[arista]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arty-line.html
video on link

Well done Dermot
doing better than the soft Bloated BBC


Yes Labour needs their Party Line, sure he did not know the letter
but he could come back after reading it.
you got him by his balls


Utter Bliss

[Kizzy]

He was set up there with questions on a topic he was not advised about. It's not right if they have an interview set up for one issue then the hijack him into another, he's right to be angry.
What a sensitive and delicate issue to be sprung on him too, what do they want some garbled half assed rhetoric or a pack of lies?... best stick to the coalition for that they're the experts.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

He was set up there with questions on a topic he was not advised about. It's not right if they have an interview set up for one issue then the hijack him into another, he's right to be angry.
What a sensitive and delicate issue to be sprung on him too, what do they want some garbled half assed rhetoric or a pack of lies?... best stick to the coalition for that they're the experts.

Yes Also he is Young
and has a Bad Temper


Other MP's would be able to get
something Sprung on them
and give on the Spot answers
Its Bloody normal Kizzy
they are MP's not something
you to be gentle with.


Typical Labour only the Party Line

[Kizzy]

Don't swear at me please...

It's too important a subject to just spout of the top of your head about, is there something wrong with a considered opinion?

He was railroaded on a topic that was not up for discussion, that is not what newsreaders are meant to do surely?
Yes he could have mumbled some rubbish, instead he voiced his surprise at what was clearly an ambush.

[Toy Soldier]

To be fair, he could have just repeatedly and calmly stated that it was not the topic on the agenda and that it would be inappropriate to comment at that time, even stating that he would be happy to come and discuss that issue if that was what he had been asked to do in the first place. I don't think storming off is ever the answer.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Don't swear at me please...

It's too important a subject to just spout of the top of your head about, is there something wrong with a considered opinion?

He was railroaded on a topic that was not up for discussion, that is not what newsreaders are meant to do surely?
Yes he could have mumbled some rubbish, instead he voiced his surprise at what was clearly an ambush.

I was not at You
its just I am sick of some Labour MP's

He should have said yes
I will return in the 30mins after I have read it
it was so simple
no need to act like a child

[arista]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

To be fair, he could have just repeatedly and calmly stated that it was not the topic on the agenda and that it would be inappropriate to comment at that time, even stating that he would be happy to come and discuss that issue if that was what he had been asked to do in the first place. I don't think storming off is ever the answer.

Yes another safer option

[Livia]

Dermot was right, he obviously has no opinion of his own outside the party line. And how comes he hasn't read the letter? Everyone else has bloody read it. It's been the number one story all day and he has no opinion? What a fool...

[joeysteele]

I like Chukka Ummunah but I agree with Livia it is all that has been talked about all day.
It is also an issue that is more likely to blow up in the Conservative party's face really.

However I do have some sympathy for MPs,whether they be Conservative,Labour or any other party when they are in a specialist role and dept. as spokesmen/women on that subject.

I am for instance sick of seeing Conservative MPs being badgered about the benefit chaos and reforms and Ian Duncan Smith rarely ever asked about them at all and their devastating effects on the most vulnerable.

I do think interviewers do 'hijack' MPs and throw in questions not related to what was suggested for the orinignal interview.
However it was extraordinary of Chukka to walk off, although I fear I would be walking off most of the time if I was an MP and having to put up with the terrible format of interviewing that is now going on with MPs from all the Parties.

Overall I don't think this will have done Chukka any real damage,I doubt that many voters even bother to take notice of these interviews anyway, since the interviewers rarely ever ask the questions voters really want answers to.

Chukka is the business shadow Minister, that is what he should be quizzed on, just as Vince Cable should be in the main, the one dealing that brief for the govt.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

Dermot was right, he obviously has no opinion of his own outside the party line. And how comes he hasn't read the letter? Everyone else has bloody read it. It's been the number one story all day and he has no opinion? What a fool...

I agree

[Kizzy]

What is this party line... it's said as if a bad thing?
Maybe he was getting informed on the topic to be discussed, in order to give educated answers to the questions he was expecting?

Maybe conservatives don't tow their party line enough that's why they defect.

Whether he had or had not read the letter it was best not to get drawn into something he was ill prepared to answer.
How come when boris tells interviewers and members of committees to eff off or shut up its ok?...no fair.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

What is this party line... it's said as if a bad thing?
Maybe he was getting informed on the topic to be discussed, in order to give educated answers to the questions he was expecting?

Maybe conservatives don't tow their party line enough that's why they defect.

Whether he had or had not read the letter it was best not to get drawn into something he was ill prepared to answer.
How come when boris tells interviewers and members of committees to eff off or shut up its ok?...no fair.

Its Stinks
and sometimes they forget it
so Labour MP D.Abbot sacked from the Front bench

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

Dermot was right, he obviously has no opinion of his own outside the party line. And how comes he hasn't read the letter? Everyone else has bloody read it. It's been the number one story all day and he has no opinion? What a fool...

And 'fool' is the correct descriptor.

A letter by a politician to the Muslim communities of the UK on Terrorism, and this 'MP' has not read it.

Every MP' should avail themselves of any new information which is guaranteed to spark political controversy, just as soon as they are made aware of it, because 'knowledge' is power, and 'ignorance' is unforgivable in politics.

No one 'set a trap', Dermot was indeed 'correct' in doing his job and exposing this chump for the 'shallow Hal' he is.

[empire]

labour stopped supporting the working class when blair walked in that party, lab-con-lib dem, are all in the same bag, but under a different party name, anyone thinks that those parties can do better with are country, are living on another planet, those guys would not know what the price of milk and bread is, if anyone in the uk voted for them, they should sing, tomorrow belongs to me cabaret, for all the trouble it is,

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

And 'fool' is the correct descriptor.

A letter by a politician to the Muslim communities of the UK on Terrorism, and this 'MP' has not read it.

Every MP' should avail themselves of any new information which is guaranteed to spark political controversy, just as soon as they are made aware of it, because 'knowledge' is power, and 'ignorance' is unforgivable in politics.

No one 'set a trap', Dermot was indeed 'correct' in doing his job and exposing this chump for the 'shallow Hal' he is.

Of course he's read it... you'd have to be a fool to believe he hadn't.
That's not to say he should freely comment on it when questioned in such a flippant manner, important issues require serious discussion, that's what politicians do.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Of course he's read it... you'd have to be a fool to believe he hadn't.
That's not to say he should freely comment on it when questioned in such a flippant manner, important issues require serious discussion, that's what politicians do.

What? Like as in 'Prime Minister's Question Time' in the Commons? I have never seen such juvenile behaviour.

Or perhaps you mean when squirming and side-stepping every serious question put to them during serious interviews by respected political journalists?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

What? Like as in 'Prime Minister's Question Time' in the Commons? I have never seen such juvenile behaviour.

Or perhaps you mean when squirming and side-stepping every serious question put to them during serious interviews by respected political journalists?

Well they are the people deciding the future of the country so it's best to have a little faith.
I respect someone more that isn't drawn into debates they are not educated on, especially by sky journalists tbh.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Of course he's read it... you'd have to be a fool to believe he hadn't.
That's not to say he should freely comment on it when questioned in such a flippant manner, important issues require serious discussion, that's what politicians do.

I agree, as I said earlier too, I am sick of journalists and interviewers asking MPs the same questions and often outside their brief too.

If an MP doesn't want to,as Chukka didn't on that letter then why waste time going on about it,rather than asking him something related to business matters that likely the public would be more interested in.

I agree with kirklancaster too as PMQs,it was always rather tedious but under David Cameron it is just a total farce, a massive blight on politics rather than a recommendation for politics.
It is PMQs. which means the PM answers questions,he doesn't ask them,I have yet to hear David Cameron ever answer a question directly.
Awful,I get embarrassed watching it now.

Sadly, we also now have a 5 month election campaign,so interviewers and journalists will be asking even more stupid questions of MPs rather than on the issues the public really want to hear about.
MPs of all parties are going to need to be on their guard even more when being interviewed such as in this one.

For me Dermot should have left it and not pressed the issue, If he had been interviewing me,I wouldn't have walked off like Chukka did, I would have sat arms folded and said, 'I was prepared to discuss any matter as to policies but if he continued on that line as to the letter, then no interview was going to take place'.
Leaving it to Demot to end the interview or ask relevant questions.

I as a viewer and voter am really fed up with the 'personal' agendas flowing from journalists and interviewers as to MPs of all parties and in the end it means the public and voters learn very little and in this case nothing at all, due to this interviewers line of 'fixed' questioning.

[the truth]

delighted chukka has been exposed as the awful person he is

[Nedusa]

I think both men were at fault on this, the interviewer was brash and forceful in his questioning of Chukka and seemed to interrupt him with single word exclamations. He also continually questioned Chukka on a topic that was not covered in his brief.

Now we might think that's a good idea but in today's sound bite world if a politician does comment on a news program like this his words could easily be taken out of context, so he really needs to have done his homework before commenting otherwise he could unwittingly cause a major row.

But I think Chukka is at fault by storming off the interview in the manner he did. He should have politely but firmly declined to comment and left it at that.




.

[joeysteele]

[QUOTE=Nedusa;7513935]I think both men were at fault on this, the interviewer was brash and forceful in his questioning of Chukka and seemed to interrupt him with single word exclamations. He also continually questioned Chukka on a topic that was not covered in his brief.

Now we might think that's a good idea but in today's sound bite world if a politician does comment on a news program like this his words could easily be taken out of context, so he really needs to have done his homework before commenting otherwise he could unwittingly cause a major row.

But I think Chukka is at fault by storming off the interview in the manner he did. He should have politely but firmly declined to comment and left it at that.




I totally agree with you on that paragraph particularly Nedusa,it is ridiculous that every word has to be watched in case it is blown up out of all proportion.

Also Chukka Ummunah is not the first MP to walk out of an interview, it has gone on for decades with MPs from all parties,from Denis Healey to Michael Heseltine.
So I would expect,if interviewers keep following these rigid and at times meaningless lines of questioning,many more will also do do in the future.



.

[Kizzy]

I agree totally with that, if he had simply refused and remained it could have beem spun that Labour have nothing to say and they are in agreement with the document... If he had answered his comments would have been dissected too ..lose, lose.
Best to remove yourself from any discussion where there are leading and loaded questions.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

I agree totally with that, if he had simply refused and remained it could have beem spun that Labour have nothing to say and they are in agreement with the document... If he had answered his comments would have been dissected too ..lose, lose.
Best to remove yourself from any discussion where there are leading and loaded questions.

Definitely Kizzy, that would be my advice to all MPs from all parties.