The debates, and the worm etc. Thoughts?

[smack]

I have lived in countries where this (televised debates) are the norm, and from all that has been learnt from analysing what has happened in the US, it turns into a non event, apart from keeping all the commentators busy. But does it/has it make a difference? What do you think?

Lib Dem votes are going to go up, we assume from previous Labour voters, but that was going to happen anyhow. Do you think it took votes away from the Tories? Is a die hard red/blue/yellow/green whatever voter bothered to watch? Will it get people off there asses to vote that usually wouldn't have? Obama was helped to power my mobilizing those who hadn't voted before...

I have never seen the worm change anything in other countries, and polls that have a sample of 1000 odd, for the whole country. So, that would be 2 people polled for my electorate. Bit of BS really...

My take is people vote for 2 reasons. Ideology - working class voting Labour because dad did, white collar due to same, and the greens get the votes from the dope heads. Otherwise, people vote for "what is in it for me", which means the hip pocket, and will swing like the wind.

[Ace-T]

In my opinion this is distasteful and is pretty much equivalent to Britain's Got (no) Talent. A popularity contest to decide how the country is run?

We are fked.

Trace

[zcacogp]

Ace-T said:

... pretty much equivalent to Britain's Got (no) Talent. A popularity contest to decide how the country is run?

An elegant summary of my views on the whole matter.

I don't think I learned anything from last nights debate, and think it pushes the decision of "Who do I vote for?" in favour of the guy who can stand on stage and come up with the largest number of winning soundbites in 90 minutes.


Oli.

[briSk]

I don't know how we ended up with a presidential system for a party system.

oh wait a minute..

new labour and tony 'it wasn't me' fvcking bliar.

_______________

that canute clegg is really getting on my proverbials now. at least the (print) media are drawing attention to his 'mock-superiority' and 'old parties bks' now.

_______________

i work for a US firm. never have i ever felt more like just asking for a transfer*!

(*sterling weakness aside )

[Eric Mc]

briSk said:

I don't know how we ended up with a presidential system for a party system.

oh wait a minute..

new labour and tony 'it wasn't me' fvcking bliar.

_______________

that canute clegg is really getting on my proverbials now. at least the (print) media are drawing attention to his 'mock-superiority' and 'old parties bks' now.

_______________

i work for a US firm. never have i ever felt more like just asking for a transfer*!

(*sterling weakness aside )

Your distaste for Presidential style politics is so great you want to move to a country where that is what they have?

[briSk]

Eric Mc said:

briSk said:

I don't know how we ended up with a presidential system for a party system.

oh wait a minute..

new labour and tony 'it wasn't me' fvcking bliar.

_______________

that canute clegg is really getting on my proverbials now. at least the (print) media are drawing attention to his 'mock-superiority' and 'old parties bks' now.

_______________

i work for a US firm. never have i ever felt more like just asking for a transfer*!

(*sterling weakness aside )

Your distaste for Presidential style politics is so great you want to move to a country where that is what they have?

i didn;t say that did i. i said i didn;t like the fact that we've ended up with a presidential campaign for a 'local mp/party system'. to a certain extent i even have some time for the SNP in this regard.

[Dr Phibes]

Its total balls, about as representative and "random" as the labour loving wes that the BBC wheel out on every radio and tv show to indicate that Labour are still in with a shout.

Chap on R5live this morning who used to be an IT consultant earning 150k pa blamed his job loss on Brown but also Cameron WTF, of course this was not question by Nicky "the socialist" Campbell as its a negative towards the Torys and that in the eyes of the BBC is job done.

[Eric Mc]

briSk said:

Eric Mc said:

briSk said:

I don't know how we ended up with a presidential system for a party system.

oh wait a minute..

new labour and tony 'it wasn't me' fvcking bliar.

_______________

that canute clegg is really getting on my proverbials now. at least the (print) media are drawing attention to his 'mock-superiority' and 'old parties bks' now.

_______________

i work for a US firm. never have i ever felt more like just asking for a transfer*!

(*sterling weakness aside )

Your distaste for Presidential style politics is so great you want to move to a country where that is what they have?

i didn;t say that did i. i said i didn;t like the fact that we've ended up with a presidential campaign for a 'local mp/party system'. to a certain extent i even have some time for the SNP in this regard.

The problem is TV.

How do parties get their message across in an era where most people see their politics in action on TV? I am not a fan of the TV debates in their current format but I cannot see how local candidates can get access to TV type media. They are stuck having to pound the streets knocking on doors - or do good work for their constituents during their period as MP.

As someone on "This Week" pointed out, there may be some people who pop into their polling booth next Thursday and will be amazed to find that Clegg, Cameron and Brown aren't listed in the Ballot Paper.

[briSk]

Eric Mc said:

As someone on "This Week" pointed out, there may be some people who pop into their polling booth next Thursday and will be amazed to find that Clegg, Cameron and Brown aren't listed in the Ballot Paper.

..a lot to be said for that comment! so true.

i would have at least though that it would have made sense for official shadow chancellor, shadow 'foreign minister', shadow health, shadow 'home secretary' debates.

that would have been my approach.

[Twit]

Eric Mc said:

As someone on "This Week" pointed out, there may be some people who pop into their polling booth next Thursday and will be amazed to find that Clegg, Cameron and Brown aren't listed in the Ballot Paper.

I saw that and I agree with that.

I didnt like the format and as such didnt really watch it - I just watched the highlights on the news after, using the TV analogy it was like watching match of the day instead of the live game and not having to sit through the dross.

The format of the leaders is wrong, we don't live in a presidential system. I think the notion of a different subject for each debate could have worked, if they had gone down that route why not have different party reps talking about different issues. At least that way we would get an idea of the whole teams rather than individuals. The other main problem is I think it has led to a reduction in debate, for the last 3 weeks all the campaigns have been geared towards thursday evening, the week before we have the run up to the debate, then a frantic 'analysis' and then another 6 day lead up, utter waste of time. I have hardly seen any other candidates and nornally by now there would have been a legion of people knocking on the door; not had a single candidate down the road yet. I think the reason for this is that the 3 debates have turned into the total debate, that is depressing. The worm thing was stupid, it doesn't work in the interactive way they tried to say it did.

Actually the whole thing has been pretty depressing, 3 desperate people with no leadership potential between them, trying to convince a country that largely doesn't care that they should lead us, bit pathetic really. It certainly hasn't influenced my vote one iota, I'll still spoil the ballot, and speaking to friends, the vast majority haven't watched and of those who have no one has changed their voting intentions. That is in a group where more than half won't bother to vote. Sums it up really.

[tamore]

briSk said:

Eric Mc said:

As someone on "This Week" pointed out, there may be some people who pop into their polling booth next Thursday and will be amazed to find that Clegg, Cameron and Brown aren't listed in the Ballot Paper.

..a lot to be said for that comment! so true.

i would have at least though that it would have made sense for official shadow chancellor, shadow 'foreign minister', shadow health, shadow 'home secretary' debates.

that would have been my approach.

those debates have happened, but generally during the day. they should have been prime time too, i agree with that.


lib dems would have lost out, as behind cloggy and soothsayer vince, there's nobody you'd want anywhere near a government. who was the beardy guy they rolled out with mandy and ken clarke during the business minister debate?

[cs02rm0]

I see them as a starting point. Hopefully the format and the quality will improve.

Of course, it may get worse, buzzers, dancing dogs, etc...

[tamore]

cs02rm0 said:

I see them as a starting point. Hopefully the format and the quality will improve.

Of course, it may get worse, buzzers, dancing dogs, etc...

maybe they could take on the total wipeout course. whoever gets furthest gets into government. pay per view event too with all proceeds going towards the national debt!

[cmsapms]

Simple solution(s):

TV should be banned from being able to mention elections in the four weeks leading up to the election. Radio can still broadcast interviews/debate/reporting, and newspapers (online/offline) can still report (without pictures) what's going on. This way, there'd be much less "personality politics" or hairdressers voting for the bloke with the nicest quiff. Only people with an active interest would bother to vote, which is probably a good thing.

Or just ban any reporting/coverage in the media full stop. Who you voted for would then come down to your perception of what the current incumbents had done over the last 5 years coupled with what your local candidates told you on your doorstep and in their appalling literature.

[Eric Mc]

cmsapms said:

Simple solution(s):

TV should be banned from being able to mention elections in the four weeks leading up to the election. Radio can still broadcast interviews/debate/reporting, and newspapers (online/offline) can still report (without pictures) what's going on. This way, there'd be much less "personality politics" or hairdressers voting for the bloke with the nicest quiff. Only people with an active interest would bother to vote, which is probably a good thing.

Or just ban any reporting/coverage in the media full stop. Who you voted for would then come down to your perception of what the current incumbents had done over the last 5 years coupled with what your local candidates told you on your doorstep and in their appalling literature.

As was the case until the mid 1950s.

So, you would leave media coverage to the "unbiased" press?

I think the future will include a lot more Internet and other "new media" politicking. We are not quite there yeat. Obama showed qhat could be done with the new media available. I expect that within 5 to 10 years, new media may be more important than TV.