POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

I don't draw any distinction Sue. All wanton destruction and murder is evil.
I can't help remembering that when Blair threw our lot in with Bush in Iraq he was asked whether our participation would render us more or less likely to domestic attack and he stated definitely that one of the objects of the actions in Iraq was to make this less likely..... It's as well to remember these things.

[plaques]

Examine the Tory manifesto and you will see typical manoeuvrings that are purposely designed to set one group against another. The most blatant example is the removal of the Triple Lock on pensioners. Not only is the future cost reckoned to be prohibitive because old people are living longer, a typical black hole argument, but is said to impose an undue burden on young people who will be paying extra taxes all their lives. This of course is the picture they would like us to see. They have now created an ‘old’ verses ‘young’ divide which in their eyes can only be resolved by cutting the living standard of the old so that the young can be released of this burden. But the young are being held to stagnant wage levels and are consequently sliding towards lower living standards. A race to the bottom. A recent report shows that 30% of potential retirees are still supporting their families. Link. In supporting both children and grandchildren this support will no doubt continue well into their retirement. Forget that £millions are siphoned of by international companies who pay little or no tax. Forget the top 0.1% who arrange their income through offshore funds virtually tax free. Forget that publically owned utilities were sold to foreign countries with the profits disappearing abroad. Divide and rule, Old verses Young. Very little compassion in this bit of the Tory manifesto.

[Stanley]

Very true P and it's worth remembering that pensions never have been paid out of a self financing fund but out of the NI and taxes of those working. No different than it is today. The cure is not to cut the income of the pensioners (already one of the worst in Europe) but raise the income of the workers so that they can finance superannuation. The truth is that once you have reached the end of your useful life, the 19th century laisser faire argument is that the sooner you die the better because you cease to be a charge on the state which is paid out of revenue. It's not fashionable to mention this today but there used to be a social contract, when you were old, sick or disabled the State took up the burden. This was the carrot that was dangled in front of the donkey whenever a claim for a higher wage was put forward. Put up with less than the median wage today in return for jam tomorrow. I keep reminding the congregation that this is the is the overall Tory strategy. A return to 'the good old days'.
I see that hostilities are to be resumed tomorrow. Expect President May to repeat 'strong and stable' in every second sentence and that 'the war on terrorism' will loom large in the rhetoric. Exactly the politics of fear used to such effect in the referendum vote. the £350million will be replaced with 'strong and stable economy' and Mr Corbyn will be vilified in every other sentence. The Tory calculation is that all they have to do is maintain this canard for another 14 days and they are home and dry......
The media as usual are revelling in the story on a plate to boost sales. Justifiable anger as the NY Times prints pictures that can only have originated from intelligence shared with the US. Someone in the CIA is leaking for gain.

[plaques]

Expect President May to repeat 'strong and stable' in every second sentence and that 'the war on terrorism' will loom large in the rhetoric.

Don't forget that Mrs May was Home Secretary for 6 years before she was parachuted into her present position. In effect she presided over the controls and organisation that should have reduced this risk. Nothing can stop vile psychopaths from committing these crimes but these things need organisations and planning all of which takes time and gives opportunity for intervention. You won't hear Mrs May saying "I got it wrong, we should have acted sooner". Don't ask questions, 'strong and stable'.

[Pluggy]

Must be becoming a rabid socialist (either that or I'm reading too much left leaning journalism) . but the views of a certain Mr Corbyn are starting to make sense..... With. Ms May making Maggie look like a liberal, the Tories won't be getting my vote. There's always Tim I suppose.

[Big Kev]

I may have to review my decision too...

[plaques]

Have you wondered why Mrs May is proposing to build new Grammar Schools against all the advise of education professionals and performance results. The answer is simpler than you think. On our present trajectory future trends show that we will never be able to produce enough high quality jobs to employ the numbers leaving with higher qualifications. The Brexit, no deal rather than a bad deal, will reduce the opportunities further. The answer to this problem is not to move into high tech industries but to limit the availability of first class education. The proposal is to recreate an elite system based on meritocracy. Clever kids will still get the opportunity via the Grammar Schools. Unfortunately those with lesser ability will gradually lose out on funding and quality of teaching. Private education, aptly misnamed ‘Public Schools’, will still be available to those who can afford it and will still open the doors to the best jobs. But there are problems. First the 'Grammars' may not be just round the corner and will require private travel arrangements. Then there are expensive school uniforms, equipment and away days which although not compulsory are subject to massive peer pressure. Also, within each school year there is the possibility of a number of ‘reserved’ places to those who can afford them. Private coaching for entrance exams will shave off a good percentage of poorer kids who can’t benefit from this help. Finally, there is the kudos of being within the ‘Grammar’ system even though the ability doesn’t warrant it. More and more inequality from Mrs May.

[Stanley]

I don't see how any sensible person can vote Tory. They are avoiding talking about policies and relying on a negative campaign of rubbishing Labour because any scrutiny of past performance will reveal that every one of their policies since 2010 has failed miserably. The latest example is the close examination of the free breakfast scam. They cost it at £60million annually whereas a very plausible argument was put forward yesterday that the true cost will most likely be between £200million and £400million annually. Free milk and dinners for all was always seen as one of the best investments in our children that could be made. What's changed? I was lucky enough to have a mother who always gave us a hot breakfast every morning and we had a free hot dinner even in war time. The free dinners were carried on through the school holidays for those who wanted them.
Again you're right P. Every state school in England is having a real terms cut in funding under this government. The crucial area, Primary Education and nursery schools have been underfunded under every government, higher education always got the biggest slice of the pie and like other areas of inequality this is set to get worse. As in the 19th century, what is needed is factory fodder as labour for all the underpaid and zero-hours jobs that modern technology creates.
I see that UKIP have decided to play the racist/anti-immigration card as they have no other. I hope and expect that they will sink like a stone.
What is needed now is a concentrated attack on Tory policy outcomes and future aspirations. President May is heading us towards Hard Brexit because this suits the party donors and the super wealthy, the only classes she recognises. I have never heard her talk about the very poorest who rely on loan sharks, food banks and benefits but still sink further and further. This is medieval politics.....

[Stanley]

Corbyn makes perfectly valid points like the fact that 'the war on terror' is not working and is immediately attacked by the Tories. Bojo was allowed out of his purdah to say that it was ISIS that was the cause and described the speech as 'obscene'. Great stuff Boris but what was it spawned ISIS in the first place? Corbyn had a point and I have made it many times in the past. What do we expect after the way we have treated the Middle East in the past? Read 'Air Power in the 1930s'; by David Omissi and recognise that we were the 'terrorists' then! Add the exploitation of oil and you have a pretty dire picture of 'Western Morals'.
Truth is the biggest casualty in this election campaign.
Meanwhile.... in another part of the forest.... As Donald swans round the world doing his statesman bit, at home the allegations against the White House multiply in the papers. Someone is feeding these titbits to them and whoever it is is no friend of the Donald! The latest is that his transition team started talks with the Russians about setting up a secure channel of communication that couldn't be overheard by the US intelligence agencies. In other words they trusted the Russians more than their own spooks! Stepping back a bit, these developments are incredible, this is the President of the US! There is little doubt that there is some fire behind this smoke and it makes you wonder if there is a concerted campaign across government to get rid of what they see as an embarrassment. Trouble is that in the process US credibility and stability is threatened. This is incredibly dangerous. I wonder if President May is reassessing her initial love fest with him..... If not, she should do. Association with the Donald is looking toxic.....

[plaques]

Listened to a couple of You Tube news clips last night One by Corbyn Link. and to keep some sort of balance by Charles Clarke (Home Secretary at the time of the 7/7 bombings). Link. .
I thought Corbyn's speech was well balanced, strong on what we should be doing immediately plus a thought about our own foreign policy. Certainly didn't warrant an "obcene" comment. Charles Clarke makes it clear he doesn't support Corbyn as leader but points out that it was Mrs May that removed some of the controls he introduced. He also made the point that 9/11 took place before the we started getting involved with other countries. Also that inaction comes with its own problems. A debate between Corbyn and Clarke may be worth listening to but get the feeling that this particular interview was more anti Corbyn bias.

[Stanley]

When you dig down to the roots of history the 'Fertile Crescent' was the source of so much early progress. Everything from farming to mathematics, science and literacy. All conveniently forgotten after the Crusades called for by Pope Urban II in 1059 because of threats to the hegemony of the Roman Church. One of the earliest uses of the 'Politics of Fear'. If anyone doubts the strength of the folk memory look back at the reaction to Bush calling the actions against Saddam Hussein a 'crusade'.
I think that President May's campaigning strategy, keep repeating stock phrases and bash Corbyn while avoiding policy issues, is wearing thin and in a longer campaign she would be changing it but with only twelve days to go any change would be seen as yet another U-turn so she is locked in. Whether this will result in a big enough swing against the Tories to affect the election is another matter. Blind prejudice against left wing politics is going to be the major factor I fear.....
However, even a heavy defeat of Labour doesn't mean that she is in for an easy ride. The realities of the economy and deterioration in society are building up rapidly now and who knows what this could lead to in terms of opposition in Parliament..... Tenure of the next session could be a poisoned chalice.

[plaques]

The realities of the economy and deterioration in society are building up rapidly now

Widely reported in the rightwing media that the fall in the £ against the $ is all Corbyn's fault. Link. . The message is clear, vote for a Labour government and the £ will tank to its lowest level for decades. Get into the meat of the article and it appears that the 5% expected drop is speculation. It totally ignores the fact that the £ has been losing ground ever since the Brexit and Trump's promise to expand the $. Not mentioning Mrs May directly, in fact with some subtlety managing to make it sound like Corbyn's fault, the report implies the £ could weaken on a bad exit. But then hidden in the words they come clean and say Quote "The longer-term picture is less certain, however - given sterling fell sharply after the Brexit vote, a ‘softer’ Corbyn Brexit could lead the pound higher over time."
So we move from disaster to success in the space of a few paragraphs but how many people read or think beyond the headline?

[Stanley]

P, If President May was run over by a bus it would be Jeremy's fault. But you are of course quite right to flag up the terrible media bias which in almost any other field would be actionable in law. Statements are routinely made by politicians and 'experts' which have no basis in truth or logic but unfortunately this is par for the course in political discourse these days.
Anyone with a grain of common sense can see that our economic situation is dire and balanced on a knife edge. This started way back in Chicago School economics and deregulation of the banks by Right Wing governments closely allied to the financial interests of 'big money' which led (Some would say inevitably) to overheated economies run by corrupt and greedy 'Lords of the Universe' and 2008 was the logical outcome. This was bad enough but has been compounded in the UK by economic policies under both New Labour and the Tories to protect the banks ('too big to fail') at the expense of the majority of the population. This was followed by policies of retrenchment and austerity under the Tory control since 2010 despite the fact that the best economic advice was that Austerity was the exact opposite of what was needed. This was all bad enough but under a weak PM, Cameron, desperate to hold his party together, committed us to the referendum on Europe and the consequence is we finish up with an unelected PM, May, who has a terrible track record, devaluation (Quantitative Easing) and massive uncertainty as she is favouring 'Hard Brexit' if she doesn't get her way with the EU. Bad enough you might think but for an encore she has called a snap election in a cynical bid to get a five year mandate before the crap hits the fan with the economy.
The reality is that this crash is happening now as the US pursues an expansionist policy under an erratic President. US interest rates will almost certainly rise in the next month, the effects of devaluation and the slowing down of the ability for domestic debt to increase debt which is all that has kept us going. All the economic indices are in balance and are going to go negative. It's a perfect storm and at some point even the Tory faithful are going to realise they have been sold a pup.
The burning question is this; will the electorate realise this in time to affect the vote on June 8th? My bet at the moment is that the Tories will scrape through but not on the scale the earlier polls suggested. After that the question is can President May and her new government survive. I believe not but how that will come about is unclear. It could be Parliamentary Opposition if we are lucky, if not it will be civil unrest as society comes under increasing pressure.
Sorry to be so negative but I think the above is a fair assessment.... What a bloody mess!

[plaques]

The nearest we are going to get to a debate between Mrs Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn is this evening (Monday). Mon 29 May, 20:30: Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn (Sky News and Channel 4). This isn't going to be a head to head debate between the two contestants but separate Interviews followed by questions from the audience. The logic behind this formula can be seen here. Link. . Basically Mrs May is going to rely on loads of spin on Twitter and Facebook rather than risk losing a face to face debate. That must tell you something. Quote from Radio Times " May has so far rejected calls to participate in a live televised debate against her political opponents. Instead, she has agreed to a one-on-one interview with Paxman for Channel 4 and Sky News' joint programme, May v Corbyn Live: The Battle for Number 10.
In a 90-minute show in front of a live studio audience, the two chief contenders for Prime Minister will be interviewed individually by the Channel 4 election night anchor." Link. . Not the most riveting TV viewing but at the end of the day the outcome will affect everyone's lives for the next five years.

[Stanley]

P, I looked at the Guardian blow by blow report and all I got from it was that May scraped through largely because of blind acceptance of the 'no deal is better than a bad deal' gambit. Corbyn surprised even Nigel Farage by the way he kept his cool and presented himself. Paxman comes out of it worse than either of them, his sardonic style is wearing a bit thin....
The only thing that counts of course is the vote a week on Thursday and the one thing that I think is certain is that there will be alarm in the The Tory strategy meetings and quiet hope building in Labour's because, bad though the polls are at predicting results, they have a better record on trends and the big news item coming up could be that Labour is gaining ground and the Tories are losing traction. The Tories expect Labour to soon have a slight lead. Question is have they time to turn that opinion into votes. My bet is that they haven't and the Tories will have what they will proclaim as a 'victory'. But it will be hollow, as I said yesterday, the test will be what happens in Parliament. Whoever gets the majority will be in for a rough ride and if the Tories get a full term they could regret it.
In the long term, the Tory strategy of massaging the rich at the expense of the poor is doomed to eventual failure. The dangers are going to come from left field, for instance many observers are beginning to see the dangers of the exponential rise in the capacity of Intelligent Programmes to destroy even more meaningful jobs. To put it crudely, the robots are going to have to pay humans for staying at home. If they don't Inequality is going to become the major political problem.
Later.... I see May has characterised the EU stance so far on negotiations as 'hostile'. If this is true what the hell did she expect after her public statements about being 'bloody difficult'? I get the impression that any deviation from what she wants is seen as 'hostile'.

[Sue]

I thought the separate sessions was a good idea, at least an opportunity to answer questions. I didn't watch, as I have had enough of politics and political debate ( or just plain childish squabbling) to last a life time. I know people wanted a head to head debate but it wouldn't have been,it would have ended up as personal slanging matches as parliament does most days. This way they had to at least attempt to answer questions.

Not impressed with either party. One sticks up for the rich, the other the poor and no room for the centre position. There are a lot of us in the centre that need a bit from both sides. I shall bury my head in my sewing machine and my garden until life returns to normal....whatever normal is.

[plaques]

Watched through a very painful full session. I think Sue's analysis is broadly correct.

One sticks up for the rich, the other the poor and no room for the centre position.

. Corbyn sounds as though he would like an even more socialist approach but is restrained by Blairites within the Labour Party, the manifesto then being written by consensus. If he got in power I think he would struggle against the centre tide within the party and would have to backtrack on some of his preferences.
May has even more problems within the Tory Party and even though she tried to spin the internal splits as " other parties conspiring to make Brexit fail" her whole general stance is towards a very hard Brexit. If she cannot fill her party with less hard line MP's she will have to demonstrate her credentials as a true Tory by hitting those at the bottom. Should we finish up with a parliament with the same balance we've got now she will try to hide the cuts to make it sound as though extra funding is going into services where in actual fact it will be falling back in real terms per head of population.

[Bruff]

The PM banging on as usual about her being the right person to sit across the table and negotiate the Brexit terms with the EU. Must come as a surprise to the EU this as the European Commission has been formally appointed as EU negotiator. This is in black and white in the following statement:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press ... irectives/

And the Commission’s negotiating team is in the pdf file at this link:

https://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/t ... kingdom_en

It’s even, helpfully I think, in English for us. Looking at that negotiating team, I can’t see Dr Merkel or Mr Macron or the Slovakian PM Robert Fico and all the rest. So quite what May is babbling on about is beyond me. She’ll be nowhere near the negotiations. And quite right too. The other leaders of the EU have better things to do than sit across the table from her as for all we might like to think otherwise, Brexit is not the No 1 priority for them, nor their electorates. Still, we all know that these days you can spout any old rubbish in this country and the public will lap it up. Her role, if she is PM, will be to sign the divorce terms when they’re agreed, and look happy. It’s going to be fun is this. Negotiations start June 19th; I can’t wait. The tantrum this country is going to throw…..

Richard Broughton

PS – it’s worth checking the Europa site as the EU will be popping all their negotiating papers on there so that the public can read them. There’s a commitment to transparency confirming this (remembering that some papers and their content might, for obvious reasons, be restricted). I imagine something similar will be done here. Or maybe not.

[Bruff]

Here we are – the two most recent papers produced by the EU’s negotiating team, one on the financial settlement and the other on the rights of EU nationals in the UK and the rights of UK nationals in the EU. Very informative I think.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/publica ... iations_en

Hopefully the UK will be publishing its position on these two issues soon...

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

Hopefully the UK will be publishing its position on these two issues soon...

Its nice to know that there are still some super optimists living in the UK. I'm afraid all that we will get from the 'bloody difficult woman' is more Churchillian rhetoric of the kind. ""We Shall Fight on the Beaches" , "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.". We shall never know what is going on until on the last day when its decided its a bad deal, so back on your heads. It doesn't do to upset the natives by getting them involved with things they won't understand. Ignorance is bliss.

[Stanley]

Thank you Richard for some facts and clarity, more than we are getting from government here! It's all far too complicated for a bear of little brain like me but what does strike me is a). The EU is quite clear that the Citizenship rights and financial measures have to be settled before anything else can be discussed. b) if I understand correctly, our future relationship with the EU (and I assume this includes trading relationships) cannot be addressed until we have actually left. c) The two year timetable is eminently achievable on these terms as it is simply a matter of settling our accounts with the EU under the terms of agreements we have signed up to.
I said right from the start that the Leave position was spurious because their attitude that a deal could be negotiated which would leave us better off financially was wrong. The EU holds all the cards and what they see is a Settlement, not a Negotiation. We haven't a leg to stand on legally and the choice is simply one of whether we behave honourably and fulfil our responsibilities or renege on them. I assume that May's 'Hard Brexit' is the latter and where does that leave any future negotiations with the EU or indeed the rest of the world? It's the equivalent of unilaterally cancelling our debts to the rest of the world. Is this what 'Strong and Stable' really means? I note also the smart move of stipulating that any debts have to be paid in Euros which will appreciate in value against the Pound as the full enormity of what we are doing dawns on the financial markets.
In terms of our current election..... May's position where she portrays herself as some latter day Britannia fighting across a table with the leaders of the EU is a total lie. She knows this over simplified version is never going to happen. The Lawyers and accountants will decide the terms behind closed doors and present her and the EU leaders with a document that must be signed and committed to. Is she going to refuse to sign? That would have to be authorised by full Parliamentary debate surely and can you imagine what that would be like? Would Parliament really approve a course of action that would make us a global pariah?
It becomes clear to me, thanks to Richard's contribution, that this is indeed the case and my natural suspicion of the Tories and the financial interests leads me to speculate that this could have been the plan all along, set ourselves up as the biggest off-shore money launderer in the world by stepping out of the normal rules of finance. Where will the BofE stand in all of this? Can they allow it? If it does happen what does it mean for internal financial probity in the UK? Can we all follow this precedent and tear up any legal financial obligations?
I knew it was a mistake and a mess but I never imagined it could be as bad as this. No wonder she called a snap election, she and her advisers are no fools and they must know that that this is what is coming. If she agrees she has scuttled and the Tories will never be forgiven. If she refuses to sign and walks out she turns us into a Third World pariah. They have gambled the country on a bet on an outsider. Question is does the country as a whole have any idea? Of course they don't, we have been sold a pup and Cameron's Catastrophe is going to turn out to be as significant as 1066!
Tin hats on lads!!!

[Bruff]

There won’t be any talks on trade until we leave for the very simple reason that until we leave we remain a member of the EU, and a member of the EU cannot negotiate its own trade deals. This is not some obtuse technicality – it is set out in a legally binding international treaty we freely signed up to. It is one of the most basic facts of EU membership and frankly, it is idiotically stupid for politicians to even suggest the opposite is the case. It is also hugely discourteous to the public as it takes us for fools. One can also note that the two documents published the other day will be agreed by the other 27 at the relevant Council meeting and the documents then become the negotiating mandate of M Barnier and his team. Barnier will not be able to negotiate on anything not in these and all other future negotiating Directives as it will be ultra vires to do so. Given the legal situation with respect to trade and EU membership, none of these negotiating Directives on Art 50 will give him the mandate to talk about trade. This is simply the EU making plain, in black and white, the legal position or the rules of the club. For the UK of course, it is punishment. Tantrum No 1 I suppose.

There is a serious point to all of this. Life after the EU will require our making our own way in the world and everyone recognises this. The current posturing, the playing of fast and loose with obligations, sends an appalling message to future partners and a message that they will note well. And that is that the UK is not to be trusted in any future arrangement. It is not reliable and cannot be counted on to be honest. Dr Merkel is not one for beating about the bush and her statement to this effect the other day should serve to make folk aware of this.

Richard Broughton

[plaques]

A slight digression from the Brexit is something that hit the headlines a couple of days ago. Labour's Land Tax. The 'Mail on line' along with all the other rightwing papers are making the claim that this tax would add up to £4000 to your council tax. ie: the Garden Tax. Garden Tax. This tax is supposed to be in the small print of Labour's Manifesto.
In the Manifesto section on Local Communities is says... Quote "A Labour government will give local government extra funding next year. We will initiate a review into reforming council tax and business rates and consider new options such as a land value tax, to ensure local government has sustainable funding for the long term.
This 'review' has been linked to dubious statements about a 3% standard or to be made in addition to the Council Tax. A fact check. see Fact Check. offers an explanation which falls in the category ' it all depends what you mean' .Which is about as vague as you can get. The Wikipedia Definition of Land Value Tax is something totally different. Ref: "is a levy on the unimproved value of land.Wiki. It is an Ad valorem tax that, unlike property taxes, disregards the value of buildings, personal property and other improvements". The basic aim being to encourage those holding potential development land either to develop it or sell it. This idea has been going since Adam was a lad and is used in various countries round the world.
If you are interested in speculation try this. Conservative Land Value tax. Link.. Ref:" He refers to a passage in the Tory manifesto, which states “we [the Party] will work with private and public sector house builders to capture the increase in land value created when they build”.
Until someone gives clear definitions we are faced with a "review" or a vague " work with".

[Stanley]

Thanks Richard, just as I thought. Interesting stuff P but what really grabbed me yesterday was seeing May (looking thoroughly discomfited) characterising the Cambridge Debate as a squabble and saying she'd rather 'talk to the people'. I immediately told Jack that this was the biggest mistake she could have made. Then I watched the last half hour of the debate last night. Apart from Amber Rudd and Paul Nuttall there was a wall of contempt for President May. Even the audience was vocal about it and this surprised me in what I would have imagined would have been a fairly balanced sample. Corbyn seemed to be very comfortable in his skin and the others were on the whole scathing to the Tories.
Two thoughts struck me, if Corbyn hadn't had to withstand internal attacks as well as the right wing media he would be a walk over and T Blair is looking a bit silly this morning.
What interests me is what the Tories do now..... Do they continue to use the politics of fear and loathing and carry on attacking Jeremy? Or do they do yet another U-turn and try to revive what is now obviously a flagging campaign? Corbyn's policy of soaking up the punishment and refusing to make personal attacks while hammering home voter-friendly policies is paying off. There are signs that the electorate are wakening up and asking the right questions. It's going to be an interesting week.
By the way, I get the idea that there is a hell of a lot of footage of President May being heckled in public lying on the cutting room floor.....
The debate happened too late for the media to get their teeth into it for the early editions but I'll make a prediction. There is no way the right wing press can spin this as a win for the Tories or Brexit so they will go for the old target, Left Wing bias in the BBC. Corbyn didn't attack May personally apart from asking why she wasn't there, he won't do any more than this in the next week. He doesn't need to, the attacks on President May are going to come from her own supporters who are getting a bit fed up of the arrogant Presidential tone of the campaign.

[plaques]

saying she'd rather 'talk to the people'.

Mrs May has given four reasons for not attending the debate. The detailed statements can be found here. Link.
1 - Because she debates him anyway at PMQs
2 - Because she’s more interested in meeting members of the public
3 - Because debates are a bit pointless
4 - Because she is too busy preparing for Brexit

All these are truly unbelievable answers. Her new manifesto has not been debated at PMQ's. A TV debate like this will attract thousands of viewers far more than the party faithfuls she can cram into a private meeting hall . People want to know how what she is offering and whether it will stand up to scrutiny by people of different views. She called the election in the full knowledge that she would have to defend her manifesto. If she didn't want any diversions to Brexit why call an election?
If it is her intention to attack the Brexit negotiations using the same approach, ie; not turning up, then it will definitely be a NO deal and a hard exit.