Timmy elsewhere

9 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. I just read the TI web landing page… Gordon Bennett; it’s the Brussels gravy train incarnate.

    As for Ms Murphy, young and passionate is good. Young, passionate and apparently leaning towards the belief that you own nothing the State doesn’t permit, is vile.

    Where did I hear that surname before?

  2. Maggie Wasshername deflected the question about her own organisation using offshore firms very well indeed.

  3. My initial reaction was to wonder who was more awake. At first it appeared to be a tie based on hair. As the segment went on I’d have to give the awake win to Ms Murphy.

    As to the message Tim wins. Ms Murphy’s response to her organisations involvement appeared to follow the script but her body language suggested that she is deeply troubled.

    I’ll now watch the rest. It’s always nice to have a non-American perspective.

  4. Tim,

    You won the economic and tax argument.

    Maggie won the PR argument on several fronts:

    enticing arguments and the old chestnut of health
    posture
    awake/alert
    clothes

    Tim,

    Sit up straight – no slouching
    Don’t look like you woke up seconds ago or are about to fall asleep
    Wear a tie
    Dress like a business man, not a college lecturer
    Buy a new pair of non 1950s NHS glasses or wear contacts

    HTH

    P

  5. Bloke in Germany in Catalonia

    To expand on Pcar, patronising your audience (first remarks) doesn’t go down well. I know it’s Al JaQaedaz, but consider it training for Newsnight. You both got a surprisingly long and fair shot, which won’t happen on most TV.

    Leave the arrogance to dinosaurs like Paxo. But thanks for a far more measured argument than is usually generated in these pages.

    To be taken in the spirit of constructive criticism. And yes, you do need a decent change of clothes (and a trip to the barber) for these things.

  6. ‘enticing arguments and the old chestnut of health’

    It’s a red herring. Or Red herring? When asked why it was important to make changes, her £ for NHS implies that lives will be saved if you change tax laws. The subject is tax avoidance/cheating, not NHS. I think she failed to produce a reason why it’s important.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *