[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 80668)
Message
File  []
close
73603537[1].jpg
806688066880668
>> No. 80668 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 12:09 pm
80668 spacer
What an upset, also a pleasant surprise.

Perhaps the Lib Dems can make a comeback at the next election.
Expand all images.
>> No. 80673 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 4:46 pm
80673 spacer

39DB36D800000578-3886152-image-a-59_1477785131501.jpg
806738067380673
Does she remind anyone else of Cassie from skins?

As a member I'm cautiously optimistic but 2020 is a long way off if that is what you mean. What I'm wondering is what kind of electoral result we will be looking at in the result of a resurgence, its long been said that for the Lib Dems to replace labour you need to bear a Tory led coalition government given the split vote (2010 should have been this but then mistakes were made).

What kind of deal would Farron demand? Can Corbyn and friends fuck up enough to get the lifetime labour voters to tick a different box to avoid more Conservative rule?
>> No. 80674 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 4:53 pm
80674 spacer
>>80673

> Does she remind anyone else of Cassie from skins?

Not at all. Still would though.

I like how unapologetic she is. She's voting against Article 50, end of story.
>> No. 80675 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:00 pm
80675 spacer
>>80674

I kind of lost all respect for her after she got obliterated on the radio today, but rather than just close down the interview or say she had to go she stopped answering the questions and randomly got a campaign helper to say 'sorry she's busy she's got to do another interview'.

Probably the worst melt down I've seen in a while, she clearly isn't that good.
>> No. 80676 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:13 pm
80676 spacer
>>80675

Link, please.
>> No. 80677 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:16 pm
80677 spacer
>>80676
www dot soundcloud dot com/spectator1828/sarah-olney-lost-for-words-on-talk-radio
>> No. 80678 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:19 pm
80678 spacer
>>80676

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs

The last minute is when the real cringe starts because she literally just stops responding and then gets somebody else to make an excuse for her. Really bizarre.
>> No. 80679 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:21 pm
80679 spacer
>>80675
I'm not sure I would call it a meltdown. Her answer was that there should be some kind of democratic input on the terms of Brexit and when pressed by the interviewer on whether she had campaigned on that she didn't know what to say -which should be expected of someone whose been in politics for about 5 minutes.

Maybe the telegraph is cushioning it though:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/02/lib-dems-new-mp-sarah-olney-dragged-off-air-brexit-grilling/

In an ideal world I'd like to see an election with different parties presenting their vision of Britain's relationship to the EU. Maybe it wouldn't be good from the position of negotiations but it seems to me that the 2020 election will be decided on what is a fait accompli for Brexit otherwise.
>> No. 80680 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 5:25 pm
80680 spacer
>>80679

You are joking aren't you lad? She shouldn't have run to represent people and claimed to be able to fight for them if she isn't sure she knows what she believes in and what to say.

People like to pretend it isn't about how well you do the PR game but it is, because that's what effectively gets your campaigns for your constituents across.

Listen to the interview, even if it was unfair, it would be better to say she was pushed for time and was moving on from an obviously unhelpful interview.

Instead she literally stops talking and all you hear is the awkward wording of a random guy going 's-s-sorry she's got to go, she's got another one booked in.'

I work in communications and PR and just about ebverybody knows that when you book in a radio slot you agree a time frame and how long for.

It was an absolute fucking shambles. You have a duty to represent people and answer for yourself, don't get elected to Parliament if you think everybody is going to be clapping you on wishing you well constantly.
>> No. 80683 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:09 pm
80683 spacer
>>80680
>She shouldn't have run to represent people and claimed to be able to fight for them if she isn't sure she knows what she believes in and what to say.
That's called "being a politician". Not been paying attention this year, have you?
>> No. 80686 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 6:23 pm
80686 spacer
>>80683
As despicable and patently untrue as the likes of Trump and Saville have been, they would never just stop fighting their cause and walk out of an interview. That is next level pompousness, as if to say, I don't have to answer my critics.

It shows a certain level of unprofessionalism. If you were getting grilled at work by somebody and getting paid 75k a year, no matter how unfairly you perceived it, you wouldn't just walk out would you?
>> No. 80690 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 8:23 pm
80690 spacer
>>80686
>they would never just stop fighting their cause and walk out of an interview. That is next level pompousness, as if to say, I don't have to answer my critics.
So the answer is no, you haven't been paying attention this year. This has literally been Trump's MO. It's also something Cameron became notorious for in the latter part of his premiership.
>> No. 80691 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:00 pm
80691 spacer
>>80690

Politicians have been giving non-answers and changing the question for decades. They've just got more blatant about it in recent years.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dreugkgd62g
>> No. 80692 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:06 pm
80692 spacer
Did you make that image yourself OP? If so have a word with yourself.
>> No. 80694 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:25 pm
80694 spacer
>>80691
Quite. Here's Cameron bailing when he doesn't want to answer to criticism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7c-OMqBRZ8?start=84&end=127

Here's an account of Trump deciding not to answer his critics by only doing "friendly" media:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/19/media/donald-trump-fox-news-interviews-press-conferences/

This idea that politicians won't walk away from tough questions is nonsense.
>> No. 80695 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 9:44 pm
80695 spacer
>>80668

I wish she would.
>> No. 80701 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 10:55 pm
80701 spacer
>>80694
>Quite. Here's Cameron bailing when he doesn't want to answer to criticism:
Here's a more famous example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gz6mZYxS0A
>> No. 80702 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 11:06 pm
80702 spacer
>>80690
Yes, I have, you're just talking bollocks. None of them have fucked up like she did today walking out, if you can find one with the exception of Chukka, so somebody actually relevant, I'd be interested to know.
>> No. 80703 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 11:28 pm
80703 spacer
>>80702
And for the record, this doesn't mean, avoiding an interview, or shorting it, it means literally just stopping responding and having an aide step in for them.

Trying to pretend there's a difference is disingenuous or you might just be thick.
>> No. 80704 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 11:29 pm
80704 spacer
>>80702
You mean, apart from the ones already posted?
>> No. 80705 Anonymous
2nd December 2016
Friday 11:31 pm
80705 spacer
>>80704
see
>>80703

disingenuous lad strikes again!
>> No. 80706 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 12:07 am
80706 spacer
>>80703
While it won't meet your standards, this is pretty fun:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3Gd9yh4HsI

Love that STV kept in the moany spin doctor for broadcast. Get tae fuck.
>> No. 80707 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 12:22 am
80707 spacer
>>80706

Fair enough, that's quite a good one to be fair, and exactly meets the kind of standards I meant.

What a fucking nightmare, he holds it together slightly better than Sarah but it's still fucking disaster.

I'd love to see the rollocking that aide got and then Michael got on return to Cabinet.
>> No. 80708 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 1:28 am
80708 spacer
>>80707
It's appropriate that the example you approved of had the politician interviewed by a Scotsman, though one might suggest he was not true.
>> No. 80709 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 2:58 am
80709 spacer
>>80702
>with the exception of Chukka
If you mean the Sky News one, I just watched it. Does that really count as a "meltdown" or anything like that? They apparently invited him on to talk about one thing and then asked his opinion on an letter that he hadn't read on an unrelated topic. I think any politician (or anyone, really) would be pretty terse in that position, and it was the Sky newsman who ended the interview anyway.

I don't really keep up with politics, was a lot of noise made about this?
>> No. 80710 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 10:40 am
80710 spacer
>>80709

No, it doesn't at all count as a meltdown, which is why I specifically mentioned it, but I know lads on here sometimes are desperate to argue any point (like some lads are arguing that what she did wasn't that bad as if to say it's happened loads (it definitely hasn't)) so might have chosen to post it thinking that was the same level of blunder as the Olny interview, despite the fact Umuna handled it very well.

That's just my humble position as communications and PR person though and not a lot of noise was made of it. Sky News seem to have a penchant for hiring presenters that like to try a Paxman, but don't have the intellectual capacity.

Dawn Butler being absolutely astounded at how inept Kay Burley is is probably one of my favourite interviews of all time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fp_GoKhRT0
>> No. 80711 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 1:02 pm
80711 spacer
>>80710
But you work in PR and therefore your opinion on anything can be safely ignored.
>> No. 80712 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 1:18 pm
80712 spacer
>>80711

Ahh the classic, 'you work in this sector so you're all wankers and don't even do anything haha!!! All politicians are corrupt wankers too, did anybody else see that Facebook meme of how they only turn up to debate when it's about their pay but not about the nHS?!!?11?1?'
>> No. 80713 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 1:31 pm
80713 spacer
>>80711
Oh please lad, come on you can do better than that.
>> No. 80714 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 4:08 pm
80714 spacer
Aren't you all referring to the Talk Radio interview?
>> No. 80715 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 5:29 pm
80715 spacer
>>80712
>and don't even do anything haha!!!
I wish you didn't do anything. It's much more damaging to have someone actually do their job when it's something like PR, marketing, or procuring children's souls to power the fire generator in the deepest reaches of hell.
>> No. 80716 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 6:14 pm
80716 spacer
>>80715
tell 'em, Steve-Dave lad, if we weren't around putting a positive spin on things you'd all be complaining about how inept places really are.

It's not all insidious marketing tobacco as healthy, most of it is very tame and sometimes even good.
>> No. 80717 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 7:44 pm
80717 spacer
>>80716
>you'd all be complaining about how inept places really are.
Maybe they'd try to be less inept then.

Though I'll be fair, the spin-doctors and PR men aren't that bad. It's the marketers I want shot at dawn. (Because online advertising has created a huge market in personal data, threatening privacy to an unprecedented degree and i hold everyone in the industry who doesn't specifically act against this complicit in spreading it. But I digress.)

Jeremy Corbyn. Michael Howard. Dianne Abbot. Lib-Dem by-election lady. AlecSammin. Vladimir Putin. Politics.
>> No. 80718 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 7:45 pm
80718 spacer
>>80717

Marketing has so little to do with PR though. As in, actual marketing campaigns literally sit n a different team somewhere within the business.
>> No. 80719 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 7:57 pm
80719 spacer
>>80718
I know, I know. I still put them together in a broad category of "people who purposefully manipulate perceptions (generally) for a profit-motive in a manner which i (generally) find distasteful"*

*cooler name pending consultation with both PR and marketing departments.
>> No. 80735 Anonymous
3rd December 2016
Saturday 10:51 pm
80735 spacer
>>80717
>(Because online advertising has created a huge market in personal data, threatening privacy to an unprecedented degree and i hold everyone in the industry who doesn't specifically act against this complicit in spreading it. But I digress.)
I would happily participate in all this in exchange for an end to annoying fucking floating video ads and fucking margin capture.
>> No. 80738 Anonymous
4th December 2016
Sunday 1:32 am
80738 spacer
>>80735

uBlock Origin, ladm8.
>> No. 80739 Anonymous
4th December 2016
Sunday 2:11 am
80739 spacer
>>80738
Closing your eyes doesn't make the problem disappear, m8.
>> No. 82747 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 10:04 am
82747 spacer
How come she lost?
>> No. 82750 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 11:03 am
82750 spacer

Wallace_and_gromit.jpg
827508275082750
>>82747
It wouldn't be right to keep it going now that Peter Sallis has passed away.
>> No. 82756 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 12:13 pm
82756 spacer
45 votes. That's the constituency just over from mine. Now I wish I had delivered more leflets for them.
>> No. 82796 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 7:28 pm
82796 spacer
>>80668
She is loathsome though. Never kissed a LibDem.
>> No. 82810 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 10:06 pm
82810 spacer
>>80686
She's a she. If a woman is slighted in any manner, perceived or real, she'll block it from her reality. Why should it be different for female politicians?
>> No. 82811 Anonymous
9th June 2017
Friday 11:07 pm
82811 spacer
>>82810
Because they're not human.
>> No. 82843 Anonymous
10th June 2017
Saturday 5:47 pm
82843 spacer
>>80686
>If you were getting grilled at work by somebody and getting paid 75k a year, no matter how unfairly you perceived it, you wouldn't just walk out would you?

I'd fire them for insubordination.
>> No. 82847 Anonymous
10th June 2017
Saturday 7:34 pm
82847 spacer
>>80686
Corbs has done exactly the same to be honest.
>> No. 82867 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 12:45 pm
82867 spacer
>>82796
>Never kissed a LibDem.

Come on lad,
There's only one way to beat them
Get round the back


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqvxRVSLrcM
>> No. 82873 Anonymous
11th June 2017
Sunday 4:32 pm
82873 spacer
>>82867

Jesus wept. It's as if the lib dems don't want to be taken seriously.

Return ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password