The BBC 1 'Prime Minister' debate

[ardcarp]

I felt the BBC handled this programme amateurishly. It needed a far stronger hand to keep things in order and to divvy up speaking time equally. It would also have helped at times if the candidates had been facing the right camera when speaking. The final member of the public popped up on screen just before the penultimate one. The programme ended with an awkward silence where everyone shuffled uncomfortably.

I don't quite see the point of this programme anyway, as we, the public are not sadly choosing our next Prime Minsiter. So was it screened for the benefit of a few thousand Conservative party members?

[DracoM]

WEnt out for a walk in a beautiful [rare here at the mo] sunset. Balm to the hurt mind.

[Bryn]

I felt the BBC handled this programme amateurishly. It needed a far stronger hand to keep things in order and to divvy up speaking time equally. It would also have helped at times if the candidates had been facing the right camera when speaking. The final member of the public popped up on screen just before the penultimate one. The programme ended with an awkward silence where everyone shuffled uncomfortably.

I don't quite see the point of this programme anyway, as we, the public are not sadly choosing our next Prime Minsiter. So was it screened for the benefit of a few thousand Conservative party members?

I reckon it was just the hard left BBC taking the opportunity to show five useless conmen procuring enough rope to hang themselves.

At least Stewart is bound by the Official Secrets Act to play the conman.

[LMcD]

Sorry - what debate was that, then?

[cloughie]

I don't quite see the point of this programme anyway, as we, the public are not sadly choosing our next Prime Minsiter. So was it screened for the benefit of a few thousand Conservative party members?

Absolutely, my time is too precious to waste on this.

[vinteuil]

.

... I liked the on-line comment from Robert Shrimsley, Financial Times political commentator, half-way thro' this 'debate' -

"God this is abysmal - is it too late to keep Theresa May?"






.

[edashtav]

I felt the BBC handled this programme amateurishly. It needed a far stronger hand to keep things in order and to divvy up speaking time equally. It would also have helped at times if the candidates had been facing the right camera when speaking. The final member of the public popped up on screen just before the penultimate one. The programme ended with an awkward silence where everyone shuffled uncomfortably.

I don't quite see the point of this programme anyway, as we, the public are not sadly choosing our next Prime Minsiter. So was it screened for the benefit of a few thousand Conservative party members?

Yes, it was chaotic: Emily Maitlis was given too many responsibilities. Asking questions should have been separated from timekeeping and that from keeping order. Perhaps, the BBC should have hired my MP, Speaker John Bercow, for an hour. Furthermore, several of the candidates were tired and haggard after a demanding day. A poor performance from all concerned.

[gurnemanz]

I was reminded of the 63Up participant, Neil, who described Brexit as like being asked to take poison to make you better.

As usual, no insights into how a hard border in Ireland can be avoided. No wonder the guy from Northern Ireland was totally dissatisfied with the answers he got. All the EU/nonEU borders have checkpoints. The Poland/Ukraine border has armed guards. Lorries at the Norway/Sweden border take 20 minutes minimum to cross. link. Unlike UK, Norway has never been in the EU and has had decades to sort out the technology and make things efficient. Furthermore, that border does not have a recent history of armed conflict and a smooth border transaction is helped by Norway's being part of the single market and the Schengen agreement.
The Spanish border with Gibraltar (96% remain) never even gets mentioned.

[french frank]

Maybe the fact-checking team should have been on hand to comment on the replies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344

[DracoM]

Well, actually, at one point - lost in the over-talking and self-destructive shouting - Emily Maitlis actually did quote or try to from from IEA findings.

The fact that it was cabaret rather than serious analysis, showed the Tory party to be full of self-proclaiming shouters and non-listeners.
But I imagine the same is true for most political parties. I just kept thinking - FGS, is one of these REALLY going to be our PRIME MINISTER????????????????

[LeMartinPecheur]

Maybe the fact-checking team should have been on hand to comment on the replies:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48685344

Never more true: "Please don't confuse me with facts while I'm sorting out my prejudices!"

[jayne lee wilson]

Disappointing. Too short and inflexible, too much even for the very capable Emily Maitlis to do (despite her cool running of Newsnight's regular political panels, easier & more informative in their informality.

Main points of interest were body language. BJ looked very uncomfortable all through, as if fed up at having to be there; fish-out-of-water in the seriousness of the context, he handled the question of his use of language (about Muslim women, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe etc etc) very badly, sounded ill-prepared.
Rory Stewart also looked restless and uncomfortable with the setting and format, despite again being the only one looking for anything like a possible way forward on Brexit, rather than making unrealistic threats and claims about the EU, deals, negotiations etc.
You noticed again how Michael Gove's voice is his prime asset. Allied to verbal directness, he looked and sounded more "Prime Ministerial" in stereotypical, clichéd media-friendly terms; an air of authority, but integrity is more elusive.
Hunt tried to counter with reserve, seriousness and sobriety. Javid seemed assertive, but a shade anonymous in comparison.

The Channel 4 debate was much better - longer and far livelier due to the questions coming from a live studio audience, making it easier for KG-M to expand and follow-up, mediating freely between audience and contenders.

Absolutely worth doing though - any PM/Cabinet elect should get as much exposure as possible.

[french frank]

it was cabaret rather than serious analysis

The show is televised purely as an audience spectacle, but - a bit like some kinds of Olympic event - only the judges' decision has any importance. Entertainment? (It doesn't really sound like it to me)

[Sir Velo]

Well, actually, at one point - lost in the over-talking and self-destructive shouting - Emily Maitlis actually did quote or try to from from IEA findings.

The fact that it was cabaret rather than serious analysis, showed the Tory party to be full of self-proclaiming shouters and non-listeners.
But I imagine the same is true for most political parties. I just kept thinking - FGS, is one of these REALLY going to be our PRIME MINISTER????????????????

The calibre of politicians in this country, never particularly strong, has markedly declined in the last decade, by anyone's standards.

[DracoM]

Agreed, but as an ad for the Tory party...............crikey!