View Full Version : Mass Debating politicians

06-03-2015, 03:20 PM
well, at least its a fair description - view external link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31771198)

06-03-2015, 03:39 PM
Why on earth do they think we need three debates?, what will they say on the third that can't be said on the first?
Sound like a cheap way of filling the airwaves for the 24/7 rolling news channels.

07-03-2015, 11:40 AM
Very apt description.

07-03-2015, 02:11 PM
They have three because they can grill them on a range of topics. The economy, foreign policy, welfare and so on.

It says something that after four years of his media backers helping Cameron paint Miliband as weak, inept, weird and useless, that Cameron won't face him head to head. The tactics of the schoolyard bully who runs away when his mates aren't around to protect him.

I sincerely hope they do represent the PM with an empty chair. I have every confidence that Miliband would cream Cameron in a debate - but think Ed would probably struggle against an empty chair.

07-03-2015, 02:17 PM
I'd rather judge the leader of the parties based on their proposed policies and track record, rather their ability to perform in front of tv cameras in what is likely to be filled with childish political point scoring. Nick Clegg was widely praised during these type of events last time, but few would see him as a credible prime minister.

Imploding Turtle
07-03-2015, 02:37 PM
In the U.S. candidates do everything they can to lower the voter's expectations of their performance in debates so that they have as low a bar to meet as possible on the day. I have a feeling this is what Cameron's doing with the intention of agreeing to participate in the debates within a few days of them.

His tantrum is funny though. The broadcasters schedule debates, they then refuse to cancel them because he won't attend and so Cameron calls them arrogant and biased.

07-03-2015, 03:59 PM
Taio - Cameron can come onto the TV and defend his track record and proposed policies.

The problem is, he doesn't have much of a track record to defend and everyone knows that what he proposes is the opposite of what he will do.

This Government - more than any other - runs away and hides when bad things get reported. Osborne disappeared for a week when the HSBC news broke and even sent a junior to the Select Committee to answer questions when they wanted to speak to him.

08-03-2015, 01:29 PM
The problem with politics in this country is that is based on lies and spin.

Let's take Cameron in the run up to the General Election of 2010 - he said he'd protect frontline services - in reality, spending across ALL frontline services has not just been cut, but slashed.

Let's take the NHS as an example: waiting times are up, funding cut...it is a joke. And the reason behind all of this is privatisation - Cameron has put the NHS up for sale, so it will be run on profit, by private companies, whom many of his cronies and Tory donors are connected to. So, Cameron is in a win-win situation - if the NHS fails, he can dismiss this failure as not being the fault of the government, and if it succeeds, these company's, and ultimately his cronies, make massive amounts of money to line their pockets - this is public money, which should be kept for public use, and not so decisions in hospitals can be made based on profit.

Personally, I don't trust any politician, but given the spin and bulls

08-03-2015, 02:22 PM
Anyone who genuinely believed Cameron when he said he'd protect public services must be, for want of a better word, a bit thick.

The Bedlington Terrier
08-03-2015, 02:30 PM
Clegg and Cameron should have already resigned. The Cyril Smith cover-up is a diabolical political fiasco!

08-03-2015, 02:33 PM
When did he say he'd protect public services?

The current government clearly needed to reduce public spending over the current parliament to help balance the economy.

If the Tories are in government after the next election, I do feel however that they will take the public sector cuts too far.

08-03-2015, 02:35 PM
Get Labour back in - no liars in their party eh ? ;D :D

Can someone tell me the difference between Labour and the Tories ? Every one of them in it for their own needs and none of them give a damn about anyone else .

08-03-2015, 02:42 PM
The current government clearly needed to reduce public spending over the current parliament to help balance the economy.

Which they've done by increasing it. And the economy has been "balanced" to the extent that Public Net Debt has grown by 50%.

Meanwhile, public services have been slashed and the NHS successfully opened up to privatisation. So job done, there, George.

08-03-2015, 02:54 PM
Of course net debt has grown but it would have increased more under a Labour government that's for sure. I was referring to the need to reduce net borrowing. As has been widely reported, for example by the IFS, the current government's performance has been pretty good given what they inherited from the Labour government.

08-03-2015, 04:57 PM
Ah, you deal in the imaginary what would haves stated by the little voices in your head and not the facts of the situation. Ah'm oot.

08-03-2015, 05:01 PM
Little voices in my head. - what the **** are you on about? You are deluded if you think that net debt wouldn't have at least increased by the same under Labour.

08-03-2015, 09:19 PM
At least the NHS would be safe in the hands of the Tories if they were to get an overall majority and run the country on their own (sarcastic smiley needed)

09-03-2015, 07:29 PM
The Tories record in many areas is appalling yet there are still those who believe they have done a !good job!,some people ought to delve a little further into the real facts instead of listening to Tory propaganda spouted out by the Tory press.I dread to think what they will destroy if they are given another five years.

09-03-2015, 11:14 PM
This government in only five years has borrowed nearly three times what Labour has EVER. It is a monumental failure even by its own yardstick.