Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Have you any stats on what % of those who watched the first debate went on to vote. I am genuinely interested.
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
Have you any stats on what % of those who watched the first debate went on to vote. I am genuinely interested.
'Fraid not - the 10m figure came from BARB.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Grand coalition (i.e. Labour & Tory) may be needed to keep SNP out of power
I agree with him, the SNP in government would be extremely dangerous for the UK and so this would be preferable. I can't ever see it happening however - both parties are so entrenched that they'll put their own interests above the interests of the nation.
I agree with him, the SNP in government would be extremely dangerous for the UK and so this would be preferable. I can't ever see it happening however - both parties are so entrenched that they'll put their own interests above the interests of the nation.
Well said. It seems to me that a huge part of the problem here are these 'broadcasters' who have behaved in an unbelievably shady, underhand and biased way. No one elected them, and no one can call them to account. They just dictate terms.
In principle I do not support so-called pre-election 'leadership debates'; I think they reduce politics yet further to soundbites. But if we must have debates then we should legislate for an independent body, with a panel who organize the debates. This is what happens in the USA: http://www.debates.org/
Right now it is obvious to anyone that these 'broadcasters' are in it to create a spectacle, and are grinding their own prejudiced axe. Take 2001, when Hague wanted to debate Blair. Blair said no, and that was the end of it. But now these 'broadcasters' think they can force the British PM to attend. That is outrageous.
Last edited:
A typical post from you, arrogant, misguided and perjorative. You really are a bore.
Heaven forbid people watch an interview with well thought out questions rather than soundbited grandstanding. But carry on, given your inability to think or reason and get suckered in by the likes of UKIP I'm not surprised you liked the debates. What an exciting show they made! All that shouting! All the lights! All the arguing!
Last edited:
Nothing to do with Cameron's own lacklustre performance in the 2010 debates then? Which many Tories blame for them having to form a coalition.
How have they behaved in a biased way, exactly? Unless you buy into Dolph's self-contradictory argument that having both more and less parties on the left harms the Tories.
They are not dictating terms; they've entered into negotiation and altered the terms as the Prime Minister requested. That the Tories have chosen not to enter into these negotiations in a good faith manner is what has sunk them.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
I really am fed up with people my age (16-18 year olds) hating on the Conservatives. What have they actually done that is so terrible.
Nothing to do with Cameron's own lacklustre performance in the 2010 debates then? Which many Tories blame for them having to form a coalition.
You seem to think that the 2010 debates influenced voting intentions. The evidence is quite different. If there was an influence on voting intentions, then it was slight (perhaps the LibDems gained or retained a seat they might have lost, but that's not even clear). One reason for this is that these kind of debates never probe issues sufficiently, and rather tend to well-prepared soundbites. Remember in the first 2010 debate Clegg-Mania hit, then in the following two debates that died down and the polls returned to the norm. The reasons for the Coalition's being are more involved that you seem to think and suggest, and are not a cheap function of the 2010 debates. The reason for Coalition between the Tories and LibDems has much more to do with Labour's economic disaster of 2008, and the fact that the voters were generally disillusioned with the solutions the politicians proposed, and hence no clear winner resulting from the 2010 election.
Last edited:
Killed the economy recovery they inherited leading to three long years of near stagnant growth; laid the groundwork for privatising the NHS; raised tuition fees; presided over the lowest period of house building since the war; tried (and failed) to balance the books by targeting the poorest and most vulnerable in society through the bedroom tax, the welfare cap, the freeze on benefits, the freeze on in-work benefits, the targeting of increased sanctions against claimants whilst at the same time cutting the highest rate of taxation for the rich and increasing spending on pensioners; led to the longest period of sub-inflationary income increases in recorded history; favoured their voters to the extent that pensioners know earn more on average than workers; most of the omnishambles budget; and on and on and on.
This has been the worst government of recent times. I can think of just four good things they've done: gay marriage, scrapping id cards, stamp duty reform and the capital gains tax increase.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 13,597
Stripping away the bulls*** about these TV debates and what do you have? One of the soon to be made redundant is trying to set the conditions for his job interview.
It would not be tolerated in industry so why is it even being talked about. The voters in his constituency should take note of his arrogance and give him his P45. He and the rest are nothing without the people's say and I fervently wish more people would realise it.
It would not be tolerated in industry so why is it even being talked about. The voters in his constituency should take note of his arrogance and give him his P45. He and the rest are nothing without the people's say and I fervently wish more people would realise it.
Well people in your age group have been well and truly shafted by this government so have every reason to hate the Conservatives - tuition fee increases, scrapping EMA to name but two things. Ah I hear you cry, but this is because of the awful mess left by the last government, public spending had to be cut to balance the books. Fair enough I say, but why then have benefits for well-off older people been protected by the Conservatives then?
What evidence? I think the debates were an extremely positive thing and did cause a stir of excitement amongst the usually apathetic public. Remember the queues that formed outside some polling stations in 2010? Though it's certainly not a good thing that some people were denied a vote because they were too late, it is a good thing that so many people were actually trying to vote.
I don't think the queues had anything to do with increased voter turnout, if you look at the figures, although 2010 showed an increase relative to 2005, it was still well down on historical participation levels.
Widespread youth unemployment, removal of EMA, £9,000 a year tuition fees, against giving 16-18 year olds the vote, removal of housing benefits for the young whilst introducing special savings bonds for the old. I have no idea why young people hate on the Tories.
Buying votes of a group with the money of other people should not be an acceptable course in a fair, liberal democracy.
It's true, the coalition's triple lock on pensions is particularly bad policy.
No arguments from me there. It joins tax credits and right to buy on the stupidity list.
- Status