Good finish by Corbyn on tuition fees. But overall not a clear win for either, with a peculiarly lacklustre audience. Probably better for May as she exceeded expectations by not positively falling on her arse.
Corbyn finally showing some real passion in responding to a particularly Neanderthal Tory. Dimbleby steps in to undercut him.
Nuclear destruction, IRA, anti-Semitism, Diane Abbott, Brexit – every dull Tory attack line been trotted out. Audience seem half asleep.
Corbyn being helped by some really nasty arrogant Tories being allowed questions on keeping people’s wages down.
Audience Adam thinks that firing a nuclear weapon would preserve his safety. No Adam you would be dust very quickly after that. Without a huge diminution in intelligence evidently.
Dimbleby “I may come back to education and the economy”… but let’s get on to the firing nuclear weapons Tory attack meme. More important obviously.
Corbyn should reference the continual vilification of Diana Abbott as a gross example of racism.
BBC kick off with Corbyn on Brexit followed by coalition with SNP – BBC exactly following Tory attack agenda.
May got out of that without major damage. Unsympathetic and flinty to nurses and slipped into prepared rhetoric on education, but less stilted than usual.
May getting through this OK, aided by the BBC having selected audience critics who are mostly unusually inarticulate.
May told a blatant lie about Diane Abbott wanting to remove terrorists from DNA databases. I don’t think this kind of slur really helps her.
May stuttering and stumbling horribly as she lies about whether her manifesto changed over social care policy
For Theresa May the BBC immediately steer the subject straight on to the Tories’ preferred subject of Brexit.
Myself I try and avoid the BBC. I’m not into supporting these right wing institutions in any way. I don’t believe in them, think they use fear and are really bad for people. And they can never be left wing as massive concentrations of power and influence.
In fact I am apposed to them and many other institutions/ power structures over people. So I can only be opposed to this blog because aside from ideology those are the things constantly referenced. And Craig wants to be ON the bbc. ?
It’s simply no a subsumable argument (or actions that illustrate what his actual position is). And it’s not what I call BEING left.
It was on the BBC’s World Service that I often heard one of the pundits who helped form my anti-EU stance , William Pickles of the LSE and ‘Common Market Studies’, who saw it as a set up binding Western and Central Europe against the USSR.
Mark Tully was long of the most respected correspondents in India as was Alastair Cook on the USA.
But every time I come back to Britain in recent years, I just hear arguments for war;Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, on the Today programme, and anti -Russian spin even in comments on War and Peace’. Its pro-EU stance on Brexit, anti-independence bias on Scotland , slurs against Corbin and Putin , and the like have destroyed whatever credibility it once had.
I feel anti or pro eu to simplistic. It depends the context. Like the BBC, it may have done some good in the days of the world service etc. Balancing other powerful concentrations in some areas.
Guess my point was that still does not make them desirable, I don’t long for some “better” BBC like the “good old days”. However on the EU I see good arguments for a social federated union to counter (as an example) other power concentrations. Iv never taken the view that Europe was against the USSR and find most of this rhetoric spilled out by some in our establishment very harmful, to us included.
A federated union is very different from the supra-nationalism which has been behind the ever-closer union. With the Brexit referendum , as opposed to those in Ireland/France on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, there was little meaningful discussion on the desired form of union- federation. confederation, supra state- just a brake or accelerator.My view is that some new configuration of the EU/EEA/EFTA is being cobbled together (perhaps involving Barrosa at the Bilderberg) and this revised treaty will be eventually accepted.
BTW the EU, Euroland and Europe are not the same by any means.
I’m just not sure the nuclear issue is of importance to most voters. Older voters realise our nuclear deterrent is extremely unlikely ever to be used and is basically a fig leaf, while younger voters are more likely to vote for someone who wouldn’t use it.
Like the IRA smears, it seems symbolic of a media stuck in the past, still fighting 1980s elections.
I think the nuclear issue is used to instil fear in the population. As they are used to instil fear in other countries.
Basically they are effective terrorist weapons. Used all the time.
The most objective review I’ve read – thank you.
I was totally dismayed by aging white Yorkshire males who favour annihilation over a wage rise for the nurses who will help to prolong their lives. They should be careful what they wish for – and we should all hope that they don’t get it.
The climate change scammers are in practice propagandists for nuclear proliferation and renewal of Trident, because talk of abolishing fossil fuel is de facto a call for nuclear power, because renewable energy cannot provide the intensive power needed for commercial as opposed to domestic energy needs and thus nuclear power is promoted as a solution to climate change.
The renewal of Trident involves the submarines, missiles supplied by US, and the government want a nuclear programme to provide the skills and hide the cost of Trident within fuel bills, hence nuclear power projects that are vastly more expensive than fossil fuel, but will fund nuclear proliferation on the pretext of saving the planet!!!
” because talk of abolishing fossil fuel is de facto a call for nuclear power, because renewable energy cannot provide the intensive power needed for commercial as opposed to domestic energy needs and thus nuclear power is promoted as a solution to climate change. ”
No its not a call for nuclear power which le4aves long lasting dangerous legacies far more likely to aid terror, than simple alternative power systems. Appliances need far less these days and the world is drowning in energy capabilities, we have the abilities, and already proofed that its possible to generate electricity from alternatives alone.
You want to get around some more Dave, technology around rare earth elements make the generation of electricity, better storage of energies and small community energy schemes far more likely to safeguard a grid efficiently and benignly, without the terror attractions and last nights ageing nuclear war groupies. It would also have the ability to make local communities independent from the grid, should they so wish.
Safety and security.
World exists on the constant brink of destruction.
Professional help. lol, You’ve got to laugh. They have no imagination do they.
How does one maintain it in all this. “There is no alternative” …Fear, war, people are tortured through the tv set. Keeps em down.
“There is an alternative”.
Watch, “What was done” by dailymotion.com
Enjoy, and be inspired.
I know Rob, plenty.
best comment was that of the girl who questioned pushing the button in the hall last night, wondered what the fascination with annihilating half of the world was for.
She is off course right, and any dumbo these days knows that any first strike is not the end, retaliation is guaranteed with a second, thirid and fourth strike scenario being initiated, automatically and in some cases autonomous, without the need for a specific command.
A second strike will be initiated as soon as the zenith of our museums piece missile is reached and warheads are separating.
A first strike is a guarantee that you are facing annihilation minutes later.
There are fast missile systems that potentially could reach a nuclear missile and detonate it in the air, even such an explosion would add nuclear materials to the environment and eventually rain to the ground.
This narrative last night was spread weeks ago a steady drip drip in all the right wing papers and the british bullshit contractors, our manipulators of public consent and preceived threats.
I don’t watch shite so thanks for the description of the COMbbc Tory election advert.
I have just received my Tory leaflet.
Full colour, as befits £17M of magic money plucked from the corporate money tree and no doubt (heh) fully and correctly accounted for.
Picture of raddled old bat vaguely resembling Martin Rowson’s caricatures* of the Prime Minister front and centre. ‘Strung-out and stale’ meme.
Binned, unread. Still don’t know who my Tory candidate is, and don’t want to.
Note to Theresa. If you’ve got to start a personality cult, at the very least you need a personality.
*reminder –
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/500rar/martin_rowson_on_theresa_may_and_brexit_cartoon/
Firstly its a US rather than UK figure on the button so whater May and Corbyn say is an irrelevant smokescreen. Secondly if you have the bomb its irrelevant what you say you will do, as its hypothetical until you have to use it, and then both TM and JC could be lying and do the opposite of what they say, or someone else could get in the way and push or not the button in their place, because if you have them there is always the prospect they will be used. True using them would be mad, more so as a first as opposed to second strike, but then again if someone you hated wanted to destroy you wouldn’t you want to destroy them too, which is the essence of war, but particularly nuclear war.
Dave, i’m sorry to break this to you but it’s not an actual button the Prime Minister presses………….
Elections are fantastic at making right wingers believe they are intelligent.
Whatever it is, it’s rented from the US and therefore unlikely to be “Independent” as any UK PM ever demented enough to actually try use the thing would find out.
My guess would be that after much button pressing (or whatever) there would come a phone call from Washington asking “wtf he/she thought they were doing?”!
Glad we cleared that up!
I very much doubt that the entire populace of a country would hate us. Some may…but nuclear weapons are not that discriminating; no bombs are.
The UK deterrent based on Trident is not independent, and could only be used in the event of outright nuclear war with the USSR…in which event it would be irrelevant.
We are making a £100bn gift to the US arms industry.
Whilst a Tory win next Thursday would enhance the prospects of Scottish independence greatly, what impact would a Labour win – even with a resounding SNP return in Scotland – have on home rule?
It is very unfortunate that Corbyn has not been able to change the Labour Party’s policy on Trident. Had he done so, he could have clearly said that he would not use nuclear weapons and why. He could then have won some people over on this.
He would also have been able to attack May for her readiness to start a nuclear war. As it is, she has been let off the hook completely.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html
After the general election, Corbyn must use his authority to change this policy.
Its a generational thing, a comfort blanket. I guess now its being renewed there’s no point in stirring up the water to scrap it until it needs its ‘mot and service’. Hopefully by that time we can put it out of its misery relatively quietly.
Its an election distraction. Move on.
We have become so conditioned to these nuclear warheads; I hope you are right about it being a generational thing–perhaps in the West, surely not in the Near East…yet.
It’s ironic that the global community can make a Very Big Deal about climate and ignore nukes altogether.
We are surely some other planet’s hell, *no one* is an angel, not even the clergy who lead the way. In fact they are the No.1 deviants, who along with monarchs and politicians have brought us to this evolved modern society we are. Beware of the evil-nuclear-bugger-brothers of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
If there is “No Magic Money Tree” then where did the £435 billion to fund “quantative easing” come from?
Thea Gilmore’s new album, “The Counterweight”, came out this week. The last track, The War, has a chorus that echoes your quote:
But they’ll show you the blood on the face of a child
They’ll sell you your heartbreak so perfectly styled
And they’ll tell you to take your position and man the frontier
But take a look at that box on your desk
Take a look at that heart in your chest
Take a look at those thoughts in your head
The war’s already here
Kempe’s deleted post about BCC coverage of the march put a real dent in Craig’s thread.
May could not fall on her arse….to use a very old expression, she has “got no bottom”….in other words, no courage.
Corbyn unsurprisingly, to me at least, has shown himself to be genuine. I am not a Socialist, and I disagree with some of his policies but change from the Blairite/Blue Labour/ Tory elite is desperately needed. Corbynite Labour gets my vote.
Chapter and verse on the ‘zero hours’ student in the QT audience.
3 June 2017
Zero Hours Student IS STINKING RICH
Friday’s Question Time special featured questions from several audience members to both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn. One directed at the Labour leader was on the subject of zero hours contracts, from a young man who described himself as a student. He was concerned that scrapping zero hours contracts would somehow impoverish him. But some of those watching took one look at him and smelt a rat.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2017/06/zero-hours-student-is-stinking-rich.html?m=1
We keep being told by COM BBC that the audiences are selected to represent all parties fairly. See the ComRes representative on another BBC programme, Newswatch, saying that it is a scrupulous process.
What a con.