensibly decided not to appear in any debates because, as has been shown on countless occasions at PMQs, JC is intellectually ill-equipped to deal with TM.

TM's strategists have called this correctly.

[Kromovaracun]

I quite enjoy petty sniping and squabbling (it's the main reason to watch Question Time!)

More seriously, it's not realistic in a modern society to just expect TV debates to not happen. Millions inevitably watch them so the networks are blatantly not going to cancel them. Ignoring them is not a good strategy. May was lucky in this instance because Corbyn was foolish enough not to take advantage of the open target, but a more typical opposition leader would have gladly "empty-chaired" her and taken the chance for 2 free hours of uninterrupted Tory-bashing.

[New Judge]

I'm afraid that anybody who bases their vote on the performance of a party's leader on the telly does not deserve a vote. These "debates" provide nothing of any substance. They might just as well be guest slots on the Jeremy Kyle show.

As I've suggested before, voters should place more weight on what the various parties have done in the past. It less open to argument and a greater indicator of what they are likely to do in the future than their leaders standing at a podium on a TV show telling the audience they will be elevated to riches beyond their wildest dreams should they vote for them.

[Kromovaracun]

Whether or not they are informative is irrelevant. They are inevitable in a democracy that is equipped with modern mass media and whinging about them is like tilting at windmills. Part of being a politician in the modern age is interacting with the media. You cannot expect someone to do the job without it.