Body & Soul2 mins ago
Answers
The BBC are well past their sell by date, they should be completely scrapped and rethunked. IMO.
09:07 Wed 19th Jun 2019
There are two issues with this nonsense:
1. Only 313 people get a vote to whittle the runners down to two. After that only around 125,000 people have a vote to decide the winner. I can understand the politicians' eagerness to take part; any opportunity to get their mugs on the telly so that they can spout their seemingly endless drivel is always keenly taken up. But why on Earth should the TV companies feel the need to expose the rest of us to this ridiculous pantomime?
2. Even if this was a vote involving the entire electorate, how many people are swayed by an hour or so of uncontrolled bear-baiting? How many people base their vote on how well the contenders "perform" on such occasions?
The electorate has had enough of politicians in the past two or three years. Most of us just want them to get on and deliver the one thing of any importance that the voters have been been directly consulted on in recent years. That's all. After that they can return to their "Party Political Broadcasts" and other irrelevances that seem to occupy their time. Until then they should keep out of public view.
1. Only 313 people get a vote to whittle the runners down to two. After that only around 125,000 people have a vote to decide the winner. I can understand the politicians' eagerness to take part; any opportunity to get their mugs on the telly so that they can spout their seemingly endless drivel is always keenly taken up. But why on Earth should the TV companies feel the need to expose the rest of us to this ridiculous pantomime?
2. Even if this was a vote involving the entire electorate, how many people are swayed by an hour or so of uncontrolled bear-baiting? How many people base their vote on how well the contenders "perform" on such occasions?
The electorate has had enough of politicians in the past two or three years. Most of us just want them to get on and deliver the one thing of any importance that the voters have been been directly consulted on in recent years. That's all. After that they can return to their "Party Political Broadcasts" and other irrelevances that seem to occupy their time. Until then they should keep out of public view.
// How many people base their vote on how well the contenders "perform" on such occasions? //
Probably quite a few NJ, which is another reason these debates are undesirable. It's a pretty shallow way to decide who's going to be a good Prime Minister or President.
The media love them of course because they're an 'event' that gives them something to write about or a few extra viewers. That's why they inflict them on us.
Probably quite a few NJ, which is another reason these debates are undesirable. It's a pretty shallow way to decide who's going to be a good Prime Minister or President.
The media love them of course because they're an 'event' that gives them something to write about or a few extra viewers. That's why they inflict them on us.
To ask a hypothetical question of someone who may be in high-office of the sort "what would you do if .....? for the sake of TV entertainment is ludicrous.
If that hypothetical situation actyally arose, the correct way anyone of sense would deal with it would be to take time to consider as many aspects as possible and possibly consult with colleagues and those of whom you respected their judgements and then make a decision.
At one time, to say you would "sleep on it" before making a decision was regarded as an act of strength not weakness as it seems to be today.
This is why I learnt a long time ago not to make decisions on the telephone (particularly ones involving money and my children :0)
If that hypothetical situation actyally arose, the correct way anyone of sense would deal with it would be to take time to consider as many aspects as possible and possibly consult with colleagues and those of whom you respected their judgements and then make a decision.
At one time, to say you would "sleep on it" before making a decision was regarded as an act of strength not weakness as it seems to be today.
This is why I learnt a long time ago not to make decisions on the telephone (particularly ones involving money and my children :0)
As it's only the MPs who get to vote in the first instance, why not leave it to the Tories to arrange the debates and let the other MPs put questions to the candidates in private?
When it gets down to the final two, there will be more time to question each of them in greater depth and that is when the tv and radio should get involved.
When it gets down to the final two, there will be more time to question each of them in greater depth and that is when the tv and radio should get involved.
As there was a "coronation" there was no need for a debate. However, this time the consensus was there should be no "coronation" and a vote of Tory members would be needed.
The impression given is that more time is spent questioning budding entrepreneurs on Dragons' Den and finalists on The Apprentice than candidates to be the next PM.
The impression given is that more time is spent questioning budding entrepreneurs on Dragons' Den and finalists on The Apprentice than candidates to be the next PM.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Crosswords8 mins ago
ChatterBank29 mins ago
Music32 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.