3rd Televised debate

[Barry the Badger]

We're overcrowded and it's stifling every aspect of our lives. The official figures for the population of Britain are enormous under-estimates and I once saw a figure of 80 million. We can't move, we can't travel on the roads, the trains are full, we can't park in our local supermarkets, we can't find a dentist, we can't even find a campsite in summer. Any talk of economic benefits from immigration is a load of bullocks.

 

You talk as though the overcrowding is entirely down to immigration, which is ridiculous.

 

Bloody immigrants taking our campsites.

[Whitey Grandad]

You talk as though the overcrowding is entirely down to immigration, which is ridiculous.

 

Bloody immigrants taking our campsites.

 

Not as ridiculous as thinking that it has no effect. So how many extra millions due to immigration are there in the country over the last 10 to 15 years?

 

I use campsites as a trivial example of its effects. We have no chance of reducing carbon emissions if we need to build at least 2 million more houses over the next 10 years (government figures, not mine).

[Johnny Bognor]

Link? Would genuinely be interested to see these stats.

 

Unfortunately there is no one link as the data required is spread over 40 years and there is no one source. The data is pretty much all over the place, but there is clear evidence to support my view.

 

Since the early 1970s manufacturing’s share in all OECD economies has fallen whilst the service sector's share has risen - this is an undisputed fact.

 

However, here are some other interesting facts..... (Sourced from a Management Today article in 1994). It doesn't relate to a share of GDP, but as a market share of exports.

 

The UK's export performance has been through a number of marked changes in recent decades. In 1950 Britain's manufacturing sector accounted for 26% of the exports of the main manufacturing countries. By the beginning of the 1970s that share had fallen to 11% (EDIT: more than halved some 10 years before the tories came to power), and the decline continued through the 1970s and early 1980s.

 

In the past 10 years (EDIT 1984-1994 as the article was written in 1994), the UK's decline may have been halted. The nation's share of world exports seemed to reach a floor in the middle of the last decade (1985), and has since remained relatively stable.

 

Increased competitiveness in the early 1980s partially accounts for the improvement. Between 1981 and 1987 UK competitiveness improved sharply as the exchange rate fell. However this is only part of the story, says Schroder Economics. Between 1987 and 1992 competitiveness worsened slightly, but UK exporters actually managed to increase their market share. It seems likely that non-price factors also form part of the explanation. Improved industrial relations, a more flexible labour market and a strong investment performance mean that Britain is now better able to compete on the world stage.

When I get more time, I'll source the GDP figures.

 

Now I've shown you mine, will you show me yours?

Edited 29 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[St Marco]

I think this one showed how poor Clegg really is.

His style is to answer each question like

 

"i agree with you xyz, it is really bad that xyz has happened. I don't think it is right that xyz is like that. Our policy which is in our manifesto was clearly labelled out, xyz orginisation said it was the best. To interupt these two old politics parties from arguing, or scoring points off each other, people don't want that" etc etc

 

Which doesn't actually answer any of the questions and is highly contradictory because by constantly mentioning the same thing i.e the point scoring thing, is trying to point score by saying you don't argue....What a load of bull****.

 

Clegg and the Lib Dem's offered nothing. I dislike the other two almost as much but at least they answered the questions and tried to not be rude to each other, they counter argued very well. That is what the point of a debate is. If Clegg want's to stand there and act like them arguing is wrong then he and his party should be nowhere near government because to get anything done you have to fight for it. He doesn't have an ounce of strength in his entire body.

[St Marco]

Funny enough the media agree with me. The BBC wrote

 

"Nick Clegg tried to repeat his trick of presenting himself as the outsider, campaigning against the "two old parties".

 

He laced his interjections with plenty of "let's stop this political points scoring" and "there you two go again". (I have to say these were sometimes met with groans by sections of the media centre)."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8652354.stm

 

What a gimp.

[CB Saint]

Funny enough the media agree with me. The BBC wrote

 

"Nick Clegg tried to repeat his trick of presenting himself as the outsider, campaigning against the "two old parties".

 

He laced his interjections with plenty of "let's stop this political points scoring" and "there you two go again". (I have to say these were sometimes met with groans by sections of the media centre)."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8652354.stm

 

What a gimp.

 

Didn't see the debate - so is Clegg a one trick pony who benefited from massive media exposure from the first debate and now cannot follow it up with substance?

[trousers]

 

Didn't see the debate - so is Clegg a one trick pony who benefited from massive media exposure from the first debate and now cannot follow it up with substance?

 

[JustMike]

I think this one showed how poor Clegg really is.

His style is to answer each question like

 

"i agree with you xyz, it is really bad that xyz has happened. I don't think it is right that xyz is like that. Our policy which is in our manifesto was clearly labelled out, xyz orginisation said it was the best. To interupt these two old politics parties from arguing, or scoring points off each other, people don't want that" etc etc

 

Which doesn't actually answer any of the questions and is highly contradictory because by constantly mentioning the same thing i.e the point scoring thing, is trying to point score by saying you don't argue....What a load of bull****.

 

Clegg and the Lib Dem's offered nothing. I dislike the other two almost as much but at least they answered the questions and tried to not be rude to each other, they counter argued very well. That is what the point of a debate is. If Clegg want's to stand there and act like them arguing is wrong then he and his party should be nowhere near government because to get anything done you have to fight for it. He doesn't have an ounce of strength in his entire body.

 

no different to how the other 2 answered everything in the other 2 debates, remember the 1st one, how many times did Clown say, "i agree with.."

 

We have, as i see it, difficult choices...

 

1) labour = Brown still in power and continuing the mess of the last few years.

 

2) Conservatives = Research the 80's to see what they really stand for

 

3) Lib Dems = The unknown, which people are scared of.

 

 

Either way, i think this country is a long way from being economically stable again.

[Thedelldays]

Clegg trotted the same old lines out

"there they go again"

Ad if they were naughty boys arguing

 

No clegg, they were actually debating real policies that were different and in most cases actually answered questions and not just agree with the person asking the question

 

Clegg came across with by far the least substance last night.

 

For the faults of the other two, at least you have a clear idea on how they want to take us forward. Right or wrong

 

I would prefer brown to stay in power than clegg being involved in a hung parliament as I believe he would only be interested in policies like election reform which will serve his party and not the massive deficit we have to cut

[trousers]

A hung parliament will be the best outcome for the Tories in the long run. In other words, I agree with the head of the bank of England.

 

If cameron gets in with a majority this time the fickle British public will vote him out in 5 years due to the impact of the necessary cuts. A hung parliament will show (IMHO) that consensus government won't work in the uk as a whole (it's more suited as a model to regional government) and as such I believe we'd see another election within 2 years at which point the public will have a much clearer view of the viable options.

 

So i'd be surprised if cameron isn't secretly wishing for no overall decision next week (whilst not microphoned up, obviously)

[norwaysaint]

Those on the left say they want a deabte about immigration, but as soon as you provide a link to official figures that don't suit their agenda they get all abusive.

 

You got pulled up for quoting that last time. If you follow that information that was in the Express and Mail back to its source, you see some quite different information gathered by somebody whose actual viewpoint was in favour of inmigration.

[trousers]

 

You got pulled up for quoting that last time. If you follow that information that was in the Express and Mail back to its source, you see some quite different information gathered by somebody whose actual viewpoint was in favour of inmigration.

Which, by default, makes it inaccurate of course....

[JustMike]

Clegg trotted the same old lines out

"there they go again"

Ad if they were naughty boys arguing

 

No clegg, they were actually debating real policies that were different and in most cases actually answered questions and not just agree with the person asking the question

 

Clegg came across with by far the least substance last night.

 

For the faults of the other two, at least you have a clear idea on how they want to take us forward. Right or wrong

 

I would prefer brown to stay in power than clegg being involved in a hung parliament as I believe he would only be interested in policies like election reform which will serve his party and not the massive deficit we have to cut

 

backwards or sideways some may argue

[Thedelldays]

 

backwards or sideways some may argue

Isn't debate what that is all about

 

Points have been argued by our leaders for centuries. And will continue to do so for many more years

[trousers]

Isn't debate what that is all about

 

Points have been argued by our leaders for centuries. And will continue to do so for many more years

 

That's what I find amusing in some of the post "debate" interviews with 'the general public'. They nearly always moan about the leaders when they start being critical about each other's parties.

 

Welcome to great Britain 2010 where even a good old slanging match is politically incorrect. (as is using those last two words in a sentence too)

[fish fingers]

You're all thicko c*nts who think you know what you are talking about but you don't, the most thick is Thorpe le saint and Dune, interestingly both at different ends of the sectrum but both utter Drapers.

 

I'm voting for this man, he says what we're all thinking.

 

What are your policies on education?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

You're all thicko c*nts who think you know what you are talking about but you don't, the most thick is Thorpe le saint and Dune, interestingly both at different ends of the sectrum but both utter Drapers.

 

How many times have you been banned again for being a spaz?!?!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Try not to be as stupid as him.

 

Its the eloquent way that you deliver your argument.

[norwaysaint]

Which, by default, makes it inaccurate of course....

 

There are loads of articles out there that point out why the way the Mail and Express twisted the source info made it wrong. The original article did indeed criticise Brown, but says nothing negative about immigration.

The facts actually show that more than 50% of new jobs went to non-immigrants.

 

Pointing out the spin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/09/the-spectator-dailymail

Original article by a "fan of immigration":

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5895033/british-jobs-for-british-workers.thtml

To balance up, comments from left wing outlets (not my preferred reading material, but a balance to the spin and misinterpretation of the Mail and Express):

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20880

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/the-express-is-wrong-half-of-all-new-jobs-have-gone-to-uk-citizens/

 

A simple google search gets you a lot of hits pointing out you can't use the information the way Dune has. You can even spin it the other way to point out that of the 1.67 million new jobs created, 1.4 million had gone to British nationals.

 

It's not that the original information was inaccurate, but it doesn't show you what the Mail, Express or Dune think it does or want people to believe it does. The Express probably knew that as they somehow "forgot" to even provide a link back to the source article.

 

There are points to be made on the immigration issue, and loads of reasons to criticise labour, but Dune's second hand article was a poor example as it was pretty dishonest.

[trousers]

 

There are loads of articles out there that point out why the way the Mail and Express twisted the source info made it wrong. The original article did indeed criticise Brown, but says nothing negative about immigration.

The facts actually show that more than 50% of new jobs went to non-immigrants.

 

Pointing out the spin:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/apr/09/the-spectator-dailymail

Original article by a "fan of immigration":

http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5895033/british-jobs-for-british-workers.thtml

To balance up, comments from left wing outlets (not my preferred reading material, but a balance to the spin and misinterpretation of the Mail and Express):

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=20880

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/04/the-express-is-wrong-half-of-all-new-jobs-have-gone-to-uk-citizens/

 

A simple google search gets you a lot of hits pointing out you can't use the information the way Dune has. You can even spin it the other way to point out that of the 1.67 million new jobs created, 1.4 million had gone to British nationals.

 

It's not that the original information was inaccurate, but it doesn't show you what the Mail, Express or Dune think it does or want people to believe it does. The Express probably knew that as they somehow "forgot" to even provide a link back to the source article.

 

There are points to be made on the immigration issue, and loads of reasons to criticise labour, but Dune's second hand article was a poor example as it was pretty dishonest.

 

Fair points. Cheers

[Patrick Bateman]

No one should have to pay inheritance tax. No one at all, ever IMO. It's just a callous money grab and is quite distasteful. Not surprising it's quite popular with the lefties.

 

I do agree that it's completely ludicrous. You pay tax on your earnings, tax on your savings, tax on what you spend (on most things), tax on buying your house, tax on your pension, then tax on what you've got left after that when you die. Weird.

 

I thought the general idea of inheritence tax is that it was brought in years and years ago (i.e. hundreds of years) to tax landowners who owned a significant portion of land.

 

The thresholds haven't changed much in recent times. So I do agree with scrapping it up to £1m. £1m falls back (in my opinion) to richer landowners (unless you live in Mayfair where £1m buys you a parking space ... )

 

Regardless, our tax system is FAR too complicated. I don't think any party has even thought about addressing that issue?

[Johnny Bognor]

Unfortunately there is no one link as the data required is spread over 40 years and there is no one source. The data is pretty much all over the place, but there is clear evidence to support my view.

 

FAO: Ludwig

 

As said before, there is no simple link available. I have compiled GDP figures to prove my point.

 

UK manufacturing fell from 31% of GDP to 25% of GDP between 1970 and 1979. Between 1979 and 1989 (the Thatcher years) it fell from 25% to 23% of GDP. Between 1989 and 2000 it fell from 23% to 19%. Therefore, manufacturing as a share of GDP fell LESS during the Thatcher years than at any other time since 1970.

We can also consider that this trend has even affected Germany (Europe's industrial powerhouse) where manufacturing has fallen from 36% of GDP to 24% of GDP since the early 1970's. Even in France (where the state owns significant parts of the manufacturing base) manufacturing has fallen by more than 13% of its share of GDP.

 

So it is easier to peddle the leftie mantra that the tories decimated manufacturing, but the facts do not back this up. Industrial decline has been in full swing for the last 5 decades and this pattern has been repeated in every major western economy. We in the west have been de-industrialising and therefore it is no surprise that economies like China and India have had a surge in GDP as they move to make more and more of the worlds products.

[GenevaSaint]

We can also consider that this trend has even affected Germany (Europe's industrial powerhouse) where manufacturing has fallen from 36% of GDP to 24% of GDP since the early 1970's. Even in France (where the state owns significant parts of the manufacturing base) manufacturing has fallen by more than 13% of its share of GDP.

 

So it is easier to peddle the leftie mantra that the tories decimated manufacturing, but the facts do not back this up. Industrial decline has been in full swing for the last 5 decades and this pattern has been repeated in every major western economy. We in the west have been de-industrialising and therefore it is no surprise that economies like China and India have had a surge in GDP as they move to make more and more of the worlds products.[/color]

 

The last two paragraphs can be summed up with one word - Globilisation

[Whitey Grandad]

The last two paragraphs can be summed up with one word - Globalisation

More to do with cheap labour than anything else.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

The last two paragraphs can be summed up with one word - Globilisation

 

What the left do not understand is that we are in a global trading environment and if we are to appeal to people to invest in this country then we have to make it an attractive place to come. Workers rights are great but not when there is no work. What Gordon has done is to put more and more people in the public sector as the private sector shrinks - he then taxes the private sector more and more as his debts mount up shrinking it further. Industry and business are the only things that can pull us out of the recession not a bloated public sector.

[View From The Top]

What the left do not understand is that we are in a global trading environment and if we are to appeal to people to invest in this country then we have to make it an attractive place to come. Workers rights are great but not when there is no work. What Gordon has done is to put more and more people in the public sector as the private sector shrinks - he then taxes the private sector more and more as his debts mount up shrinking it further. Industry and business are the only things that can pull us out of the recession not a bloated public sector.

 

Yeah, none of us lefties get that at all.

[Johnny Bognor]

The last two paragraphs can be summed up with one word - Globilisation

 

But the general leftie accusation (which is why I brought this up in the first place) is that the last tory government destroyed manufacturing......they didn't. Or at least the facts show they didn't.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief......

 

During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership public spending grew in real terms by an

average of 1.1% a year, while during John Major’s premiership it grew by an average of 2.4%

a year. (Source, 2005 IFS Public Spending Review, page 3 http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/05ebn2.pdf)

Edited 30 April, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Thedelldays]

serious question..heard many people on the various radio debates claim that MORE mines/pits closed before the thatcher era than it did when Mrs T was in power..

 

is this true..?

[IamLeGod]

The left are often quick to jump on the Tories of 1980's and in particular Mrs. Thatcher.

 

However, it is of worth to note (and often forgotten by the left) what an absolute mess the country was in 1979. Thatcher's predecessor James Callaghan (who for what its worth was a very good man) left the country in all sorts of trouble.

 

In many ways the situation was comparable to that of what we see now. Callaghan (like Brown) came to number 10 mid parliament, inheriting their own economic crisis. Both dithered and dallied (IMF Crisis) other solutions and both ultimately got things wrong. Labour in the 1970's were absolutely in the pocket of the Unions, who many believed we actually running the country instead of the government. This coupled with the "Lib-Lab pact" (sound familiar?) meant that the government was unable to do anything.

 

Thatcher came to power, at a time of - which Callaghan himself described as - political "sea-change". The left's belief in Keynesian politics (tax and spend etc) was shown to be ineffective as it had failed to solve several economic crisis (take note Mr Brown). More importantly I think, was Thatcher's taking on of the Union's. Mrs Thatcher did what no other govt (Red or Blue) was prepared to do at the time and put the unions back in their place. Privatisation was essential at the time, money and emphasis needed to be moved onto the private sector as the government and the country were bankrupt.

 

Also, it is worth keeping in mind that Mrs. T was elected three times. She cannot have been doing as much wrong as the left propaganda machine claimed if she managed to win three elections.

 

I am not a Tory, and not a Thatcherite - but do get very bored of the Left's loathing of her. I was in a taxi yesterday, and the driver told me that if she was to die today - then he would take the day off tomorrow and buy a bottle of champagne, which is frankly disgusting. Thatcher was what the country needed at the time - which is reflected in the fact that the country elected her 3 times.

 

Gordon really should look to the history books and understand that taxing and spending simply does not solve an economic crisis. The public sector (whilst i do believe it is a vital part of our society) will not take us out of recession.

 

Haha also - lol at Labour's desperation wheeling out Blair again!

[trousers]

serious question..heard many people on the various radio debates claim that MORE mines/pits closed before the thatcher era than it did when Mrs T was in power..

 

is this true..?

 

I don't know the answer to that but closing down, or selling to the private sector, any inefficient and unsustainable nationalised businesses is the duty of any good Government.

[benjii]

Back to the issue around "point scoring"...

 

I don't think anyone objects to parties highlighting the weaknesses, or perceived weaknesses at least, of the other parties' policies. What I, and I think many others can't stand though, is when they begin the answer to a simple question by spouting off about another party.

 

EG

 

- Gordon, will you rule out a VAT rise?

 

- What I can say is that the Tories put VAT up in the 80s... etc..

[trousers]

The left are often quick to jump on the Tories of 1980's and in particular Mrs. Thatcher.

 

However, it is of worth to note (and often forgotten by the left) what an absolute mess the country was in 1979. Thatcher's predecessor James Callaghan (who for what its worth was a very good man) left the country in all sorts of trouble.

 

In many ways the situation was comparable to that of what we see now. Callaghan (like Brown) came to number 10 mid parliament, inheriting their own economic crisis. Both dithered and dallied (IMF Crisis) other solutions and both ultimately got things wrong. Labour in the 1970's were absolutely in the pocket of the Unions, who many believed we actually running the country instead of the government. This coupled with the "Lib-Lab pact" (sound familiar?) meant that the government was unable to do anything.

 

Thatcher came to power, at a time of - which Callaghan himself described as - political "sea-change". The left's belief in Keynesian politics (tax and spend etc) was shown to be ineffective as it had failed to solve several economic crisis (take note Mr Brown). More importantly I think, was Thatcher's taking on of the Union's. Mrs Thatcher did what no other govt (Red or Blue) was prepared to do at the time and put the unions back in their place. Privatisation was essential at the time, money and emphasis needed to be moved onto the private sector as the government and the country were bankrupt.

 

Also, it is worth keeping in mind that Mrs. T was elected three times. She cannot have been doing as much wrong as the left propaganda machine claimed if she managed to win three elections.

 

I am not a Tory, and not a Thatcherite - but do get very bored of the Left's loathing of her. I was in a taxi yesterday, and the driver told me that if she was to die today - then he would take the day off tomorrow and buy a bottle of champagne, which is frankly disgusting. Thatcher was what the country needed at the time - which is reflected in the fact that the country elected her 3 times.

 

Gordon really should look to the history books and understand that taxing and spending simply does not solve an economic crisis. The public sector (whilst i do believe it is a vital part of our society) will not take us out of recession.

 

Haha also - lol at Labour's desperation wheeling out Blair again!

 

Fine post sir. Any objection if I post a copy of this on my Facebook page? (genuine request!)

 

I've far too many left-wing 'friends' on Facebook whose polarised view on 20th Century history (c.1979 - c.1997) tends to be somewhat blinkered or, as some might say, blinkered by deep rooted bigotry of a certain lady.

[IamLeGod]

Fine post sir. Any objection if I post a copy of this on my Facebook page? (genuine request!)

 

I've far too many left-wing 'friends' on Facebook whose polarised view on 20th Century history (c.1979 - c.1997) tends to be somewhat blinkered or, as some might say, blinkered by deep rooted bigotry of a certain lady.

 

By all means feel free

 

As I said before, I am not a Tory or Thatcherite - but I simply respect her as a politician. Thatcher had a vision of how she felt would be a better way to go about doing things politically. She then acted with strength of will and confidence in her convictions (oh so lacking in Gordon) to go about achieving this.

 

Too many politicians are now simply concerned with electoral success. Politics is just a game, measured by electoral success. They seem to have forgotten what their job actually is - to make the country a better place for us to live, and once that is secured trying to achieve positive things for those around the world. This new trend became entrenched and institutionalised under New Labour (ditching everything the Labour Party stood for - clause 4), in particular it's obsession with spin and short term media victories at the expense of long term positive policy planning. However, the Tories are not innocent of this - and under David Cameron they have if anything taken this to a whole new level. I have said before and will say again - Cameron = Blair Mk II

Edited 30 April, 2010 by IamLeGod

[Wes Tender]

Cameron was streets ahead. Brown came across as a busted flush, pleading to be allowed to continue ruining the economy and Clegg came across as the lightweight he really is. At one stage Clegg was rattled by the attack on him by Cameron and Brown and looked flushed and on the verge of a hissy fit. On some issue or another, he stated that it was because of that issue that they couldn't work with the Conservatives, but David Dimbleby missed the chance to ask him whether he could work with Labour.

 

These television debates are a farce and ought to have no place in British politics. It isn't about policies of the parties, as otherwise the party's spokesmen on those issues would be debating them. It is all about whether the three leaders of the parties are able to come across well on TV, that's all. The dissection of their performances afterwards by body language experts shows just how shallow the whole thing is, a triumph of presentation over substance.

 

Another example of this petty triteness is the perception that a party might be more attractive to a dumb television audience used to washing powder adverts if the product is marketed as being "new". New Labour tried it under Blair and the gullible public bought it. Clegg is now attempting the same feat, constantly and boringly availing himself of every opportunity to describe the "other two" of being from the "old" parties. It obviously went way over his head that the "new" Liberal Democrat Party was just the very, very old Liberal party with a few deserters from Old Labour and that the Lib Dems are actually older than New Labour. Anybody with any intelligence woud not be deceived, as they would be looking to see whether the so-called new party had a matching set of new policies. Anyway, Brown wanted to give the impression that his strength was the experience of Government over the past 13 years, whereas Clegg wished to infer that the other two old parties were incapable of the new and fair approach they would have.

 

Cameron struck the telling blows by being able to dismiss the Lib Dems as inexperienced in Goverment for decades and Labour as makiing promises as to what they'd do within months of being returned to Government, having failed to implement that action during the past 13 years.

[trousers]

By all means feel free

 

As I said before, I am not a Tory or Thatcherite - but I simply respect her as a politician. Thatcher had a vision of how she felt would be a better way to go about doing things politically. She then acted with strength of will and confidence in her convictions (oh so lacking in Gordon) to go about achieving this.

 

Too many politicians are now simply concerned with electoral success. Politics is just a game, measured by electoral success. They seem to have forgotten what their job actually is - to make the country a better place for us to live, and once that is secured trying to achieve positive things for those around the world. This new trend became entrenched and institutionalised under New Labour (ditching everything the Labour Party stood for - clause 4), in particular it's obsession with spin and short term media victories at the expense of long term positive policy planning. However, the Tories are not innocent of this - and under David Cameron they have if anything taken this to a whole new level. I have said before and will say again - Cameron = Blair Mk II

 

Cheers. It's refreshing to hear a non-Thatcherite respecting her as a politician and having a balanced view of things. A rare commodity these days!

[solentstars]

rolll on the hung parliment next week

[Whitey Grandad]

rolll on the hung parliment next week

Oh please God, no. I don't think many people realise what a hole our country is in. A hung parliament will achieve nothing. Literally.

[Whitey Grandad]

What makes me really angry is when Brown talks about 'taking money out of the economy' when others talk about reducing taxes. It's in the economy already, he's the one that wants to take it out. He treats it all as his money and we should all be really grateful that he lets us keep any of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

These television debates are a farce and ought to have no place in British politics. It isn't about policies of the parties, as otherwise the party's spokesmen on those issues would be debating them. It is all about whether the three leaders of the parties are able to come across well on TV, that's all. The dissection of their performances afterwards by body language experts shows just how shallow the whole thing is, a triumph of presentation over substance.

 

 

Spot on. I didn't watch the debate as I was working late but watched "this week" afterwards. Rory Bremner made the same point, he went on to say he could see some people in the polling booth on May 6th, looking up and down their ballot paper and saying "where's Brown, Where's Clegg".

 

If these debates lead to local debates in town halls ect up and down the country, between local candidates, then they could be a force for good. It may encourage people to come out and listen to politics and re engage. Since the decline of the unions the working man,has no real forum to discuss and get involved in politics. I fear that people will not get off their backsides and go and attend local debates as they wont be on TV.

 

The debates are here to stay, but they need to be amended. I would have 1 leaders debate not 3, and then I would have 3 one hour debates with each party. At these debates the whole team would be questioned by the likes of Paxman and Andrew Neil. For example, Labour in their 1 hour will have Brown, Darling, Alan Johnson, Harriet Harman, Ed Balls and Jack Straw along with Brown, questioned by professional political figures and the same for the other two parties.

[Scummer]

If these debates lead to local debates in town halls ect up and down the country, between local candidates, then they could be a force for good.

 

They had one in my constituency. They cleverly arranged it for yesterday evening.........

[St Marco]

no different to how the other 2 answered everything in the other 2 debates, remember the 1st one, how many times did Clown say, "i agree with.."

 

We have, as i see it, difficult choices...

 

1) labour = Brown still in power and continuing the mess of the last few years.

 

2) Conservatives = Research the 80's to see what they really stand for

 

3) Lib Dems = The unknown, which people are scared of.

 

 

Either way, i think this country is a long way from being economically stable again.

 

Totally disagree mate.

 

The other two at least backed up what they were arguing about by offering different solutions and reasons why they opposed each others policies. They were debating it quite passionatly and at times fiercely. Clegg on the other hand offered nothing. If you read that BBC report and read the analysts they all agree Clegg was weak. When he was put on the spot about his policies he either said "it is in our manifesto" i.e he doesn't know the in's and out's of it so tries to avoid it. Or the thing he did most was laugh. To imply they were wrong. But yet he didn't explain why they were wrong. And from reading the reviews and stuff this seems to be a huge problem for him. By laughing shows weakness. Can you imagine someone like that arguing for our rights in europe or against us? In contrast look at cameron when he is being attacked, doesn't laugh, doesn't smile, doesn't shake his head. Just comes back with his views. Sometimes they are in my opinion wrong views, but he at least makes them clear. As much as Brown has taken a kicking he did the same.

 

Clegg is clearly out of his depth and the third debate made people realise that he is not the pull your sleaves up and get stuck in guy that the country badly needs.

[View From The Top]

Clegg is clearly out of his depth and the third debate made people realise that he is not the pull your sleaves up and get stuck in guy that the country badly needs.

 

I hope that you're not suggesting the county views Dave in that way?

[aintforever]

Didn't watch all of it because footie was on but from what I did see I thought Cameron came out best.

 

In theory Brown should have come out tops but when it comes to the economy the tories do tend to sound more business orientated IMO.

 

Brown seems to think the economy is all about pumping millions of cash we havn't got into inefficient public services. I think all that is doing is making things much worse later on, we need efficiency savings everywhere, the same rules should apply to public services as what apply to private business.

[Whitey Grandad]

Brown seems to think the economy is all about pumping millions of cash we havn't got into inefficient public services. I think all that is doing is making things much worse later on, we need efficiency savings everywhere, the same rules should apply to public services as what apply to private business.

In a nutshell. The public services have no incentive or interest in reducing costs or saving money. Spending on the health service has doubled and the improvement is only 30%. Cutting it by 20% should therefore make no discernable difference.

[solentstars]

Oh please God, no. I don't think many people realise what a hole our country is in. A hung parliament will achieve nothing. Literally.

i think they do and i think you will find that politicians can work together for the national good when they want power that badly.

only losers wil be ashcroft and the super rich who will not get inheritance tax back hander .

[solentstars]

Didn't watch all of it because footie was on but from what I did see I thought Cameron came out best.

 

In theory Brown should have come out tops but when it comes to the economy the tories do tend to sound more business orientated IMO.

 

Brown seems to think the economy is all about pumping millions of cash we havn't got into inefficient public services. I think all that is doing is making things much worse later on, we need efficiency savings everywhere, the same rules should apply to public services as what apply to private business.

 

on sky news they had a experiment of 14 undecided voters.

7 watched the tv debate and 7 listened on radio.

the tv debate experiment had clegg winning but the those who listened on radio brown came out top.

i found it interesting when people had to listen on radio they seem to take more notice of what was being said.

[St Marco]

I hope that you're not suggesting the county views Dave in that way?

 

Personally of all the three i felt Cameron came out looking the most likely to adopt the hardline aproach to certain things. Like for example on the youth thing. Cameron said they need to be disciplined as they were out of control, there were something like 17000 attacks on teachers. The only reason that happen's is because the teachers can't do anything about it due to the messed up laws that need changing. As he pointed out one student brought in a knife, threatened to knife his teacher, got expelled, was brought back after a board rejected his expellsion. That is just silly.

These little kids are the future of this country and if they are allowed to grow up as they currently are then you have to worry about what this place will be like in say 20 years time when they themselves have kids.

Clegg wants to just have a chat with them. Tell them that xyz is wrong. That won't make any difference at all. They need hardline discipline and based on the policies i have to say only conservatives seem to grasp that fact.

[aintforever]

In a nutshell. The public services have no incentive or interest in reducing costs or saving money. Spending on the health service has doubled and the improvement is only 30%. Cutting it by 20% should therefore make no discernable difference.

 

I think the Lib Dems have got it right on tax, we need to heavily tax the rich and have no tax for the first 10K to reward people who get off their ass and do low paid jobs instead of sitting around getting benefits.

 

I think the Tories have got it right in making scything cuts in public services but would never vote for them because they are essentially a bunch of snobs whose only concern is keeping hold of their stacks of cash.

[View From The Top]

The public services have no incentive or interest in reducing costs or saving money.

 

Unsurprisingly that's total and utter bullsh*t.

[View From The Top]

They need hardline discipline and based on the policies i have to say only conservatives seem to grasp that fact.

 

 

And what hardline discipline would that be?

 

I'm sure I and all the other teachers & lecturers would love to know.