SMITH’S SOAPBOX: A lot of w*****s but no master debater A review of the last full week of General Election campaigning

What did I learn from Wednesday’s BBC debate?

That seven politicians can’t be trusted to sound convincing when they’re all talking over the top of each-other like schoolchildren after too many e-numbers.

Oh, and that the BBC is as biased as it has ever been.

If you think this is going to be a review of said debate I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place. How I can review something properly if I learned virtually nothing that I already knew about the people behind the lecterns? The only thing I learned is that Amber Rudd came out of it sounding more like a Prime Minister than anyone else has in this election. Along with UKIP’s Paul Nuttall, Rudd was the villain of yet another liberal elite pantomime in which the other party leaders virtue signalled in-front of a smorgasbord of morons who lapped it up like cats over a dish of milk (skimmed, in this instance, of course). Most of the audience seemed to be members of Momentum, the left-wing dink tank that backs-up Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of Labour. They applauded, cheered and whooped at the merest scratch of his beard. Heck, he could’ve held his hand under his armpit and ‘farted’ the bass-line from Daddy Cool and it would have brought the house down. It also helped the leftist cause that it was coming from Cambridge, one of the most ‘Remain’ areas of the UK. Chairwoman Mishal Husain had all the grip of a child’s handshake in regards to control of the show, and it descended into a cringeworthy carnival of nincompoopery. I would not have been surprised if they had become so feral that they would have resorted to flinging their s**t at each-other.

The winner? Well, I believe that Rudd and Nuttall spoke the most sense when they weren’t being heckled, but the real winner was probably Mrs May for not turning-up. The viewer at home was certainly not the winner, especially if they remembered that they are paying £145-a-year for the privilege of such abhorrent broadcasting.


Tiny Tim Farron has quite possibly cost his Liberal Democrats party the opportunity of making headway in this election. As an alternative for the democracy-deniers that are the Remoaners, the LibDems were on their way to making gains with such folk, but it seems that their leader has been their biggest drawback.

Mr Farron has been anything but clear on his views when it comes to homosexuality and abortion. Farron is a “committed Christian” and it’s fairly obvious that his views on the concept of homosexuality – let alone gay marriage – is something he is uncomfortable on. Being an agnostic with probably the most socially liberal views in the NMC ranks, I find this somewhat incredulous, but I am loathed to criticise Farron as his views are formed through his faith. However, when you are leader of the Liberal Democrats, how can you conform to such views? I don’t think Timmy has really thought this one through.

Taking that aside, he could be a really good politician? No. Oh God no, he isn’t that.

This week, it was Tiny Tim’s turn to take the chair and face the BBC’s toughest and fairest interviewer, Andrew Neil. Let’s just say, it did not go well. Like a man who stuffs a stock down his pants to hide his glowing penis envy, Farron attempted to play the big man against Neil, talking over him and making smart-aleck remarks as Neil attempted to ask him questions regarding his policies over a second referendum on the final Brexit deal, as well as their pathetic attempt to appeal to youngsters by pledging to legalise cannabis.


Last night brought a special edition of BBC’s Question Time. I normally avoid QT as it’s typical BBC fare of left-wing audience and a blustering, virtue-signalling panel who will say virtually anything for applause. But this was different, a debate between the Mrs May and the audience, who then questioned Mr Corbyn.

May faced tough questions from, would you believe it, a seemingly balanced audience! She handled the majority of them well and actually seemed more like a Prime Minister. Then it was Corbyn’s turn…

Starting well, Corbyn, it seemed, was going to make it a tough decision for those summing-up the programme as to who won. Then came the questions on Trident. The Labour manifesto, which Corbyn waved around like a 14-year-old boy waving around a copy of Razzle he’s shoplifted, has pledged to renew Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Corbyn, a pacifist, has always condemned such a thing. Stuttering and struggling through the questions, there is considerable probability that Corbyn won’t use Trident even if Britain are under attack. Given that defending the realm is an important part of being in Government, this could well have lost Labour the election.

This was how a British election debate should be conducted. In America, the debates work because there are two candidates putting their points across with an allotted time span. In Britain, the very fact that there are seven party representatives makes a mockery of the debate as they can’t be trusted to put their point across properly as everyone else is attempting to heckle them. Scrap it.


Jack Smith is New Media Central UK’s Associate Editor. Follow him on Twitter @MisterJackSmith