Britain's Next Top Prime Minister - Labour Leadership Election 2020.

[Wes Tender]

A bit of heat and light was added to the borefest that is the Labour leadership election last night, when two of the candidates were interviewed on the Andrew Neil show last night. Both Starmer and Long-Bailey took a mauling from Neil, particularly the latter, whose credibility as a serious candidate is now in serious doubt. Starmer was accused of lacking charisma and did his best to perpetuate that image. He claimed that his own personal image was irrelevant, as he would appoint a team of capable ministers to work alongside him. But then anybody capable and with more charisma/personality would have stepped forward as a rival candidate. Certainly Starmer is intelligent and self-assured, but his credentials in terms of being white, London centric and with a knighthood, don't chime well with the leftie Momentum wing of the party. Neil correctly identified his problem, that he has to court the lefties in the party and then take it towards the centre if Labour is to be elected in the future, but the party doesn't want to elect a centrist leader. Nandy comes across as being reasonably bright and personable, but is otherwise a lightweight. Whoever is elected, it will probably take a decade or more for Labour to get their act together.

[Saint86]

Both of them are totally out of touch with everyday voters are are unfit to be prime minister

 

I would moan about having such a weak opposition, but society has created this state of affairs and allows to continue. Best hope the Tories actually a decent job as they are here to stay baring a seriously bad f.up.

[Tamesaint]

A bit of heat and light was added to the borefest that is the Labour leadership election last night, when two of the candidates were interviewed on the Andrew Neil show last night. Both Starmer and Long-Bailey took a mauling from Neil, particularly the latter, whose credibility as a serious candidate is now in serious doubt. Starmer was accused of lacking charisma and did his best to perpetuate that image. He claimed that his own personal image was irrelevant, as he would appoint a team of capable ministers to work alongside him. But then anybody capable and with more charisma/personality would have stepped forward as a rival candidate. Certainly Starmer is intelligent and self-assured, but his credentials in terms of being white, London centric and with a knighthood, don't chime well with the leftie Momentum wing of the party. Neil correctly identified his problem, that he has to court the lefties in the party and then take it towards the centre if Labour is to be elected in the future, but the party doesn't want to elect a centrist leader. Nandy comes across as being reasonably bright and personable, but is otherwise a lightweight. Whoever is elected, it will probably take a decade or more for Labour to get their act together.

 

If it is a borefest, why on earth are you following it ? Is your life really that empty??

[Jonnyboy]

Both of them are totally out of touch with everyday voters are are unfit to be prime minister

 

I would moan about having such a weak opposition, but society has created this state of affairs and allows to continue. Best hope the Tories actually a decent job as they are here to stay baring a seriously bad f.up.

 

At least they had the balls to actually be interviewed by Andrew Neil.

[Lord Duckhunter]

At least they had the balls to actually be interviewed by Andrew Neil.

 

As did Boris when he was stood for party leader.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tamesaint]

As did Boris when he was stood for party leader.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

So why not during the election? Was he scared of being judged by the full electorate rather than the Tory party gammon?

[Wes Tender]

If it is a borefest, why on earth are you following it ? Is your life really that empty??

 

In exactly the same way that you label my posts as boring, and yet will not put me on ignore. So I throw back the question to you about that; is your life really that empty?

 

Anyway, whereas the process of the Labour Party choosing their new leader is indeed an over lengthy and boring process, as I said, had you read it properly, the Neil interview added a bit of heat and light to it. In other words, I found the car crash interviews very entertaining.

[Lord Duckhunter]

So why not during the election? Was he scared of being judged by the full electorate rather than the Tory party gammon?

 

He was judged by the full electorate (as opposed to a tiny % that watch BBC 2) on Dec 12th. Their judgement was , 80 seat majority.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fan The Flames]

Boris will be a one term wonder, the cracks are appearing already.

[buctootim]

In exactly the same way that you label my posts as boring, and yet will not put me on ignore. So I throw back the question to you about that; is your life really that empty?

 

Anyway, whereas the process of the Labour Party choosing their new leader is indeed an over lengthy and boring process, as I said, had you read it properly, the Neil interview added a bit of heat and light to it. In other words, I found the car crash interviews very entertaining.

 

I agree Johnson is very personable and Starmer is pretty much charisma free. But in the long run its competency which counts.

 

Johnson was uniquely fortunate in the circumstances in which he got elected. His predecessor May was hopeless, his opposition in Corbyn and Swinson were hopeless and he (Johnson) had never been a minister before so could make huge claims without anyone examining his track record. That combination of factors wont arise again. In four years time the next election will be decided by reality of delivery (or not) rather than just promises. Starmer isnt perfect, but unless Johnson has a stellar term it will be enough to win - if indeed they both contest the election.

[sadoldgit]

The cracks were very apparent before the election but the Great British public obviously felt that if the USA could vote in someone completely unfit for office, then so could we.

[hypochondriac]

The cracks were very apparent before the election but the Great British public obviously felt that if the USA could vote in someone completely unfit for office, then so could we.

No they felt that corbyn was much worse and they were correct.

[Wes Tender]

I agree Johnson is very personable and Starmer is pretty much charisma free. But in the long run its competency which counts.

 

Johnson was uniquely fortunate in the circumstances in which he got elected. His predecessor May was hopeless, his opposition in Corbyn and Swinson were hopeless and he (Johnson) had never been a minister before so could make huge claims without anyone examining his track record. That combination of factors wont arise again. In four years time the next election will be decided by reality of delivery (or not) rather than just promises. Starmer isnt perfect, but unless Johnson has a stellar term it will be enough to win - if indeed they both contest the election.

 

Boris had never before been a Minister? Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seemed to recall him being Foreign Secretary from 2016 -2018 when he resigned over May's Brexit strategy. Anyway, the circumstances over Johnson's election victory with such a stonking majority wasn't only because of the complete uselessness of Corbyn and Swinson, it was also down to their parties' policies, particularly on Brexit. Had the girl Swinson not been so idiotic as to agree to a general election in the vain belief that she could be the next Prime Minister, we could still have been on the merry-go-round of the minority Tory government having policy dictated to them by the likes of Letwin, Benn and Bercow, headed towards a third referendum on our membership in a rigged referendum favouring remain, following a further WA extension after the 31st January no doubt.

 

Whether Labour stands a chance of beating Boris in over four and a half years time, depends not only on whether Boris has made a success of Brexit and the economy generally, but also on what sort of Labour Party Starmer as leader (if it is him) represents. At the moment, the party still believes that its policies ought to remain largely as they were under Corbyn. The three leadership candidates can't even bring themselves to blame the Marxist for their failure. Even if the delivery of policies and the aftermath of our leaving the EU isn't as smooth as it could be, if Labour puts out a manifesto as insanely left wing as the last one, it doesn't matter a jot whether Starmer has a complete personality transplant, he will not get elected as PM.

[buctootim]

I had forgotten about his stint as FM. Blotted it out from my memory perhaps, cringeworthy as it was.

 

The next Labour manifesto will be much more mainstream. Most members and unions know that's what is needed to get elected and also why Starmer rather than Long-Bailey is leading so clearly. The next election is very unlikely to be 4.5 years away.

Edited 6 March, 2020 by buctootim

[Wes Tender]

I had forgotten about his stint as FM. Blotted it out from my memory perhaps, cringeworthy as it was.

 

The next Labour manifesto will be much more mainstream. Most members and unions know that's what is needed to get elected and also why Starmer rather than Long-Bailey is leading so clearly. The next election is very unlikely to be 4.5 years away.

 

Not like you to overlook an event covering a span of a couple of years, Timmy. As you say, his tenure as Foreign Secretary wasn't exemplary, but it was one of the great offices of state, so difficult to make a case that Boris lacked experience as a minister.

 

The Labour Party membership probably has a majority of young idealistic, but incredibly naive momentum lefties, so any attempts to take the party back towards the centre where it might stand a chance of being elected, will probably be outvoted by them. As it will also be difficult to purge the party of them, the best bet is to have a more moderate Blairite party form, maybe in alliance with the Lib Dumbs.

 

Unless Boris decides to go to the country before December 2024, the FTPA sets that as the time of the next GE. With a stonking majority of 80, it really is up to him, barring exceptional circumstances. He might feel it expedient to pass legislation repealing the act, but at the moment he doesn't need to, as even under the terms of the act, the majority he has could enable him to call an election. As it stands, the probability is that the longest time to get past the 31st December and completely free of the EU, will suit him best, so why wouldn't he avail himself of as long a parliament as possible?

[sadoldgit]

I had forgotten about his stint as FM. Blotted it out from my memory perhaps, cringeworthy as it was.

 

The next Labour manifesto will be much more mainstream. Most members and unions know that's what is needed to get elected and also why Starmer rather than Long-Bailey is leading so clearly. The next election is very unlikely to be 4.5 years away.

 

Surely you recall his monumental cock up over the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case?

[Tamesaint]

He was judged by the full electorate (as opposed to a tiny % that watch BBC 2) on Dec 12th. Their judgement was , 80 seat majority.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So why was he so scared of facing Neil during the election?

[hypochondriac]

So why was he so scared of facing Neil during the election?

Because he sae that Neil is pretty skilled at destroying the person opposite him and calculated- rightly as it happens- that there was no reason for him to do the jnterview as it would not improve his chances of getting elected.

[Tamesaint]

Because he sae that Neil is pretty skilled at destroying the person opposite him and calculated- rightly as it happens- that there was no reason for him to do the jnterview as it would not improve his chances of getting elected.

 

Or in other words, as Jonnyboy said, Johnson didnt have the balls to face Neil.

[buctootim]

Surely you recall his monumental cock up over the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case?

 

I do. Momentary blob on a football forum

[buctootim]

Because he sae that Neil is pretty skilled at destroying the person opposite him and calculated- rightly as it happens- that there was no reason for him to do the jnterview as it would not improve his chances of getting elected.

 

Exactly. A politician standing election decided he wasn’t going to let the electorate see him flounder. Being accountable to the electorate is a corner stone of democracy. It’s not about what Johnson wants. It’s about being prepared to subject yourself to scrutiny

[Lord Duckhunter]

Exactly. A politician standing election decided he wasn’t going to let the electorate see him flounder. Being accountable to the electorate is a corner stone of democracy. It’s not about what Johnson wants. It’s about being prepared to subject yourself to scrutiny

 

He did plenty of interviews. Andrew Neil doesn’t have a god given right to interview potential PM’s. I don’t know who on earth the BBC think they are. Tony Blair & little Johnny Major refused TV debates, bet you didn’t cry about that. The electorate decided they couldn’t give a shiny Shiite whether he got interviewed by Andrew Neil or not. Ultimately, they’re the judge of whether someone is fit to be PM, not the BBC.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[buctootim]

He did plenty of interviews. Andrew Neil doesn’t have a god given right to interview potential PM’s. I don’t know who on earth the BBC think they are. Tony Blair & little Johnny Major refused TV debates, bet you didn’t cry about that. The electorate decided they couldn’t give a shiny Shiite whether he got interviewed by Andrew Neil or not. Ultimately, they’re the judge of whether someone is fit to be PM

 

Haha fanboy. I love that Boris. He is so dominant

[shurlock]

LD, the ultimate easy touch, is showing his true colours today. His softarsed excuses for boris the bottlejob would be hilarious if they weren’t so pitiful.

Edited 6 March, 2020 by shurlock

[hypochondriac]

Exactly. A politician standing election decided he wasn’t going to let the electorate see him flounder. Being accountable to the electorate is a corner stone of democracy. It’s not about what Johnson wants. It’s about being prepared to subject yourself to scrutiny

But clearly he made the call that most of the electorate weren't bothered if he did the Neil interview or not. He was right wasn't he? Maybe the others were wrong to do it. It's not like he didn't do other ones. I think he should have done it by the way, I can just see why he would have some justification for not doing it.

[Tamesaint]

But clearly he made the call that most of the electorate weren't bothered if he did the Neil interview or not. He was right wasn't he? Maybe the others were wrong to do it. It's not like he didn't do other ones. I think he should have done it by the way, I can just see why he would have some justification for not doing it.

 

Johnson and this government don't like being questioned. Johnson avoided "difficult" interviewers like Neil and the Radio 4 Today team during the election and have continued this trend when in Government.

 

Duckie and others of his ilk are quite happy about this. I fear for democracy when politicians refuse to open themselves up to scrutiny.

[shurlock]

But clearly he made the call that most of the electorate weren't bothered if he did the Neil interview or not. He was right wasn't he? Maybe the others were wrong to do it. It's not like he didn't do other ones. I think he should have done it by the way, I can just see why he would have some justification for not doing it.

 

Lots of people don’t do things because they fear they’ll get exposed and so calculate that the downside of pulling out or not seeing them through is far less than the costs of getting exposed. That calculation may be perfectly rational but it doesn’t make it any less of an act of cowardice.

Edited 6 March, 2020 by shurlock

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Duckie and others of his ilk are quite happy about this. I fear for democracy when politicians refuse to open themselves up to scrutiny.

 

 

What a load of pony. I don’t recall you fearing for democracy when Corbyn & remoaners we’re voting against an election.

 

Loving the losers on this thread.

 

#80seats

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

Lots of people don’t do things because they fear they’ll get exposed and so calculate that the downside of pulling out or not seeing them through is far less than the costs of getting exposed. That calculation may be perfectly rational but it doesn’t make it any less of an act of cowardice.

The aim was to win the election. You may consider it cowardice but its clear that the electorate didn't care about it so from a getting elected standpoint- which was the point of the exercise- it was the right call. I mean otherwise you're in corbyn territory where you supposedly won the argument but got trounced. History will record who won the election, not who got interviewed by Andrew Neil before the election.

[shurlock]

And to think the usual suspects would have been creaming their pants if an opposition leader had pulled a similar stunt (regardless of the result)

[Lord Duckhunter]

The aim was to win the election. You may consider it cowardice but its clear that the electorate didn't care about it so from a getting elected standpoint- which was the point of the exercise- it was the right call. I mean otherwise you're in corbyn territory where you supposedly won the argument but got trounced. History will record who won the election, not who got interviewed by Andrew Neil before the election.

 

Exactly.

 

You would have thought getting constantly routed in elections should have taught the usual suspects on here a bit of humility. But no, the they still think they’re superior to the ordinary joes.

 

Boris playing a blinder, drained the Tory swamp, thrashed the remoaners and won the support of England......

 

Nobody except a few bitter losers on here care whether Wiggy interviewed him.

 

#80seats

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[shurlock]

The aim was to win the election. You may consider it cowardice but its clear that the electorate didn't care about it so from a getting elected standpoint- which was the point of the exercise- it was the right call. I mean otherwise you're in corbyn territory where you supposedly won the argument but got trounced. History will record who won the election, not who got interviewed by Andrew Neil before the election.

 

Nobody except rabid Corbynistas thought Labour won the argument but crack on with your laughable analogy. Unless you believe it too.

Edited 6 March, 2020 by shurlock

[hypochondriac]

And to think the usual suspects would have been creaming their pants if an opposition leader had pulled a similar stunt (regardless of the result) [emoji38]

Did you read the bit where I said he should have done the interview? I criticised him at the time for not doing it but it's undeniable that his strategy paid off. Edited 6 March, 2020 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

Nobody except rabid Corbynistas thought Labour won the argument but crack on with your laughable analogy. Unless you believe it too.

Corbyn believed it which was my point. Corbyn's strategy was to "win the argument" even if that cost him the election whereas Boris' strategy was to win the election. In that respect you could argue that both of them succeeded in their aims- plenty of Corbynistas had little interest in actually winning. Boris won the election and proved that his Andrew Neil snub at worst had very little impact and may have actually been beneficial to his chances. Edited 6 March, 2020 by hypochondriac

[shurlock]

Did you read the bit where I said he should have done the interview? I criticised him at the time for not doing it but it's undeniable that his strategy paid off.

 

So what if a strategy paid off?

 

You don’t think that proper scrutiny of those who govern us has intrinsic or independent value beyond what politicians can get away at the ballot box? Presumably, it doesn’t matter if politicians of whatever party lie or dissemble as long as it helps them win votes either? The ends justify the means?

 

Thank f**k I don’t share those values. I’m not saying you necessarily share them either (LD clearly does). But retreating behind “the aim was to win the election” or “the strategy paid off” -as if these were neutral acts- risks conveying that impression and is a very slippery slope.

[Tamesaint]

What a load of pony. I don’t recall you fearing for democracy when Corbyn & remoaners we’re voting against an election.

 

Loving the losers on this thread.

 

#80seats

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Now that is a load of pony.

 

We will just have to agree to disagree. I would suggest though that you mug up on the British constitution.

[hypochondriac]

So what if a strategy paid off?

 

You don’t think that proper scrutiny of those who govern us has intrinsic or independent value beyond what politicians can get away at the ballot box? Presumably, it doesn’t matter if politicians of whatever party lie or dissemble as long as it helps them win votes either? The ends justify the means?

 

Thank f**k I don’t share those values. I’m not saying you necessarily share them either (LD clearly does). But retreating behind “the aim was to win the election” or “the strategy paid off” -as if these were neutral acts- risks conveying that impression and is a very slippery slope.

 

I think you're wildly exaggerating if you reckon that not doing an interview with Andrew Neil amounts to not being properly scrutinised, particularly because there was loads of media he did do during the campaign. Let's be honest, with all the main leaders it was mostly an excuse to watch them be eviscerated for a laugh and to watch them squirm. I wanted corbyn to do the interview because it was funny and because he got destroyed but if he hadn't gone on I would have understood, it's not exactly a helpful think for a politician to do imo and maybe adversarial grilling with a presenter is more of a thing of the past.

 

I've seen Boris and his comments be scrutinised to death, people keep bringing up the letterbox comment out of context or other quotes from decades past ffs. Dawn Butler brought it up again even this week and still is throwing around silly words like racist.

[Wes Tender]

Three months on from the General Election and all the usual remoaners bleating about how unfair it all was. It really is pathetic. It's done and there is nothing you can do to change it. Accept the result of the referendum and the general election, accept that we have finally left the EU and move on to discussing our trade prospects for the future during this period of negotiations with the EU and other nations.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I see Labour has suspended Trevor Philips for daring to criticise Muslims 4 years ago. I’m sure it’s got absolutely nothing to do with Philips saying he couldn’t vote for labour because of antisemitism in the party, they’ve just taken 4 years to notice his comments.

 

I wonder what Sir Kier Starmer will make of that, seeing as he’s philips local MP. I’m sure it’ll be a load of waffle & pony.

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[sadoldgit]

No mention of the 300 outstanding cases of alleged Islamophobia by the Tory party then Duckie?

[sadoldgit]

What a load of pony. I don’t recall you fearing for democracy when Corbyn & remoaners we’re voting against an election.

 

Loving the losers on this thread.

 

#80seats

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

They voted against an election at that time because the democratically elected MPs thought it best for the people they serve. Sounds like democracy to me. Unlike Boris’s definition which seems to be vote for me and I will look after my mates but stuff the rest of you.

[Lord Duckhunter]

No mention of the 300 outstanding cases of alleged Islamophobia by the Tory party then Duckie?

 

Here he comes again. Head in the sand as per normal. A prominent anti racism campaigner suspended by the party on flimsy grounds, nothing to see here what about The Tories. Supporters like you are the reason they’ll face years out of power. You just don’t get it....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Wes Tender]

They voted against an election at that time because the democratically elected MPs thought it best for the people they serve. Sounds like democracy to me. Unlike Boris’s definition which seems to be vote for me and I will look after my mates but stuff the rest of you.

 

And those same democratically elected MPs found that many of them were in the dole queue looking for new jobs post the election. Sounds like democracy to me. #80seats

[Wes Tender]

You're an apologist for the Guardian, Soggy. What do you think about this awful cartoon they have of Priti Patel that is being widely condemned? Will you be condemning it too? Had something similar appeared in the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express featuring Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler for example, I could imagine the outrage and bile that would ensue in the Guardian about the racist Tory press and how they had sunk down into the gutter. What hypocrites they are. In fact what hypocrites the left are generally. Well done them with their nasty campaign against the current Home Secretary and the no platforming of her predecessor by Oxford University students who can' bear there to be free speech debates when they don't like the politics of the speaker, the poor idiotic snowflake lefties.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You're an apologist for the Guardian, Soggy. What do you think about this awful cartoon they have of Priti Patel that is being widely condemned? Will you be condemning it too? Had something similar appeared in the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express featuring Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler for example, I could imagine the outrage and bile that would ensue in the Guardian about the racist Tory press and how they had sunk down into the gutter. What hypocrites they are. In fact what hypocrites the left are generally. Well done them with their nasty campaign against the current Home Secretary and the no platforming of her predecessor by Oxford University students who can' bear there to be free speech debates when they don't like the politics of the speaker, the poor idiotic snowflake lefties.

 

He’s reply will mention Tommy Robinson (not his real name), Katie Hopkins, letterboxes, 300 Tories and probably Warsi as well.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

Here he comes again. Head in the sand as per normal. A prominent anti racism campaigner suspended by the party on flimsy grounds, nothing to see here what about The Tories. Supporters like you are the reason they’ll face years out of power. You just don’t get it....

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

He’s got a point

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51756463

[Fan The Flames]

You're an apologist for the Guardian, Soggy. What do you think about this awful cartoon they have of Priti Patel that is being widely condemned? Will you be condemning it too? Had something similar appeared in the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express featuring Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler for example, I could imagine the outrage and bile that would ensue in the Guardian about the racist Tory press and how they had sunk down into the gutter. What hypocrites they are. In fact what hypocrites the left are generally. Well done them with their nasty campaign against the current Home Secretary and the no platforming of her predecessor by Oxford University students who can' bear there to be free speech debates when they don't like the politics of the speaker, the poor idiotic snowflake lefties.

 

So lets play your little 'what if' game, what if something similar appeared in the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express featuring Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler for example, would this end up with you condemning it on here. No of course not and I love the way you claim the campaign against PP is because of her race, but wouldn't stand for this argument if it was against Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler. Maybe the Guardian should sign up to the Free Speech Union. Hypocrite.

[Jonnyboy]

You're an apologist for the Guardian, Soggy. What do you think about this awful cartoon they have of Priti Patel that is being widely condemned? Will you be condemning it too? Had something similar appeared in the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express featuring Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler for example, I could imagine the outrage and bile that would ensue in the Guardian about the racist Tory press and how they had sunk down into the gutter. What hypocrites they are. In fact what hypocrites the left are generally. Well done them with their nasty campaign against the current Home Secretary and the no platforming of her predecessor by Oxford University students who can' bear there to be free speech debates when they don't like the politics of the speaker, the poor idiotic snowflake lefties.

 

Free speech doesn't mean you get to have a platform to say it where ever you want. If the Oxford students don't want someone you can't force your silly Tory views on them.

[Wes Tender]

So lets play your little 'what if' game, what if something similar appeared in the Daily Mail/Telegraph/Express featuring Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler for example, would this end up with you condemning it on here. No of course not and I love the way you claim the campaign against PP is because of her race, but wouldn't stand for this argument if it was against Diane Abbott or Dawn Butler. Maybe the Guardian should sign up to the Free Speech Union. Hypocrite.

I think that you've missed the point somewhat. Where did I say that the attack on Patel was racist? I didn't. I stated an opinion that had a similar attack happened to Abbott or Butler in the Tory press, then the Guardian and leftie press would label it as a racist attack and that the depths of the gutter were being plumbed. My point being that it is the leftie media that are usually the ones more prone to label any criticism of Labour's politicians of colour as being racially motivated, whether the criticism is justified or not.

[Wes Tender]

Free speech doesn't mean you get to have a platform to say it where ever you want. If the Oxford students don't want someone you can't force your silly Tory views on them.

 

The poor little snowflake darlings. We can't hurt their feelings by having somebody speak at their university with whom they disagree, can we? Did Rudd invite herself? No, she was invited, and presumably many wished to hear her speak, many no doubt to challenge her political views in a debate; you know, the sort of intellectual exercise that Oxford is renowned for. Instead, the university's reputation has taken a bad knock as being a hotbed of lefties, intolerant of the views of others. You don't appear to understand the purpose of debate. It's not to force views upon an audience. It is to persuade by argument, the protagonists having to be subjected themselves to rival opinions in return.