Prime Ministerial Debates- Thread

[Architect]

Let me approach this from a slightly different angle.

In Scotland, the national government is the SNP and they hope to do well at the Westminster (i.e. UK) elections in order to help further their cause.

Now, the SNP have pointed out that their not being part of the UK debate results in lesser press coverage. In short, the inevitable media furore concentrates on the three "UK" parties.

So the SNP is disadvantaged on its home turf. It's done very subtly, and very persuasively, but it's done.

There are a number of solutions to this, the most oft-voiced (by the BBC) version of which is supplementary debates in Scotland - or Wales, as the case may be - with the "local" (i.e. home nation) parties. It's not a daft idea.

If....

If you blank out all the coverage of Lab/Lib/Cons arising from what is, essentially, an English debate.

Yes, that's right - an English debate. Because - and this may come as news to you, mes amis anglais, but about 75% of the stuff we wade through under the banner of "national" (i.e. UK) news is nothing of the sort. It's English news. It's English educational policy. It's English healthcare policy.

Roll on one Europe of many peoples, not one UK of the English peoples.

 

[Agatha]

Play Dave Cameron roulette! http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

 

[andyandy]

Play Dave Cameron roulette! http://www.fridgemagnet.org.uk/toys/dave-met.php

"Last week, I met a gay lady, who told me that the European Human Rights Act got a free house from the council."

 

[Professor Yaffle]

"Last week, I met a white working-class fishmonger, who told me that teenagers high on meow meow had been shouting at buses on the high street."

 

[andyandy]

To prevent this thread becoming another Scotish Independence thread, how about it's split?

Then this one can go back to being about the debates?

So, good old Clegg eh?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I'll participate Andy. Perhaps (If you felt the same way as most of the nation) you could explain to me what was so good about Clegg? I honestly felt throughout the debate he was doing dreadfully, but I seem to be in the minority. Help me out?

And 10 Million viewers, that's not too bad (Even if 17 Million watched Bradley fall to his death in Eastenders).

 

[Rat]

I think what he did was come across as honest and confident. As far as I can tell, people were impressed with both that and the fact that he was neither Cameron nor Brown.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

I always thought he'd come across as the dull John Edwards character, the whimsy, 'what's-all-this-fighting-going-to-achieve' third candidate stuck between the two big dogs. Obviously not.

Anyway, I suppose I've slightly warmed to the guy after realising he speaks five languages and is an Atheist (Although it is baffling he seems to want to raise his kids Catholic).

The result I'd prefer now is a hung parliament, and that seems more and more likely these days. I just don't see how a Lib-Lab pact can command support if they both come behind the Tories. Clegg somewhat shot himself in the foot by saying he'd support the party with the largest mandate, and seeing how the Libs are all about proportionality, it would be baffling if they joined up with the party with more seats (Labour) and not the one with more votes (Tories). I'd settle for Cable as Chancellor, although I am concerned that their tax policy doesn't appear to help those at the lower end of the income scale. I'm also curious at how they propose to save 190Million (Or something like that) a year on 'prison reform'.

I'm not all that dedicated to Labour getting a fourth, although I am desperate to see Rushanara Ali become elected Labour MP for Bethnal Green. A real politician of the future there. I donated 50 quid this morning to her campaign.

Lib-Lab? Anything to deny the Tories getting back into No10 and Osborne into No11. Did anyone read Cameron's article in The Guardian stressing that the Tories were the 'real radicals'? Hilarious stuff. Perhaps if you put the three-inch bullet-proof blinders on, you can see a party commited to shelving inheritance tax for the super rich as 'radical progressives'.

BTW, I'm finding the Tory attacks on the Lib Dems transparently desperate. 'A vote for the Euro Super-state?'. The hypocrisy, given that Cameron warned voters to choose hope over fear at the end of the debate, is incredible.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Clegg somewhat shot himself in the foot by saying he'd support the party with the largest mandate, and seeing how the Libs are all about proportionality, it would be baffling if they joined up with the party with more seats (Labour) and not the one with more votes (Tories).

They aren't a single-issue party, so no, it's not surprising.

 

[funk de fino]

Lib-Lab? Anything to deny the Tories getting back into No10 and Osborne into No11.

I'd settle for that.

 

[andyandy]

I'll participate Andy. Perhaps (If you felt the same way as most of the nation) you could explain to me what was so good about Clegg? I honestly felt throughout the debate he was doing dreadfully, but I seem to be in the minority. Help me out?

He "won" because:

1) he was starting from such a low base, that anything other than completely crashing and burning would have been a success. We have such a politically disingaged general population I doubt Clegg would have even had 30% recognition prior to the debates

2) he wasn't either cameron or brown

3) he was able to actually come across as more honest than the other two - the old Vince Cable trick of appearing to rise above punch and judy politics to tell it like it is.

4) he had no pressure on him - so was noticeably more relaxed than Cameron. People like that.

5) Cameron did so badly. He looked uncomfortable, sweaty and over-rehearsed. Given that people had quite high expectations of his performance (he is after all quite a good performer in the Commons) this exacerbated the contrast between him and Clegg

6) he actually landed a few punches - scrapping trident appeals to a big chunk of the disenfranchised liberal left, playing to the zeitgeist of voter political apathy post-expenses scandal works well for a third party, promising to rise above party politics to create a fair elderly care system sounded statesmanlike....

Basically, i think if you'd expected him to do well, he wouldn't have "won" - actually there wasn't that much between them in terms of substance. But TV debates are all about style and perception....

 

[Rat]

He "won" because:
...
2) he wasn't either cameron or brown

I'd recommend capitalising your proper nouns. I suspect, knowing the general public, that he would be less popular if he were brown, but I hope that's not what you meant.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

They aren't a single-issue party, so no, it's not surprising.

They're not, but the fallout from the press would be huge. A party which has made a promise on PR a litmus test for any possible coalition going against proportionality in order to form one?

 

[andyandy]

I'd recommend capitalising your proper nouns. I suspect, knowing the general public, that he would be less popular if he were brown, but I hope that's not what you meant.

 

[funk de fino]

He "won" because:

1) he was starting from such a low base, that anything other than completely crashing and burning would have been a success. We have such a politically disingaged general population I doubt Clegg would have even had 30% recognition prior to the debates

2) he wasn't either cameron or brown

3) he was able to actually come across as more honest than the other two - the old Vince Cable trick of appearing to rise above punch and judy politics to tell it like it is.

4) he had no pressure on him - so was noticeably more relaxed than Cameron. People like that.

5) Cameron did so badly. He looked uncomfortable, sweaty and over-rehearsed. Given that people had quite high expectations of his performance (he is after all quite a good performer in the Commons) this exacerbated the contrast between him and Clegg

6) he actually landed a few punches - scrapping trident appeals to a big chunk of the disenfranchised liberal left, playing to the zeitgeist of voter political apathy post-expenses scandal works well for a third party, promising to rise above party politics to create a fair elderly care system sounded statesmanlike....

Basically, i think if you'd expected him to do well, he wouldn't have "won" - actually there wasn't that much between them in terms of substance. But TV debates are all about style and perception....

Having not seen it, I found it surprising he came across so well as I have not been impressed with his showings in the Commons up to now. I wonder where they would be now if Paddy had been given this chance a few years ago?

 

[andyandy]

The debates are really a massive unknown in terms of imapct - the key thing is momentum - we are now in an age of mass media and groundswell mobilisation. It's the kind of mobilisation that can persuade hundreds of thousands of people to buy a RATM single just to send a message "to the man". I think this kind of thing indicates that the game has changed - you can harness momentum for a movement like never before.

Indeed, i would consider voting Lib dem now. Why? Well, as a tactical vote it only makes sense if it has the potential to have a genuine impact. Before, with no chance of a tactical impact (in my constituency at least) i may as well have voted for the party that best represents my beliefs (the greens). And the Lib dems do agree with my beliefs enough on some important issues (trident, a roll back of labour's assault on civil liberties etc) for it to be a positive rather than negative vote....

But I'll wait to see how the next few weeks play out

 

[Rolfe]

They're not, but the fallout from the press would be huge. A party which has made a promise on PR a litmus test for any possible coalition going against proportionality in order to form one?

My experience of the LibDems leads me to expect hypocrisy and expediency in equal measure, so I wouldn't be wildly surprised by any such move.

Rolfe.

 

[andyandy]

Having not seen it, I found it surprising he came across so well as I have not been impressed with his showings in the Commons up to now. I wonder where they would be now if Paddy had been given this chance a few years ago?

Both Paddy and Kennedy would have shone in this format. Part of the problem for the Lib Dems is the rudeness in the commons whenever they are talking - with everyone making a conscious decision to talk in the background. The Speaker should stop it - but seem unbothered by it. As a result Lib dem leaders always struggle to come across well in the house....

 

[Undesired Walrus]

There was a funny twitter post reported in the Observor today: "The Lib Dems know why we wouldn't need Trident if they got into power, the Island of Britain would be protected by a wall of self-righteousness'.

 

[Rat]

My experience of the LibDems leads me to expect hypocrisy and expediency in equal measure, so I wouldn't be wildly surprised by any such move.

Rolfe.

Only an active supported of a political party could say this as if it applied to only one (other) party.