By election updates

[RedRob72]

Any posters heard the clip from the interview with Julia Hartley Brewer and new MP for Richmond Sarah Olney (with regards to the Bi-Election result and the Brexit vote)? Brutal!![emoji47][emoji47]

[Bishop Briggs]

29 minutes ago, RedRob72 said:

Any posters heard the clip from the interview with Julia Hartley Brewer and new MP for Richmond Sarah Olney (with regards to the Bi-Election result and the Brexit vote)? Brutal!!

 

Here's the transcript -

Julia Hartley-Brewer: ‘My first question, absolutely the most crucial question, when is the second by-election going to be held?’

Sarah Olney: ‘The second by-election?’

JHB: ‘Well we don’t really know whether voters really knew what they were voting for when they elected you so shouldn’t we have a second by-election – you want a second EU referendum don’t you?’

SO: ‘I was very clear in my campaign exactly what I was standing for and the voters have returned me to Parliament with a clear mandate.’

JHB: ‘A clear mandate but less than 50 per cent of the voters of Richmond voted for you, are you sure you’ve got that mandate?’

SO: ‘Well I won’t the vote last night in the by-election and we’ve overturned a huge Conservative majority here.’

JHB: ‘You have and yet you have questioned the EU referendum vote.

‘You said that one of the big issues on which you stood - I mean we thought Heathrow would be the big issue, there wasn’t actually a single candidate who was campaigning for a third runway for Heathrow, so Heathrow became a dud issue in the by-election, it became all about Brexit.’

‘In what way have you got a mandate from the people of Richmond - if you don’t have more than 50 per cent of the vote the vote in the EU referendum on June 23rd was a much clearer mandate, wasn’t it?’

SO: ‘Well to be fair I campaigned on that issue in this by-election and I won a clear majority of the votes last night.’

JHB: ‘You absolutely did but your margin of victory was only about the same as the margin of victory in the EU referendum – about 4.5 per cent, in which case again, shouldn’t we re-run the by-election to be clear?’

SO: ‘We accept the result of the referendum – what we’re saying is we think there should be a further vote on the terms before we make the final decision to leave.’

JHB: ‘Did your party leader Tim Farron mention that before and did anyone else on the Remain campaign mention that on June 23rd?’

‘It’s the…er… development since the referendum.’

JHB: ‘So we’re allowed to change our policy after the referendum and then go back to revisit the referendum – is that what we’re doing?’

SO: ‘Sorry I missed that.’

JHB: ‘Well I’m just a bit confused because we had a remain campaign, we had a leave campaign, just as you’ve run a campaign, Zac Goldsmith ran a campaign, Christian Wolmar from the Labour party.

‘Voters knew what they were voting for in your by-election, they knew what they were voting for in the EU referendum.

‘Why do we think that one election should be re-run and one shouldn’t?’

SO: ‘Well in the referendum it wasn’t clear what people voted for – there wasn’t a clear manifesto.’

JHB: ‘I was clear.’

SO: ‘There wasn’t a clear manifesto set up for the terms of leaving – we leaved for departure but not a destination, there was no clear manifesto for what happens to our membership of the single market…’

JHB: ‘Yes there was – the Remain campaign said we were going to leave the single market if we voted out.’

Long pause

JHB: ‘Yes they did, they repeated it every single leading member of the Remain campaign said a vote to leave the EU was a vote to Leave the single market. Nothing unclear about that at all.’

Lib Dem PR: ‘'I'm really sorry but Sarah has to leave now.'

JHB: ‘No she doesn't. Sarah, if you want to be an elected a Member of Parliament I think you should probably be able to answer some simple questions about your policy. Can you get Sarah back on the line please?'

Aide: ‘I’m sorry about that, she’s got another interview now.’

JHB: ‘Can you get Sarah back on the line please. I don't know who you are, we've waited an hour to have this interview, if she doesn't want to answer questions from a radio station perhaps she's not fit to be an MP.’

Aide: ‘I’m very sorry she’s got another interview now.’

JHB: ‘Has she got another interview? That’s funny because she was booked in for this time.’

Long pause

JHB t ‘So, that’s the Liberal Democrats, folks.’ 

 

Edited December 5, 2016 by Bishop Briggs

[RedRob72]

Cheers for posting BB, a tough exchange for the new MP, she wasn't expecting that at all[emoji47]!!

[Alan Stubbs]

Tragically stupid line of questioning from her, as you would expect.

I'm not in favour of a rerun but a by-election is not remotely comparable to the EU referendum. One is a bog standard election and the other was a non-binding advisory referendum where the people voted for Mr Burns' magic box.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Alan Stubbs

[Bishop Briggs]

10 minutes ago, Alan Stubbs said:

Tragically stupid line of questioning from her, as you would expect.

I'm not in favour of a rerun but a by-election is not remotely comparable to the EU referendum. One is a bog standard election and the other was a non-binding advisory referendum where the people voted for Mr Burns' magic box.

But you would expect a newly-elected MP to be better prepared. Olney flunked that interview badly and her Lib Dem minder stopped it before more damage was inflicted. 

Interesting analysis from Professor Curtice on the by-election - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38184503.

"Professor Curtice says: "To try to suggest that this by-election success tells us anything about the mood of the country with respect to Brexit is mistaken.

"The polling evidence is that we still have a situation where the country is divided pretty much 50/50 on the merits of Remain versus Leave, much as it was in June."

[Alan Stubbs]

Indeed. D- for Hartley-Brewer and her laughable question. F for Olney for having a flakey and failing to dish out the Tymoschuk head pat it deserved.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Alan Stubbs

[hehawhehaw]

2 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Having watched Question Time - I find it hard to believe the BBC is pro-EU.

Every week it is the same - with some loudmouth angry Brexiter saying "We voted out - so grab your coat and let's go now." or something to that effect.  It seems to only visit places that are full of horrible people - although I suspect it just the audience and not the place as a whole.

complete fabrication. are you a welder? you seem to use the same thought process as antlion. you know just write shite and present it as genuineness. 

[WaffenThinMint]

2 hours ago, Fullerene said:

Having watched Question Time - I find it hard to believe the BBC is pro-EU.

Every week it is the same - with some loudmouth angry Brexiter saying "We voted out - so grab your coat and let's go now." or something to that effect.  It seems to only visit places that are full of horrible people - although I suspect it just the audience and not the place as a whole.

There's a simple reason for that, & that's the willingness of especially UKIP members to drop everything at the drop of a hat to accommodate the merest number of seconds of media time proffered; combined with the fact other major parties' people have to go through hoops nowadays before they are given "clearance" to speak to the press, whereas UKIP's slapdash organisation has given members more freedom to do so, to both the party's advantage & disadvantage.

The BBC are doing the right thing for their ratings by exploiting this - stick a Kipper or a Scot Nat on, you get people watching (even if it's only to shout abuse at the telly). Stick someone from the Greens or LIb Dems on, people watch something else.

[Fullerene]

I don't know what you are on about.

I am simply saying that my perception of Question Time is that it seems like a repeat of the previous week with angry members of the audience saying "come on, we voted out - so let's get out and stop wasting time".  Obviously I voted Remain, I accept the result, and even the possibility that it might actually be better (but I suspect not).  What I resent are members of the audience who seem to say - no more discussion - let's just do it.

 

Oh, and no I am not a welder but I wonder if you are a brazer.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Tragically stupid line of questioning from her, as you would expect.

I'm not in favour of a rerun but a by-election is not remotely comparable to the EU referendum. One is a bog standard election and the other was a non-binding advisory referendum where the people voted for Mr Burns' magic box.

Agreed - absolutely no comparison - it's the use of reductio ad absurdum based on a very flawed premise.

That being said you'd think they'd be better prepared to deal with such a line of attack.

Christ even Pep could have swatted that one away.

[WaffenThinMint]

3 hours ago, Fullerene said:

I don't know what you are on about.

I am simply saying that my perception of Question Time is that it seems like a repeat of the previous week with angry members of the audience saying "come on, we voted out - so let's get out and stop wasting time".  Obviously I voted Remain, I accept the result, and even the possibility that it might actually be better (but I suspect not).  What I resent are members of the audience who seem to say - no more discussion - let's just do it.

 

Oh, and no I am not a welder but I wonder if you are a brazer.

OK, let's give you the two syllable words & big pictures explanation.

The BBC relies on good viewing figures to justify the budgets they set for their programmes & ultimately the money they get from the government to exist.

Therefore, you have on not-so-popular shows such as Question Time people whose very presence is likely to artificially boost viewing figures, such as yesteryear celebrities (Johnny Rotten, Jarvis Cocker, Boy George, Stephen Fry, etc) or people from parties popular in the zeitgeist for a bit of "oh the humanity!" feigned outrage.

UKIP at their tabloidy worst fit the bill so well, they're almost like the BBC created them for the job. You also allow the various political parties to stuff the audience with their own agent provocateurs by giving them tickets you deny thrice before cockcrow you are doing, in order to ensure you get a lively debate & not your average dull town hall hustings.

If you watched QT regularly, you would know people being hidebound over a particular issue for several weeks in succession really is nothing new eg. the Scottish independence referendum, which was the subject of English seethe for months afterwards at the sheer audacity the vote was allowed in the first place.

[Ira Gaines]

OK, let's give you the two syllable words & big pictures explanation.

The BBC relies on good viewing figures to justify the budgets they set for their programmes & ultimately the money they get from the government to exist.

Therefore, you have on not-so-popular shows such as Question Time people whose very presence is likely to artificially boost viewing figures, such as yesteryear celebrities (Johnny Rotten, Jarvis Cocker, Boy George, Stephen Fry, etc) or people from parties popular in the zeitgeist for a bit of "oh the humanity!" feigned outrage.

UKIP at their tabloidy worst fit the bill so well, they're almost like the BBC created them for the job. You also allow the various political parties to stuff the audience with their own agent provocateurs by giving them tickets you deny thrice before cockcrow you are doing, in order to ensure you get a lively debate & not your average dull town hall hustings.

If you watched QT regularly, you would know people being hidebound over a particular issue for several weeks in succession really is nothing new eg. the Scottish independence referendum, which was the subject of English seethe for months afterwards at the sheer audacity the vote was allowed in the first place.

^^^ doesn't know what a two syllable word is type post

[Fullerene]

2 hours ago, WaffenThinMint said:

OK, let's give you the two syllable words & big pictures explanation.

The BBC relies on good viewing figures to justify the budgets they set for their programmes & ultimately the money they get from the government to exist.

Therefore, you have on not-so-popular shows such as Question Time people whose very presence is likely to artificially boost viewing figures, such as yesteryear celebrities (Johnny Rotten, Jarvis Cocker, Boy George, Stephen Fry, etc) or people from parties popular in the zeitgeist for a bit of "oh the humanity!" feigned outrage.

UKIP at their tabloidy worst fit the bill so well, they're almost like the BBC created them for the job. You also allow the various political parties to stuff the audience with their own agent provocateurs by giving them tickets you deny thrice before cockcrow you are doing, in order to ensure you get a lively debate & not your average dull town hall hustings.

If you watched QT regularly, you would know people being hidebound over a particular issue for several weeks in succession really is nothing new eg. the Scottish independence referendum, which was the subject of English seethe for months afterwards at the sheer audacity the vote was allowed in the first place.

That sort of makes sense.

 

Here was I thinking the producers had a special map indicating where obnoxious people lived.

 

I agree with your point on celebrities, who are sometimes ill-advised to appear on the show.

 

"Right Mr Scabies, you were fairly controversial in your youth, modelling yourself on Keith Moon, trashing your drum kit, wrecking hotel rooms and giving V signs to nuns and vicars.  What is your view on the common fisheries policy and how do you think that will change now we are leaving the EU?  Also, how do you think it will affect you personally now that you decide to move to Los Angeles?"

 

(BTW: I just made that up!)

[Peppino Impastato]

The BBC does not rely on viewing figures,  as a public broadcaster those are irrelevant.   A private ccompany relies on viewing figures, a public one like the BBC makes the exact same amount of money anyway whether anyone watches at all.   They even refuse to release viewing figures for some of their programmes such as that lame wee Scottish politics programme which it is suspected doesn't get enough viewers to justify continuation but the  bbc refuse to confirm as it's propaganda they want to keep peddling so they'll show in anyway. 

[WaffenThinMint]

1 hour ago, Peppino Impastato said:

The BBC does not rely on viewing figures,  as a public broadcaster those are irrelevant.   A private ccompany relies on viewing figures, a public one like the BBC makes the exact same amount of money anyway whether anyone watches at all.   They even refuse to release viewing figures for some of their programmes such as that lame wee Scottish politics programme which it is suspected doesn't get enough viewers to justify continuation but the  bbc refuse to confirm as it's propaganda they want to keep peddling so they'll show in anyway. 

If you think the BBC doesn't care about viewing figures, there's a few tins of tartan paint I'd love to sell you.

Or alternatively, the proof in the pudding - Eastenders. Started way back in the days before governments insisted they made money as much as spending it (the primary reason behind the Dr Who reboot), this was purely because Auntie Beeb was sick of getting creamed by Corrie in the ratings all the time & decided a tabloid soap was the way to succeed, which (for a time) it did.

[Peppino Impastato]

Still doesn't change the point a public broadcaster doesn't rely on ratings at all, you said they did,  they patently don't. 

[Baxter Parp]

23 hours ago, Peppino Impastato said:

Still doesn't change the point a public broadcaster doesn't rely on ratings at all, you said they did,  they patently don't. 

Well they kind of do - if they produce programmes that nobody watches they get criticised, if they produce programmes that millions watch to the detriment of the commercial broadcasters, they get criticised. However, this wifey that's the audience producer at QT seems like a complete yoon.

[WaffenThinMint]

On 06/12/2016 at 12:46, Peppino Impastato said:

Still doesn't change the point a public broadcaster doesn't rely on ratings at all, you said they did,  they patently don't. 

Ah yes, so that's why the soap Eldorado was cancelled with indecent haste, why the Daily Mail's favourite BBC 2 show Gaytime TV (no, really!) bit the dust after four years, why BBC Alba shows football matches where the player interviews are all in English instead of Gaelic in order to artificially inflate its viewing figures & justify its existence & EU funding (though not for long, of course)... need I go on?

[Peppino Impastato]

Yes, the BBC is funded through direct taxation,  it's budget is unaffected by ratings.   It's a simple point you said so something stupid now can't admit you were wrong.  Eery TV company but the bbc has to worry about ratings,  the BBC doesn't. 

[invergowrie arab]

31 minutes ago, WaffenThinMint said:

Ah yes, so that's why the soap Eldorado was cancelled with indecent haste, why the Daily Mail's favourite BBC 2 show Gaytime TV (no, really!) bit the dust after four years, why BBC Alba shows football matches where the player interviews are all in English instead of Gaelic in order to artificially inflate its viewing figures & justify its existence & EU funding (though not for long, of course)... need I go on?

Do you think it's maybe because the players don't speak Gaelic?