Labour ?

Mike-B posted:

fatcat posted:

Mike                Next week, Naim announce they will be releasing a new DAC later this year.  Will you buy one. Yes or No.

    

NO,  & although its a hypothetical question,  I am still able to answer with definite NO.    I would never buy new product until its matured & proven itself in the market place. 

Will you buy one *every*?  And it's a yes or no question... no dithering, no explanation...

Will I buy one *ever*     ...........   No to any new product

And if you read my reasoned answer to the Fatcat question as an analogy to May & Corbyn ............  

Jeremy’s invited Theresa to the BBC debate this evening. He’s stitched the PM up like a kipper.

She doesn’t turn up, that’s the final nail in the “strong and stable” coffin.

She does turn up, Jeremy’s obviously calling the tune.

Mike-B posted:

Will I buy one *ever*     ...........   No to any new product

And if you read my reasoned answer to the Fatcat question as an analogy to May & Corbyn ............  

So you're never going to buy any new HiFi ever? Isn't every product a new product at some point!  Why don't you answer the question yes or no? Will you ever buy the new DAC Naim releases?

(And yes I'm making a point about questions being posed which are impossible to answer yes or no.  As for your answer being an analogy to May & Corbyn ... then I take away that as you didn't answer the question fatcat posed with yes or no; that you support Corbyns more nuanced considered answers - though I really don't get that impression from other things you write!)

The difference perhaps is that the country does not need to know where Mike stands on the new Naim dac in order for it to reach an important decision, nor has Mike had a number of months in order to reach his conclusion to a question he is almost certain to be asked.  Give a yes or no and then add in your nuances, otherwise you look like you either don't know or are avoiding giving the answer.  the problem with Jezzer on some of these questions is that he and the interviewer know full well what his views are but he doesn't want to say so because he knows it will work against him.  As I've said earlier he is too brave to deny his views but lacks the courage to confirm them during his campaign which is why he witters on and on trying to avoid giving the answer.  Had Mike just said, No, there would be less room for you to question him about Naim's new dac.

fatcat posted:

Jeremy’s invited Theresa to the BBC debate this evening. He’s stitched the PM up like a kipper.

She doesn’t turn up, that’s the final nail in the “strong and stable” coffin.

She does turn up, Jeremy’s obviously calling the tune.

 

Yes, an opportunistic uturn but a clever one

dayjay posted:

The difference perhaps is that the country does not need to know where Mike stands on the new Naim dac in order for it to reach an important decision, nor has Mike had a number of months in order to reach his conclusion to a question he is almost certain to be asked.  Give a yes or no and then add in your nuances, otherwise you look like you either don't know or are avoiding giving the answer.  the problem with Jezzer on some of these questions is that he and the interviewer know full well what his views are but he doesn't want to say so because he knows it will work against him.  As I've said earlier he is too brave to deny his views but lacks the courage to confirm them during his campaign which is why he witters on and on trying to avoid giving the answer.  Had Mike just said, No, there would be less room for you to question him about Naim's new dac.

Come on dayjay ... you and I both know that the questions which are asked of Jeremy Corbyn (you may not like him but let's show him some respect by using either his name or his initials if you need to shorten it) if he asked either Yes or No that would be all that's reported, if he was even given the chance to put the qualification comments in.  He avoids answering Yes or No because that removes that possibility.

In the minds of some people he's damned whatever he does/says.

Ofcom are already investigating if there was undue bias over the Paxman interview.

Eloise, he isn't the pope to be treated with reverant respect and Jezzer is how his Momentm fanboys have been refering to him in the propaganda I receive on a daily basis in my facebook feed, he will be called much worse by others I'm sure.  Of course he can't win with those questions but a straight yes or no stops him from looking like an incompetent prat which is how he comes across at times, or even worse, like he is trying to excuse his beliefs.  He is a good public speaker so he needs to limit the damage caused by aggressive interviewers, and all politicians have to put up with those, and score big on his public speaking but at the moment he makes advances with the latter and then throws it away with the former.  He is fighting a Tory party with the most boring and miserable manifesto in history and, even if it is pie in the sky, his is popular and upbeat so all he needs to do is not be Jeremy in some interviews and stop Abbott from being interviewed at all and he will score on his public speaking and score on the Tories as they cock up their campaign. 

BTW, I should have added, for want of balance, I have seen your posts be anything but respectful about TM too.  Let's at least pretend to have a fair and balanced view when it comes to respecting the relevant leaders

Eloise posted:

In the minds of some people he's damned whatever he does/says.

Exactly the same can be said of many towards any/all politicians.  A worth commenting that few folks around this forum can't mention TM without having ago,  so all's fair in forum politics.    This thread has been an interesting read & have noted (again) the political bias, then add that to the fishy forum where they had a poll a while back that voted in a labour government with a huge majority,  it seems the majority of hifi peeps are left leaning.     

dayjay posted:

BTW, I should have added, for want of balance, I have seen your posts be anything but respectful about TM too.  Let's at least pretend to have a fair and balanced view when it comes to respecting the relevant leaders

Obviously thats your point of view ... but I try to be respectful of TM (and others) by debating their policies and what they say rather than attacking their personalities.  If I come across different to that then I will have to try harder in the future.

In these recent posts however I've been trying to address the bias in the media more than debate what TM and JC stand for...

I suspect calling her Dictator May would be considered a little disrespectful to be fair.  I am focussing on competence and strategy, because the media can only lay their traps and if they are avoided the public will see for themselves if the media is biased.  The two interviews we've talked about were avoidable and they have done damage to Labour's campaign that offsets a poor Tory performance and strong JC public speaking and popular manifesto.  I really can't imagine that strong PMs of the past would have made such basic errors in an interview and that is where he and his team need to learn and improve.

dayjay posted:

And I am focussing on competence and strategy, because the media can only lay their traps and if they are avoided the public will see for themselves if the media is biased.  The two interviews we've talked about were avoidable and they have done damage to Labour's campaign that offsets a poor Tory performance and strong JC public speaking and popular manifesto.  I really can't imagine that strong PMs of the past would have made such basic errors in an interview and that is where he and his team need to learn and improve.

But why aren't they asking and focusing on the skeletons in May's closet?  If Corbyn is tainted by his meeting with IRA in the 80s; surely May should be tainted now by her visits with anti-gay rights clergy this very week (especially considering those views could be linked to past voting at least in a small way)?  Corbyn is tainted by calling Hamas "friends"; but why isn't May being questioned over why a report into terrorist funding which is reported to criticise Saudi Arabia is being withheld?

Yes, Corbyn should have had the figure for the cost in his head ... but when May gets a free pass on having to give costs and figures for virtually all her manifesto "commitments" (which note many are not even commitments but are promising to "look into" the problems) surely you can see why people get upset about the "traps" the media lay for Corbyn?

As for "Dictator" May ... that is about describing her actions ... that isn't a personal attack.  I will admit its a fine line; but there is (IMO) a difference.

Yes but his job, as a competent politician, is to avoid them, not go marching in unprepared and allow them to make him look inept.  The British public, in my honest opinion, do not like to see people treated unfairly and bullied and they will make their own judgement on the bias of the media.  He just needs to prepare better, avoid the traps and address the public directly wherever he can.  I.e. He needs to play to his strengths and avoid his weaknesses wherever he can. Of course it's a personal attack it's you taking your view on her policies and making out that she is a dictator as a result.  If I refered to JC and as a flaky terrorist supporting champaign socialist I'm pretty sure you would say I was being disrespectful wouldn't you?

Interesting to see that TM, having declined to participate in this evening's televised leaders' debate, has deployed Amber Rudd to represent the Conservatives.  Maybe the judgement is that Rudd is better at the cut & thrust of live debate, we'll see, but I think TM declining the event rather jars with her slogan about 'Strong & stable'.   

Yep, she was between a rock and a hard place as soon as JC said he would attend.  Rudd is on a hiding to nothing but I think she is doing ok given the rather poor hand she has to play.  TF doing ok I think too

dayjay posted:

Yep, she was between a rock and a hard place as soon as JC said he would attend.  Rudd is on a hiding to nothing but I think she is doing ok given the rather poor hand she has to play.  TF doing ok I think too

I agree, David.  The audience seem somewhat anti-Tory from the volume of applause/negative reaction so far. I thought audiences are meant to be balanced for these sort of things.   

Well, the penultimate question on leadership was painful for the absent TM e.g. 'leadership isn't about calling an election and then running away!'.

It's human nature to tend to remember the key messages at the end of such long debates. Still, predictable, I suppose.    

Interesting strategies at play, TF and Rudd came out best I think as debaters but the Tories got a bit of. Bashing overall.  Jeremy wobbled noticeably on security. I found it hard to tell the Greens apart from Labour.  Rudd's closing statement which pitched her opponents as a chaotic coalition was clever I thought.  What's the betting on a hung parliament at the moment I wonder?

dayjay posted:

Rudd's closing statement which pitched her opponents as a chaotic coalition was clever I thought.

Missed that bit as I actually took nice but Tim's advice and put the kettle on!

He genuinely does come across as nice too

dayjay posted:

Interesting strategies at play, TF and Rudd came out best I think as debaters but the Tories got a bit of. Bashing overall.  Jeremy wobbled noticeably on security. I found it hard to tell the Greens apart from Labour.  Rudd's closing statement which pitched her opponents as a chaotic coalition was clever I thought.  What's the betting on a hung parliament at the moment I wonder?

Clever! Typically glib and utterly cynical. The lies about an SNP and Labour coalition worked last time so why not use something similar again!

Clive

It didn't help when they all promptly talked over one another to deny it! 

A couple of points,  as I understand it the plan was TM & JC were not going to attend.  It raises a few suspicious thoughts in my mind;  was JC always going to attend at the last minute to score whatever points were in that move,  or at the last minute he didn't trust DA to stand up under the pressure.   But yes JC showing up at the last minute did put TM between a rock & a hard place,  but sticking to her plan was obviously the right thing, avoiding more U-Turn jibes,    but it did not look good.   However it did seem to me AR gave a polished level headed performance given that as the sitting government representative she was always going to be the target to aim at.  For me  JC didn't do much other than plug in his oft-heard activist sound bites,  he's a great soapbox activist but he didn't make any impression repeating what we've heard before & he did get wobbly over security & imigration.    But to me the most polished performer who showed real authority with an air of leadership was the other AR - Angus Robinson. 

Looking forward to Fridays QT

dayjay posted:

It didn't help when they all promptly talked over one another to deny it! 

As if Amber Rudd wasn't behaving in exactly the same way! T May has shown a disdain for democracy ever since she called the election. It may not be pretty but squabbling politicians are a core element of democracy.

Clive