Hopefully avoiding any actual political leanings as such, but have any of you been following the leader debates? I didn't really find them particularly useful for the independence referendum as I had no say anyway, but I've now watched a couple in this run-up to the election & they have actually swayed my opinion significantly. The fact that Conservative didn't attend the debate last night yet Hague was given a clear 10+ minutes afterwards in direct "interview" by the BBC to say a lot that should really have been subject to the same level of challenge in particular was not lost on me. Also much is being made by the press of the group hug by the 3 women at the end (which is fine, whatever) and that nobody shook Nigel Farage's hand after (which is not fine, it was actually not the case, Sturgeon and Milliband both did) was equally interesting.
Truth be told, I'd rather they didn't exist at all. I think they give too much of a platform for vote/headline grabbing policies with little to no substance behind them. Perhaps I differ from other members of the electorate where I have an interest in politics and try to follow the numbers that back them up, I'd like to think you'd make up your mind about who/what to vote for more than a month before an election. I think the media channels being able to dictate who/what is said is also particularly bad, if its going to be done at all I feel like it should have a framework set-up for every election, so we don't fall into the same situation we've had this year where TV ratings become more important than the actual topics of conversation in the debates themselves.
Well it helps to know what to look for, you can't use past numbers as a guide to what the future may hold. A month ago I had indeed made up my mind. Now I have not.
Good luck with that Wasn't the reason for Cameron and Clegg not attending because Cameron said he would only take part in one debate and not during the campaign period, a letter from the broadcasters says... On 4th March [The Conservative Party] wrote to us tabling an idea that [they] had not raised in the previous six months of discussions. One debate, 90 minutes in duration, Involving seven parties, the DUP should be allowed to make its case to be included, it should take place in the week of 23rd March. You can always rely on the press for political bias, unfortunately they're not governed by the same rules as the broadcasters when it comes to impartiality. You're perhaps in the minority. The TV debates are intended for the electorate that have little interest or time to investigate if what the politicians say are factually correct. Not sure how much they dictate who/what is said, I was under the impression the questions were chosen based on the most popular questions from the audience.
See, that's all fine, and other post-debate discussion took place as a group, but Hague was given free reign without challenge. My opinion, not right to be tagged straight on to the end of that debate right after the credits rolled.
The thing is the BBC were in a catch 22 situation, rules say they must not be biased. As soon as one side refused to attend they became biased by default so they had to try and balance the obvious left wing bias of the debate (excluding Farage) by airing a post-debate discussion that was right wing biased.
I disagree. How is a 10+ minute commentary from one man a discussion? I don't agree that the BBC were in a catch 22 at all, they stepped outside of the program and gave a platform to a party that excluded itself from the debate. Hague should have, at best, been part of the group discussions post-debate, not given his own private airing.
It's not a discussion but that's what the BBC came up with in an attempt to remain impartial, like I said as soon as the Conservative party ruled themselves out of the debate they created an unbalanced situation that forced the BBC into a no win situation. Speaking personally I believe the Conservative press office knew this from the outset, they were probably fairly certain if they excluded themselves from the debate that the broadcasters would give them a separate platform. Call me a sceptic, but they probably calculated it would look better for Cameron not to appear in the debate or that if he did people may start to question the image that the Tory press have fed the public of Miliband being a bumbling fool, much better to take a risk and potentially have a platform after the debate to criticise it and say how they would do it without having to debate with others.
Eh I find them useless, there's no substance to them as they're not long enough, you can also see them playing the game a little too much for my liking. Remember that we only have two leading parties, everybody else is trying to bet on who to jump with in the fairly likely event of another hung parliament. My biggest worry is that these debates spur people on to make last minute decisions. I think it's more dangerous to have people swayed easily by a shallow debate than not to vote at all. If you vote (which I think everybody should do if they are able to) you should do your careful research. A silly tv show where whoever shouts/clubs together loudest is not my idea of careful research. I'll admit that it's not easy to find good sources, it's also a fair bit of work to get to the bottom of things at times, but if you're voting on who's going to lead your government it's the least one should do. As was raised earlier, this sort of platform lends much better to the approach of "make promises you can't keep", is that really something you want to encourage in politics of all things? I've been pretty sure of my vote for a long time, I know that the other options will affect me and many around me very poorly. I wouldn't feel comfortable with the idea that I could be easily swayed by a tv debate because I don't have a strong enough basis to vote for a given option.
It's a tough choice on who to vote for, I like greens, I like labour, I like conservatives, I like Lib Dems, I like UKIP. If they could ALL work good together without BP rising things could get awesome. I guess there are too many parties with strongly conflicting interests. Should be able to vote all & just count the vote as .2 of a vote for the chosen party. Having a none of the above vote wouldn't be helpful really but yeah, would be better than simply not voting. The debates just seemed a bit of a mess to me & very headline grabby.
Leaders debates are mostly useless as your vote is for your local MP/Councillor, yet the focus is towards the party leadership. In my constituency its a safe seat and none of the other parties have a chance of winning the seat, so the only real choice is the local Councillor.
If I take money from someone in exchange for providing a service, with no intention of providing that service, then I am guilty of fraud; However, if I take votes from someone in exchange for enacting a desired policy, with no intention of enacting that policy, it's absolutely fine. Until such times that political U-turns have some punitive measure attached, perhaps similar to commercial fraud legislation, then the proles debating politician's persuasiveness is pointless...but hey, at least we're legally coerced to provide private sector companies with our personal information each election. "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." - Chomsky
No. I watched some highlights, but every person fronting every party will take facts and twist them in to lies. They will say the most they can before crossing the line that discredits themselves completely. They will say as much as they can to the largest groups to appeal to the most voters. As always with politicians, they will skirt around the important questions as much as possible, while adding in bits that earn them points but are nothing to do with the questions - watching them do this is such a waste of our relatively short lives. It is taking something which should be the most important issue to the UK, and turning it into a gameshow. With their fake smiles, makeup, and having spent a lifetime being prepped by spinners and advisors - I don't trust any of them. I will vote with my head, not for people who will tell me what I like to hear to grab my vote!
This. If your politicians are anythimg like ours are, they won't remember what they said before the election after the election anyway. In so far watching political discussions is a moot point.
You know what would be great, taking decision making power away from politicians and really giving it to the masses. In this technological age, major decisions could be made via voting through electronic means. Idealist, unrealistic maybe but I'd love to see it happen in my lifetime. We are treated like sheep by our politicians, with them trying to claim the upper ground intellectually. They fail frequently, to the point I often wonder how the hell they got where they are. I found the debates dull and uninformative, other than them demonstrating that they are focusing more on who they will get into bed with rather than dealing with the real problems in our economy and society. Didn't really expect more so I wasn't too disappointed.
I'm having a real problem with elections at the moment. "Policies" are all just unsecured promises that the party are then free to ignore once they are elected, and more than that, I agree with some policies from one party, and vehemently disagree with others, and vice versa for all the other parties. The other problem I have is the house of commons in general, specifically debates and things like PMQs - the atrocious behaviour and sniping that goes on, despite it being kept somewhat in check by the speaker of the House, just makes me believe that a bunch of 5-year-olds would do a better job at having a civil debate over issues. It really, really makes me want to vote "None of the above" (i.e. spoil my ballot) but then that lumps me in with all the other crazies who may just wipe their arse with it. I'm totally disillusioned when i comes to politicians.
So you found that all the leaders are telling you what you want to hear? It's not playing out like that for me at all.
The leaders have a habit of cherry picking the statistics that suit them, two that spring to mind are the claimed fact that Britain grew faster than any other major economy last year, and that apparently a quarter of people are unable to get a GP appointment within a week. I've been using the Full Fact website to check the validity of some of the claims made by MPs and found it interesting how they can be both right and wrong at the same time. For instance the claim that Britain grew faster than any other major economy last year, while that's true to an extent they fail to tell you that for the five years prior to that we were among the slowest growing. https://fullfact.org/economy/uk_fastest_growing_gdp_major_economy-41159 Then there's the claim that a quarter of people are unable to get a GP appointment within a week. That doesn’t mean they can’t get one, some people would have been happy to book that far ahead, for instance if they wanted to get a repeat prescription or otherwise if their need for an appointment wasn’t urgent.
Additionally, in the economic realm, terminology matters. China, for example, did not make the list despite the fact that it's GDP is four times that of the UK, which seems major, but the IMF classifies it as a developing economy. So, while our 2.6% growth was top of the bunch for a short list of advanced economies it didn't count India, with 5.8% growth; Or China with 7.4% growth. Tricksy hobbitses.
Idealist? Certainly. The masses read the Sun, and Katie Hopkins' informed opinion on immigration policy. That would make for some interesting votes... All relationships are reciprocal. The public is as much to blame for the politicians we have, and how they behave, and what they do to try and gain its votes as the politicians themselves are. Anyway, with political campaigns the interesting bits are always in what they don't talk about.
