Piers Morgan with Lisa Nandy on Good Morning Britain

[musicposy]

He’s trying to push Lisa Nandy as to whether any man can self identify and compete in woman’s sports. He’s actually trying to talk some sense and saying it’s unfair to woman’s rights. Making really good points about trans rights overriding woman’s rights.
She will not give a straight answer to anything.

PM will also have an eye to the complaints against the BBC of one-sided wokeness, equal pay etc. Great opportunity to raise the viewing figures through being the voice of person on the street.

Piers Morgan v Rebecca Long Bailey would be an interesting watch. She's much more aggressive than Lisa Nandy, it'd probably end up in a fight

This ages me but I felt that the first time I watched Big Brother. And all the follow ones like Love Island which I have never watched. I don’t feel I am a particularly morally uptight person but I just cannot get comfortable with what’s on display there.

Piers is doing great work. I don’t care if he’s a knob.

I picked up in an article last week about Boris visiting the TV studio, that Boris wont go anywhere near Piers Morgan. (Personally as well as on screen.)

Nandy should have had more sense. Did she really think she was experienced enough and quick enough to get the better of him. Did she think he was going to be 'nice'.

If she did, she is daft.

Even if he was nice she’d still be wrong and unable to explain

I watched Piers on the America Trump version of the Apprentice. I loved watching him - he didn’t take any prisoners but he was also the sharpest one on there. There was a challenge to do with printers and he was the only one to see that the profit was in the ink cartridges. He wasn’t particularly good as the management aspect of it but very shrewd. I respected his ability to see through the chaff to the heart of an issue.

As for LN thinking he wasn’t being ‘nice’. If you can’t deal with PM adequately you have no business being leader of the opposition (or indeed government). You will need to deal with Merkel, Macron, Putin, Trump etc as PM and I don’t think they care about reactions on Twitter.

PM is goading her, she reacts to it and that is a huge mistake as she should be focused on the viewers not him.

He knows how the media works, she does not.

Piers Morgan is indeed a knob, and a prize one at that. But he is also the knob who took Page 3 girls out of the Daily Mirror and put in more actual news and less slebby goss. For all the good it did him.

He is also the knob who spoke out clearly in favour of gun control whilst working in the US.

He is not afraid to speak out when he feels something is important.

But still a knob: a quick witted, articulate knob. Perhaps Nandy misjudged him. Which says something about her.

I didn’t think he was goading her. He was trying to get her to engage with the issues which she won’t.

PM is goading her, she reacts to it and that is a huge mistake as she should be focused on the viewers not him.

He was asking a question on behalf of those viewers.

Yy it wasnt goading.

He wanted her to come out and say what shed been saying In simple terms.

She didnt. Because you cant without letting on that this is the inevitable result.

She was lulled into a false sense of security previously. Dealing with beardy woke bros or being able to patronize or ignore lesbians safe in the knowledge that men hate lesbians so whatever she say they wont care. She thought the sob stories and suicide stats and calls of abuse would see her through and enable her to ignore questions.

She was not prepared for direct line of questioning and an interviewer not interested in copy and paste email type responses. He brought it down to a yes or no question. And she was fucked from then on In

He's spotted that the gap between the political class and the public on this issue is massive, as they still haven't grasp the majority public opinion on the matter.

Yes, while Piers Morgan is a straightforward sexist in some ways, and an arrogant egotist, he's very, very good at his job, and the reason is because he has an instinct for the winds of public opinion and knows how to leverage it. His design in this will undoubtedly have himself and his career at the centre, but why should that matter?

I've got pissy about him being lauded in the past on here, as I have for most blokes who get a bit too much attention on a feminist forum, but ultimately, I don't own or control public discourse, and don't wish to, and he is entirely free to speak about whatever he wants, and I am going to be pleased when he uses his talents in ways that benefit a cause I am passionate about.

Agreed Floral.

The focus should be on Nandy's performance. PM only did what a successful professional interviewer can be expected to do. Understood the argument and asked a straight yes or no question, and then kept on pushing when he did not get a straight answer.

Nandy was seen as one of the brighter, less ideology-bound, candidates. Yet she is so wrapt up in this particular purity circle that she can't distinguish fact from belief. She seems to think that her various attempts to divert the questions, were in fact argument, and when she was not getting anywhere she resorted to insult and accusation.

There has been lots of analysis about why Labour lost the last election. Lord Ashcroft, ex-Tory party deputy chairman has carved out a particular niche in analysis of election results and policies, yet Nandy seems oblivious. I had a quick look on the Ashcroft website and noted he has undertaken a recent survey of voters who switched from Labour to Tory in the last election. His summary includes:

"But the feeling that the Labour Party was no longer for them went beyond Brexit and the Corbyn leadership. While it had once been true that “they knew us, because they were part of us,” Labour today seemed to be mostly for students, the unemployed, and middle-class radicals. It seemed not to understand ordinary working people, to disdain what they considered mainstream views and to disapprove of success. The “pie in the sky” manifesto of 2019 completed the picture of a party that had separated itself from the reality of their lives.

As far as many of these former supporters were concerned, then, the Labour Party they rejected could not be trusted with the public finances, looked down on people who disagreed with it, was too left-wing, failed to understand or even listen to the people it was supposed to represent, was incompetent, appallingly divided, had no coherent priorities, did not understand aspiration or where prosperity comes from, disapproved of their values and treated them like fools."

It seems to me that rather than an endless internal leadership recruitment programme, Labour leadership candidates need to get out more. Perhaps follow Rory Stewart's lead, and go an stay with people. Or at least start listening to some divergent voices, including WPUK rather than simply writing them off as haters.

I'm trying to work out why Nandy twisted PMs statement about grotesque unfairness into an accusation he had called trans people grotesque.
Watching her body language and resolute commitment to not answering with a straight yes or no, I suspect she was in the kind of stress state where you hear things in fragments. Morgan was very belligerent and she did seem more and more fragile as the dialogue went on. PMs use of 'grotesquely unfair' was relatively early on in the exchange, but when Nandy came back to it, towards the end, she had become visibly agitated and it came over that that was genuinely what she had heard from PM, even though it clearly wasn't what he said.

I mean, whatever the spur behind her choice of policy to campaign on, she clearly illustrated no ability to deal with the kind of situation a politician should be able to easily cope with, and gave a pathetic showing of herself.

Yes, Grotesque is a powerful adjective. My sense is that PM used it to sum up a vision of Anthony Joshua in the ring against, say, Nicola Adams. Which would be grotesque.

Presumably Nandy just picked up on it and thought in some way it was being applied more generally.

Yes, while Piers Morgan is a straightforward sexist in some ways, and an arrogant egotist, he's very, very good at his job, and the reason is because he has an instinct for the winds of public opinion and knows how to leverage it. His design in this will undoubtedly have himself and his career at the centre, but why should that matter?

It would be good if Morgan were encouraged to interview & platform women who know more about this than he does & have been campaigning against unfair policies which impact women's sport
Maybe interview Dr Emma Hilton?

Agreed, R0.

It should not just be PM carrying the baton. The BBC ought to be able to offer good, researched and questioning interviews, that properly probe any hypocrisy. That is their remit. It does Nandy et al no favours to fawn over them or allow them soft questions or to divert. Not least because when they do come across someone who is doing his/her job they end up looking like wallies.

Morgan also seems oblivious to the background to these sporting 'self-id' policies & would do well to understand the history of UK transactivism:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

The BBC ought to be able to offer good, researched and questioning interviews, that properly probe any hypocrisy. That is their remit. It does Nandy et al no favours to fawn over them or allow them soft questions or to divert.

The BBC should also be asking the same questions of representatives of the Conservative government given that so many 'sex self id' policies have been implemented whilst they have been in power.

There have been films and children's tv shows for years on the theme of "everyone should be accepted for who they are and live how they want". I'd go so far as to say it is the dominant theme on children's television.

Most young people now are also extremely ignorant about history, their perspectives are often informed mostly by film versions of events which usually have a strong narrative bias.

Obviously they should be prepared to question everyone. But they, more or less, have lost their critical faculties when it comes to this subject.

My point really is that PM is what he is. He knows what makes good television. He has identified that here is a subject where their is a large gap between politicians and voters, and is having fun exposing the humbug.

No point saying what PM should do. He does what he does.

The focus should be on politicians like Nandy who have no arguments. And then on why none of the more specialist broadcast interviewers are not addressing the subject with proper, balanced and researched interviews.