FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Non Party Political
Non Party Political
Jump to: Newest in thread
Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
And I mean on all sides of the house. They are just as guilty. Why are they allowed to get away with it?
Corbyn was famously asked 14 times for his personal opinion of Brexit in one interview and never answered the question.
I saw an interview with Ed Milliband the other day where they asked him why the government hadn’t reduced taxes on energy companies as that would help the cost of living for everyone. His answer was “energy prices were set on the global market”. True, but has nothing to do with the question. He was asked about 5 times, can’t remember the interviewer might have been on LBC, but every time he completely ignored the question and talked about the global energy markets.
But all politicians of all parties do this. When they don’t like the question they just do t answer it. It’s the exact opposite of accountability.
And the jeering and laughing at other MPs in parliament. My granddaughter’s primary school playground is more mature.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *otMe66Man 4 days ago
Terra Firma |
Short answer no, but I would however question the capability of MP's who can't navigate their way out of questions meant to corner them. I would suggest they might want to stop media interviews until competent, the fear of losing the limelight should be enough to fix the issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I do think that ministers should removed from their posts if they persistently behave that way, back benchers less so, what they say carrys less importance and on many things they just don’t know the answer, although it would be refreshing if they just said that instead of waffling to deflect that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Transport Secretary interviewed today and bigging up the (taxpayer funded) government spending for rollout of cheaper electric cars and council funding for pavement cabling. All sounding good until asked if she drives an EV herself.
Right to buy second home flipper Rayner no better. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
And I mean on all sides of the house. They are just as guilty. Why are they allowed to get away with it?
Corbyn was famously asked 14 times for his personal opinion of Brexit in one interview and never answered the question.
I saw an interview with Ed Milliband the other day where they asked him why the government hadn’t reduced taxes on energy companies as that would help the cost of living for everyone. His answer was “energy prices were set on the global market”. True, but has nothing to do with the question. He was asked about 5 times, can’t remember the interviewer might have been on LBC, but every time he completely ignored the question and talked about the global energy markets.
But all politicians of all parties do this. When they don’t like the question they just do t answer it. It’s the exact opposite of accountability.
And the jeering and laughing at other MPs in parliament. My granddaughter’s primary school playground is more mature.
"
I think we have a few on here only Monday to Fridays though.   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Short answer no, but I would however question the capability of MP's who can't navigate their way out of questions meant to corner them. I would suggest they might want to stop media interviews until competent, the fear of losing the limelight should be enough to fix the issue. "
So you think deliberately avoiding questions is a desirable quality for an MP? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
No. It's up to us to be able to read into why their obfuscating or prevaricating.
The want for simple answers is lazy on our behalf, they aren't only talking to the public. They're talking to their back benchers, business, markets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No. It's up to us to be able to read into why their obfuscating or prevaricating.
The want for simple answers is lazy on our behalf, they aren't only talking to the public. They're talking to their back benchers, business, markets."
But when you “read into things” we’re often wrong.
Let me use the Milliband interview as an example. Not only did he not answer the question, his reply wasn’t even on the same topic. He was asked about taxes, he talked about global markets. I actually think it was an easy question to answer. “We’re aware times are tough but at the moment we’re not in a position to cut taxes. And these are some of the richest companies in the world, too right they should pay their share of tax”.
But I’ll know how to answer any questions you ask in the future 😉 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
You can choose a terrible interview from left or right.
However the large majority of interviews are word salads. Because of they commit to something and then the economy gets worse we all accuse them of u turning or choose your preferred insult.
So what an interview ends up being is a word salad of indicators of direction of travel if everything goes ok, they leave enough space by choosing deliberately loose language so that they can change direction if things aren't going how they'd have hoped.
So it's up to us to try and read between the lines as to what they're signalling and to who. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No. It's up to us to be able to read into why their obfuscating or prevaricating.
The want for simple answers is lazy on our behalf, they aren't only talking to the public. They're talking to their back benchers, business, markets.
But when you “read into things” we’re often wrong.
Let me use the Milliband interview as an example. Not only did he not answer the question, his reply wasn’t even on the same topic. He was asked about taxes, he talked about global markets. I actually think it was an easy question to answer. “We’re aware times are tough but at the moment we’re not in a position to cut taxes. And these are some of the richest companies in the world, too right they should pay their share of tax”.
But I’ll know how to answer any questions you ask in the future 😉"
I doubt whether anyone actually believes what Miliband says apart from the small minority of people who are emotionally and ideologically committed to the red rosette.
A larger question for me is how the democratic system is failing so badly that we have ended up with the current bunch of no-marks “representing” us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No. It's up to us to be able to read into why their obfuscating or prevaricating.
The want for simple answers is lazy on our behalf, they aren't only talking to the public. They're talking to their back benchers, business, markets.
But when you “read into things” we’re often wrong.
Let me use the Milliband interview as an example. Not only did he not answer the question, his reply wasn’t even on the same topic. He was asked about taxes, he talked about global markets. I actually think it was an easy question to answer. “We’re aware times are tough but at the moment we’re not in a position to cut taxes. And these are some of the richest companies in the world, too right they should pay their share of tax”.
But I’ll know how to answer any questions you ask in the future 😉
I doubt whether anyone actually believes what Miliband says apart from the small minority of people who are emotionally and ideologically committed to the red rosette.
A larger question for me is how the democratic system is failing so badly that we have ended up with the current bunch of no-marks “representing” us."
We had an election in 2024. On holiday were you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
"
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?"
Of course not.
I'm just trying to offer an explanation of why many politicians don't engage with journalists in the way you might hope for.
If you are deeply interested in politics then what most journalists write probably isn't going to provide you with much insight.
OK, some long-form interviews are interesting but if you want to hear politicians in their own words you would be better off following committees and Hansard.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Of course not.
I'm just trying to offer an explanation of why many politicians don't engage with journalists in the way you might hope for.
If you are deeply interested in politics then what most journalists write probably isn't going to provide you with much insight.
OK, some long-form interviews are interesting but if you want to hear politicians in their own words you would be better off following committees and Hansard.
"
No, you misunderstand me. It’s not that I don’t know why they do it. I know exactly why they do it. I just think it’s ignorant and arrogant, two qualities an MP doesn’t need.
I think politicians should be held to account and act in a professional manner. Not like spoilt little children.
I actually pay very little attention to what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. News interviews are ok for some comedy value. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light. "
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media "
There’s a very good reason for that 😉 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉"
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge."
Is the reason Reform is doing well in the polls because:
a. Labour is shit
Or
b. Because Farage presents a programme on an “obscure news channel”?
It’s a tough one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge."
Why is it a problem? People are free to write and/or broadcast whatever that want. Just like people are free to read whatever they want. If there was demand for more socialist media, someone would create it.
You could do that yourself with a few like minded people from here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge.
Is the reason Reform is doing well in the polls because:
a. Labour is shit
Or
b. Because Farage presents a programme on an “obscure news channel”?
It’s a tough one."
That's not the option though is it?
Labour doing shit is a contributory factor obviously.
But if your going to hand out media slots it should be equal to the weight they have in parliament not the right wings current pet Nige?? What's wrong with the black woman leading the conservatives....oh ..wait??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge.
Why is it a problem? People are free to write and/or broadcast whatever that want. Just like people are free to read whatever they want. If there was demand for more socialist media, someone would create it.
You could do that yourself with a few like minded people from here. "
Your not actually free to broadcast whatever you want it's why we have ofcom.
Your right about the media up to a point.
But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!!"
So why aren't all those patriotic millionaires getting together to create a new left-leaning media channel? If you're right, they'd attract a massive audience that's desperate for such stuff, and they'd earn even more millions to donate to the running of the country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!!
So why aren't all those patriotic millionaires getting together to create a new left-leaning media channel? If you're right, they'd attract a massive audience that's desperate for such stuff, and they'd earn even more millions to donate to the running of the country."
That would be a clear conflict.
The purpose of the ultra wealthy sponsoring right wing media and politics is to make sure that people vote for and support political parties that represent the interests of said wealthy people. Not the interests of ordinary people, as per the left wing media and politics. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge.
Why is it a problem? People are free to write and/or broadcast whatever that want. Just like people are free to read whatever they want. If there was demand for more socialist media, someone would create it.
You could do that yourself with a few like minded people from here.
Your not actually free to broadcast whatever you want it's why we have ofcom.
Your right about the media up to a point.
But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!!"
So how are you immune to this pressure? Why have you not fallen for it and voted for Truss?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Part of the problem is that many political journalists don't seem that interested in notions of "truth".
They often ask questions that are designed to trip people up rather than to extract interesting information.
Another common thing is for a journalist to have decided what the story is in advance and then they just go hunting for a few snippets to support their preconception. Context can be ignored and anything said that doesn't fit the narrative simply isn't reported.
Not all journalism is like this but I imagine most professional politicians encounter this kind of sh*t so often that they play a counter game of either ignoring the question or answering it in such a vague way that it's meaningless.
So journalists should be limited on what questions they are allowed to ask politicians?
Is that not infringing of freedom of the press?
I agree that journalists often have an agenda tho. And a narrative they want to portray. But politicians can speak to The Guardian and the Daily Mail and everything in between. They are not limited to just those who might want to paint them in a bad light.
Lol.
If your from the left theirs hardly a plethora of friendly media
There’s a very good reason for that 😉
It's actually a major problem and feeding the reform bandwagon.
Ed Davey has 72 MPs yet does he get a Monday morning slot with Nick Ferrari or his own political program on an obscure news channel?
Does the leader of the Greens get a weekly slot on question time despite having the same amount of MPs?
The media are literally are actively campaigning for this racist bilge.
Why is it a problem? People are free to write and/or broadcast whatever that want. Just like people are free to read whatever they want. If there was demand for more socialist media, someone would create it.
You could do that yourself with a few like minded people from here.
Your not actually free to broadcast whatever you want it's why we have ofcom.
Your right about the media up to a point.
But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!!"
Nobody tells me who to vote for. And while there may well be some sheep who are easily swayed, you’ll find the majority of voters have more sense than you give them credit for. Just because you don’t agree with someone’s views, doesn’t make them stupid.
Do you want to broadcast hate speech then? Sorry, I assumed you’d wanna broadcast socialism, I had no idea your real agenda would violate ofcom regulations
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
.
But all politicians of all parties do this. When they don’t like the question they just don't answer it. It’s the exact opposite of accountability
"
I'm not sure why you are singling out just politicians, because all people do this. Everyone.
.
No one is in possession of all the answers. Which means the answers that can sometimes be given, whilst given with good intentions, may not turn out to be true later down the line.
.
That then gets "weaponised" against the giver, be they politician, work colleague, spouse, whoever.
.
Now conviction is a wonderful thing. I base my life on it. But I've been wrong in the past and due to my conviction the after effects have been painful and hard to bear.
.
Looking back, I sometimes feel conviction has brought me conflict.
.
So I can understand why someone with a lot more to lose than me might not want to give definitive answers.
.
Fundamentally, there is no such thing as a definitive answer, because everything is subject to change.
.
A policy is a temporary direction. An intent to head in a certain direction. It is neither immune or immutable from change.
.
With the volatility of life, giving answers must be exercised with extreme caution.
.
I don't hold it against any one who cannot give a straight answer. Because most of the time we are all fumbling around in the dark.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!!"
"So why aren't all those patriotic millionaires getting together to create a new left-leaning media channel? If you're right, they'd attract a massive audience that's desperate for such stuff, and they'd earn even more millions to donate to the running of the country."
"That would be a clear conflict.
The purpose of the ultra wealthy sponsoring right wing media and politics is to make sure that people vote for and support political parties that represent the interests of said wealthy people. Not the interests of ordinary people, as per the left wing media and politics."
But the Patriotic Millionaires, as the other bloke keeps telling us, are a pressure group of rich people asking for higher taxes on the rich. Surely they'd be prepared to give the people the left-leaning media that they believe is needed, so that this higher tax message can be spread far and wide. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
.
But all politicians of all parties do this. When they don’t like the question they just don't answer it. It’s the exact opposite of accountability
I'm not sure why you are singling out just politicians, because all people do this. Everyone.
.
No one is in possession of all the answers. Which means the answers that can sometimes be given, whilst given with good intentions, may not turn out to be true later down the line.
.
That then gets "weaponised" against the giver, be they politician, work colleague, spouse, whoever.
.
Now conviction is a wonderful thing. I base my life on it. But I've been wrong in the past and due to my conviction the after effects have been painful and hard to bear.
.
Looking back, I sometimes feel conviction has brought me conflict.
.
So I can understand why someone with a lot more to lose than me might not want to give definitive answers.
.
Fundamentally, there is no such thing as a definitive answer, because everything is subject to change.
.
A policy is a temporary direction. An intent to head in a certain direction. It is neither immune or immutable from change.
.
With the volatility of life, giving answers must be exercised with extreme caution.
.
I don't hold it against any one who cannot give a straight answer. Because most of the time we are all fumbling around in the dark.
"
Because this section of the forum is about politics, not breast feeding.
It’s ok to say you don’t know the answer to a question. It’s not a sign of weakness. Avoiding a question is a sign of weakness. But let’s take the Corbyn Brexit example, he knew what his own opinion was, he didn’t avoid the question because he didn’t know, he just didn’t want it on record because it wasn’t in line with his party policy. He’d been publicly against the EU for years, now he doesn’t wanna say? Just no respect for the public. Boris gave some equally vague answers building up to announcement of the referendum and then was suddenly in all out for leaving.
Starmer….. “can women have a penis”. He couldn’t even answer that.
Boris…. “Do you think it’s right that your team have been attending parties during lockdown”
I’m not aware…..
Bollocks, it you weren’t aware you’d say no. He just didn’t wanna set up the question asking what he was gonna do about it.
I’m actually quite shocked that so many people are happy for politicians to not answer questions. But hey ho, that’s what happens when you assume 😊 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
"
There should be a mechanism for this (suspension, say) if they (ministers, specifically) refuse to answer a simple question under questioning in parliament (only, and under specific conditions). For questions by journalists, the public, etc. they should be held accountable for outright lies, but not evading questions. At the end of the day they're accountable to the public during elections. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
There should be a mechanism for this (suspension, say) if they (ministers, specifically) refuse to answer a simple question under questioning in parliament (only, and under specific conditions). For questions by journalists, the public, etc. they should be held accountable for outright lies, but not evading questions. At the end of the day they're accountable to the public during elections."
Yes, I meant suspended rather than got rid of. Some form of sanction.
And yes they are accountable at elections, but when every single candidate from every single party is guilty of the same thing, the election process isn’t hold them accountable. You’re just swapping one culprit for another.
PM questions is a joke. The only questions they answer are from their own MPs. “Can the PM confirm how great his government is doing with regard to X”.
“I think the honourable member for his question and I’m happy to confirm that we are going brilliantly with X and will continue to do so”
Leader of the Opposition asks a question and the PM goes back to delivering his message…
“I thank the honourable member for their question but I think we’re doing brilliantly with X and when the party opposite were in powers they were shite”.
Thanks for the sound bite now answer the fucking question! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 3 days ago
Terra Firma |
"Should politicians be removed from office if they don’t answer questions?
There should be a mechanism for this (suspension, say) if they (ministers, specifically) refuse to answer a simple question under questioning in parliament (only, and under specific conditions). For questions by journalists, the public, etc. they should be held accountable for outright lies, but not evading questions. At the end of the day they're accountable to the public during elections.
Yes, I meant suspended rather than got rid of. Some form of sanction.
And yes they are accountable at elections, but when every single candidate from every single party is guilty of the same thing, the election process isn’t hold them accountable. You’re just swapping one culprit for another.
PM questions is a joke. The only questions they answer are from their own MPs. “Can the PM confirm how great his government is doing with regard to X”.
“I think the honourable member for his question and I’m happy to confirm that we are going brilliantly with X and will continue to do so”
Leader of the Opposition asks a question and the PM goes back to delivering his message…
“I thank the honourable member for their question but I think we’re doing brilliantly with X and when the party opposite were in powers they were shite”.
Thanks for the sound bite now answer the fucking question! "
“You want answers”
“I want the truth”
“You can’t handle the truth”
I think you would be very disappointed if MP's answered truthfully every question they were asked. There would be a lot erm's and um's, leading to a feeling that they haven't got their finger on the pulse.
If they were suspended for not answering a question, there would be an avalanche of questions every time the mic was put under their noses, in an attempt to get them suspended. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"But who owns the media? They buy influence for what gets broadcasted especially on the media rounds AND guess what those people do??? Tell you to vote against your best interests. Austerity, Brexit, Johnson, Truss all to protect their wealth!!
So why aren't all those patriotic millionaires getting together to create a new left-leaning media channel? If you're right, they'd attract a massive audience that's desperate for such stuff, and they'd earn even more millions to donate to the running of the country.
That would be a clear conflict.
The purpose of the ultra wealthy sponsoring right wing media and politics is to make sure that people vote for and support political parties that represent the interests of said wealthy people. Not the interests of ordinary people, as per the left wing media and politics.
But the Patriotic Millionaires, as the other bloke keeps telling us, are a pressure group of rich people asking for higher taxes on the rich. Surely they'd be prepared to give the people the left-leaning media that they believe is needed, so that this higher tax message can be spread far and wide."
I'll leave that for the other chap to answer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
A Few Good Men, brilliant film.
I get what you’re saying but I think that’s only because of the way we think about MPs and government ministers. The term “honourable member” says it all. But making a mistake, actually admitting to it and saying how you’re gonna fix it, is far more honourable than making a mistake and trying to cover it up or make it it hasn’t happened.
A minister makes a mistake and their resignation is called for. Why? Are they super human and should never make a mistake?
So he banged his work colleague. So what? He’s single. Was it consensual? So what’s he done “wrong”? Or her of course.
It seems we have this high standard of behaviour for ministers that we ourselves don’t live by a lot of the time. The Home Secretary was seen having a couple of glasses of wine with dinner the night before a cobra meeting. Big deal. So what? Who cares? The media now wants to make out they were pissed during the meeting.
Imagine your partner asks you what you want for dinner tonight and you answer “great question. What I feel is important is that we have a wide choice of meals available for this evening and I’ve insured that that happens by purchasing a variety of foods from a reputable supplier”
Great, so what do you want tonight? “Look, some foods take longer than others to prepare, I think the general public know this and for you to try and restrict certain foods to a limited time frame is not in the public interest”
Fucking crazy
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, you misunderstand me. It’s not that I don’t know why they do it. I know exactly why they do it. I just think it’s ignorant and arrogant, two qualities an MP doesn’t need.
I think politicians should be held to account and act in a professional manner. Not like spoilt little children.
I actually pay very little attention to what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. News interviews are ok for some comedy value."
If you understand why then surely you can also see that it's not going to change.
And if you pay very little attention to what politicians say, then why are you putting so much effort into complaining about what they say? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No, you misunderstand me. It’s not that I don’t know why they do it. I know exactly why they do it. I just think it’s ignorant and arrogant, two qualities an MP doesn’t need.
I think politicians should be held to account and act in a professional manner. Not like spoilt little children.
I actually pay very little attention to what politicians say, I judge them by what they do. News interviews are ok for some comedy value.
If you understand why then surely you can also see that it's not going to change.
And if you pay very little attention to what politicians say, then why are you putting so much effort into complaining about what they say?"
Typing on a phone and thinking require very little effort for me. I’m sorry for you if you find it draining. Has your doctor recommended anything?
And yes I know it’s not going to change because of a post in a fab forum. I don’t post to make a change, I posted for the fun of the discussion and to hear other people’s views. I find the world is a much better place when people are willing to listen to other people views. Not everyone agrees I know but that’s humanity I guess 🤷 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Typing on a phone and thinking require very little effort for me. I’m sorry for you if you find it draining. Has your doctor recommended anything?
And yes I know it’s not going to change because of a post in a fab forum. I don’t post to make a change, I posted for the fun of the discussion and to hear other people’s views. I find the world is a much better place when people are willing to listen to other people views. Not everyone agrees I know but that’s humanity I guess 🤷"
I wasn't suggesting that your writing could change anything.
I enjoy chatting about politics too. It's always interesting to get a glimpse into how other people think. Sadly it often turns to petty insults, but anyone who talks about politics online has a very thick skin. At least most of us.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Typing on a phone and thinking require very little effort for me. I’m sorry for you if you find it draining. Has your doctor recommended anything?
And yes I know it’s not going to change because of a post in a fab forum. I don’t post to make a change, I posted for the fun of the discussion and to hear other people’s views. I find the world is a much better place when people are willing to listen to other people views. Not everyone agrees I know but that’s humanity I guess 🤷
I wasn't suggesting that your writing could change anything.
I enjoy chatting about politics too. It's always interesting to get a glimpse into how other people think. Sadly it often turns to petty insults, but anyone who talks about politics online has a very thick skin. At least most of us.
"
I too have found some people on here make petty insults. I don’t think it’s the same people you come across tho. They veil it a guise of advice and suggestions to keep within the forum rules of course. What they don’t realise is to me that is the highlight of my day sometimes. Always gives me a smile and a chuckle.
A thick skin can be useful I agree. But the ability to see what people really mean is great too. As Spock famously said in The Wrath Of Kahn. “Sauce for the goose Mr Savic” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I too have found some people on here make petty insults. "
.
They do indeed. I noticed one earlier which said :
.
"Typing on a phone and thinking require very little effort for me. I’m sorry for you if you find it draining. Has your doctor recommended anything?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" I too have found some people on here make petty insults.
.
They do indeed. I noticed one earlier which said :
.
"Typing on a phone and thinking require very little effort for me. I’m sorry for you if you find it draining. Has your doctor recommended anything?""
🥱 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"See, a true Trekkie would know it was Mr Saavik.
A true Trekkie wouldn’t care about spellings.
You clearly haven't met many Trekkies (or Trekkers as they prefer to be called)."
I prefer to be called by my name. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Short answer no, but I would however question the capability of MP's who can't navigate their way out of questions meant to corner them. I would suggest they might want to stop media interviews until competent, the fear of losing the limelight should be enough to fix the issue. "
Disagree.
Just because someone holds high office in any sphere does not mean they are media savvy.
I think I would be inclined not to trust somebody is all media swagger and no substance.
But to be fair to politicians, some of the questions they are posed are just complete traps and are far more complex than a short sound bite answer.
But each to there own.
For me. Haven't got time for any of them, far too busy in my own sphere of work.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
