Partly agree with this. It's definitely true that the 'gotcha' journalistic culture and the insistence on yes or no answers to complex questions is pretty toxic. But I did think Corbyn should have done better on this last night. Hard to believe they weren't preparing for what was quite obviously going to Johnson's main attack.
I think Labour's position is the correct one, and they should promote it better in the face of hostile demands for simple answers. Basically, Corbyn will be PM which ever way the referendum decides to resolve Brexit, and he wants to govern the whole country not just 48 or 52% of it (and really BJ is performing for far less that 52%, like the most Brexit-y of the leave voters).
But yeah just dodging the question and looking evasive was the wrong move and hard to understand really.
It's really striking how many posters on here would be the first to nostalgically hark back to past days of glory, the achievements of the past, great former generations etc. whilst simultaneously falling over themselves to tell us that in the present Nothing Can Be Done. Everything Is Impossible.
I mean, it's about providing the infra-structure for the fourth industrial revolution, laying the groundwork for the future economy. Like building the rail roads, or the motor-way system.
Honest prediction. The FT will come out for Labour at this election. The Tories have been playing politics on easy-mode for too long and it's made them complacent. British conservatism has just run out of ideas. They aren't offering anything. Labour have an actual vision for the country, and if you look past the terrible standard of news reporting on what parties are offering, it's not only credible but it's _exciting_ -- a vision for a better country that will be nice to live in. Imagine!
Extremely normal state broadcasting in an extremely normal country.
Whatever next? Imagine - gasp! - a publicly funded state broadcaster!
Edit. Of course, all this hyperbolic scare-reporting does is form an association in the minds of young people -- who have no Soviet Russia / cold-war point of reference -- between the word 'communism' and 'free internet'.
1. We are allowed to have nice things. 2. Compared to most advanced economies, this country currently has extremely poor broadband connectivity. This shouldn't be a radical proposal. 3. If this shifts the conversation to "well if we're going to have free broadband why don't we have free XYZ", I'm fine with that.