Jump to content

so did the live TV debate do it for you?


Gary
 Share

Recommended Posts

It would be comical if it wasn't so serious and sad; like three poker players (all without a decent hand, cos we're strapped for cash); we just heard bluff and counter bluff - on balance, Clegg came across better (but he ain't going to be PM); and Cameron clearly appeared to be trying his best to appear all things to all men; so I guess Brown will finish up as the least worst option in a hung parliament, that won't last 12 months. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all the hype I actually watched it..... got a bit bored though :oops: and I spent more time watching their body language and how they were 'interacting' with each other :lol:

 

Have to admit though overall Clegg came out on top in my opinion too :shock: and the one that I thought would do the best didn't :?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cameron was exposed as the snake oil saleman that he is. He's only had one proper job(which his Dad got for him) and that was a spin doctor for a failed televison company and boy, did it show last night.I've said it since the day I clapped eyes on him...he's an empty suit.

Incidentally, is it legal for a boy who has yet to start shaving to become PM of this great nation ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with Dave is, that he's another Bliar - all style no substance - I watch the faces and body language of his Tory faithfull at one of his speeches - they're using him as a passport to success (?), but there's clearly no belief in him or the new bulls**t he's now spouting. :shock: We've simply not got a politician with the gravitas and the vision to meet the challenges we're facing. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone!

 

I may be a little sad, but I did enjoy watching the programme and will watch the other two being shown on BBC and Sky. Listening to the news programmes I think there is too much psychoanalysis going on. I would have thought it is more about policy and actions than mannerisms?

 

On another note regarding the right to vote, I do think people should vote with every chance they get, after all many people have died in various wars to give us this democratic right, and to change what is wrong!

 

I have an idea, and it may have been thought of before, it goes like this, if all the people who are eligible to vote do not vote, then these votes should be split equally to all the parties who are up for election, just an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought Sue, that the reason many folk don't vote, is precisely because they don't think any of the three main Parties are worth a light, and a vote for any minor Party is totally wasted under our current electoral system. Even the LibDems, with a 6% swing, couldn't dislodge the big two from their "safe" seats. Brown, in order to suck up to the liberal vote, is now promising a referendum on electoral reform, BUT: they are proposing the Single Transferable Vote system, which may just make life easier for the LibDems, but no one else. There are two differing themes in election:- 1) is a requirement for "geographical" representation - as with a "constituency" MP, for which first past the post may suffice. The other is:- 2) a requirement to represent "in Government" the thematic policy aspirations of the Nation as a whole - thus allowing a vote for any Political Party to count proportionately in terms of representation. This could be achieved, through the modernisation of the House of Lords, by making it a fully elected "executive" chamber of 100 seats, elected on a Party List basis in direct proportion to the percentage of votes cast at a General Election. Each Party would thus field a "list" of prospective Ministers to form a cabinet (Government), which would seem preferable to appointing(not electing) them via the House of Lords, as is the case at the moment. The added bonus being, that we could finally bring our system into the 21st century, by seperating the legislature (the Commons) from the executive (the Lords or Senate). This of course, won't happen, as it would undermine the monopoly position of the main two Parties. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just compulsory voting as in Australia? :? My point is, there is no point - cos our anachronistic "democratic" system is less democratic than it could be - it supports and perpetuates a two Party monopoly - and those two Parties ain't going to give up on that monopoly for as we know, Party interests come before everything else. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes BUT they still need something (policies) they are prepared to vote FOR: eg. majority public opinion favours: exiting the EU; tougher controls on immigration; tougher stance on crime and punishment - which None of the three main Parties come anywhere near providing. :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...