Live DEbate Petition

[Woody1985]

You can sign this if you want to see these imposters get together.

My only fear is that the smooth talking ones will look better than they are.

http://skynewsleadersdebate.epetitions.net/

Has anyone signed it?

[Betty Boop]

You can sign this if you want to see these imposters get together.

My only fear is that the smooth talking ones will look better than they are.

http://skynewsleadersdebate.epetitions.net/

Has anyone signed it?

Gordon Brown has stated he will be taking part, however I think this should be on terrestrial tv, so that all the electorate can watch it.

[shamo9]

I can't help but be a little cynical about all of this. I guarantee that quite a few will tune in and see a dashing, cultured and articulate P.R guy with shiny teeth challenging a gruff, Scottish ogre and say immediately: "oh, isn't he lovely, don't fancy that other one at all, he's boring."

All this without even listening to what they have to say (which will be most likely be dominated by petty shots at one an other).

[da-robster]

Gordon Brown has stated he will be taking part, however I think this should be on terrestrial tv, so that all the electorate can watch it.

I thought was to be two, one on itv1 and another to be simulcast on bbc1 and sky1.

It should be intresting to watch though undoubtedly the same as normal will happen, Gordon Brown will speak with no charisma and Cameron will speak lots while saying nothing of importance.In fact I struggle to see what this debate will bring other than proving that cameron has a better PR team and Gordon Brown has better policies.

[Betty Boop]

I thought was to be two, one on itv1 and another to be simulcast on bbc1 and sky1.

It should be intresting to watch though undoubtedly the same as normal will happen, Gordon Brown will speak with no charisma and Cameron will speak lots while saying nothing of importance.In fact I struggle to see what this debate will bring other than proving that cameron has a better PR team and Gordon Brown has better policies.

I didn't know that, cheers. We seem to be going down the American route with these debates, all style and no substance. Do you know if Nick Clegg is taking part?

[da-robster]

I didn't know that, cheers. We seem to be going down the American route with these debates, all style and no substance. Do you know if Nick Clegg is taking part?

I think he is but from what I understand none of the other parties are taking part.

[hibbytam]

I can't help feel a degree of cynicism about the whole thing, mostly because its for sky news, and they seem to be putting pressure on the government, essentially to fill their ratings (and in campaigning they're getting lots of free advertisement)
If such a debate were to happen, it would have to be on 'cooncil tele', purely to not disenfranchise a section of the population who don't have, or want to watch, SKY news. Say for political reasons, the same reason people don't buy the sun in Liverpool.

It should atleast be on the BBC, because that's what its their for. To be impartial.

[da-robster]

This should clarify everything.Also Brown has finally agreed to participate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8288424.stm

[hibbytam]

This should clarify everything.Also Brown has finally agreed to participate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8288424.stm

Ah. I have no real problems then.

I wonder if they'll do a seperate scotland one, with the SNP invited.

[Betty Boop]

Ah. I have no real problems then.

I wonder if they'll do a seperate scotland one, with the SNP invited.

Alex Salmond wants to take part. The SNP are threatening to block any broadcast of the debate in Scotland, unless Salmond is included.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/alex-salmond-snp-tv-debate

[Phil D. Rolls]

Alex Salmond wants to take part. The SNP are threatening to block any broadcast of the debate in Scotland, unless Salmond is included.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/04/alex-salmond-snp-tv-debate

But the wee grey man has already asked him if he fancies a live debate.

[steakbake]

But the wee grey man has already asked him if he fancies a live debate.

Salmond should go for it. Grey's debating style is lamentable, childish and more camp than inspiring for the leader of the supposed opposition.

I can see why the SNP want in on this. How can it be fair that there is to be a debate with three leaders - two of whom lead parties which in Scotland between them, struggle to muster the same votes as the party which will be left out?

One alternative would be to have a Scottish version with Brown, Cameron, Salmond and the other one...

[Phil D. Rolls]

Salmond should go for it. Grey's debating style is lamentable, childish and more camp than inspiring for the leader of the supposed opposition.

I can see why the SNP want in on this. How can it be fair that there is to be a debate with three leaders - two of whom lead parties which in Scotland between them, struggle to muster the same votes as the party which will be left out?

One alternative would be to have a Scottish version with Brown, Cameron, Salmond and the other one...

Their argument for excluding Salmond is that Scottish Independence is not a UK issue. Kind of missing the point, and summing up why we in Scotland are so frustrated about how the UK parliament represents us.

If the UK is a partnership, surely the desire of one partner to leave it should be discussed by everyone? Who knows, maybe they could persuade us to stay!

[davym7062]

what always amazes me is you have 3 highly educated people who want to to the best for the country but cant agree on a single thing.:grr:

[Woody1985]

what always amazes me is you have 3 highly educated people who want to to the best for the country but cant agree on a single thing.:grr:

IMO they don't want is what is best for the country. They want what is best for their party and themselves. Otherwise we would see alot more of them in agreement on certain issues.

They argue for arguing's sake. Even if one party came up with a magical solution to all of the ills in the world you would still have some stuck up, pompus **** from another party stating that it is wrong and we should do it a different way.

That's the main problem with politics, a good idea can be diluted to the point that it is pointless purely so other parties can have their tuppence worth.

Edit; And another thing, we have all of these people who are highly educated, go to Eaton (sp) etc yet have absolutely have no idea what it is like to live in poverty, in a scheme full of nutters and junkies etc etc etc.

I suspect that a lot of these guys come from rich families where their idea of a hard time is having to pay for their own food.

[Beefster]

Edit; And another thing, we have all of these people who are highly educated, go to Eaton (sp) etc yet have absolutely have no idea what it is like to live in poverty, in a scheme full of nutters and junkies etc etc etc.

I suspect that a lot of these guys come from rich families where their idea of a hard time is having to pay for their own food.

There's no obvious barrier to someone from any background becoming an MP. It's a complete fallacy that all MPs are posh and rich. I think it's a good idea though that MPs are intelligent (in the main).

Two examples (out of hundreds):

The Midlothian Labour MP, David Hamilton, is an ex-miner. I assume that he wasn't wealthy before becoming an MP and didn't go to Eton.

David Davis, the Conservative MP who was the shadow Home Secretary, grew up on a council estate with his single mother. Again, not rich, no Eton.

[Woody1985]

There's no obvious barrier to someone from any background becoming an MP. It's a complete fallacy that all MPs are posh and rich. I think it's a good idea though that MPs are intelligent (in the main).

Two examples (out of hundreds):

The Midlothian Labour MP, David Hamilton, is an ex-miner. I assume that he wasn't wealthy before becoming an MP and didn't go to Eton.

David Davis, the Conservative MP who was the shadow Home Secretary, grew up on a council estate with his single mother. Again, not rich, no Eton.

I appreciate there isn't an obvious barrier and agree that people should be intelligent for the role.

I wouldn't know where to get information on the backgrounds of the people involved in politics but as far as I'm aware, and what was reported on the news during the expenses scandal, there are a fair few multi millionaires.

I don't know the proportion of those on the news to the overall number or whether they became millionaires after becoming MPs or not.

It's my perception that they tend to be middle/upper classes. Their general demeanour and appearance tends to give a lot away IMO. You can tell by looking at Nicola Sturgeon that she's not been brought up with a silver spoon. :LOL:

I think that class divides play a part in lots of different aspects of life and make building relations with people in different classes difficult due to their perceptions of each other. Perhaps illustrated in my posts on this thread!

[Phil D. Rolls]

IMO they don't want is what is best for the country. They want what is best for their party and themselves. Otherwise we would see alot more of them in agreement on certain issues.

They argue for arguing's sake. Even if one party came up with a magical solution to all of the ills in the world you would still have some stuck up, pompus **** from another party stating that it is wrong and we should do it a different way.

That's the main problem with politics, a good idea can be diluted to the point that it is pointless purely so other parties can have their tuppence worth.

Edit; And another thing, we have all of these people who are highly educated, go to Eaton (sp) etc yet have absolutely have no idea what it is like to live in poverty, in a scheme full of nutters and junkies etc etc etc.

I suspect that a lot of these guys come from rich families where their idea of a hard time is having to pay for their own food.

Big Monty Python fan Woody? Your inverted snobbery is so cliched sometimes I wonder if you are just being ironic.

[Betty Boop]

IMO they don't want is what is best for the country. They want what is best for their party and themselves. Otherwise we would see alot more of them in agreement on certain issues.

They argue for arguing's sake. Even if one party came up with a magical solution to all of the ills in the world you would still have some stuck up, pompus **** from another party stating that it is wrong and we should do it a different way.

That's the main problem with politics, a good idea can be diluted to the point that it is pointless purely so other parties can have their tuppence worth.

Edit; And another thing, we have all of these people who are highly educated, go to Eaton (sp) etc yet have absolutely have no idea what it is like to live in poverty, in a scheme full of nutters and junkies etc etc etc.

I suspect that a lot of these guys come from rich families where their idea of a hard time is having to pay for their own food.

19 out of 29 members of the shadow cabinet are millionaires. :rolleyes:

[davym7062]

19 out of 29 members of the shadow cabinet are millionaires. :rolleyes:

but to quote george osbourne were all in this together. yeah right.

this shower cannot be allowed to govern again:agree:

[Phil D. Rolls]

but to quote george osbourne were all in this together. yeah right.

this shower cannot be allowed to govern again:agree:

Let's bally well roll up our sleeves and show Johnny Foreigner how it's done the British way, and George and his pals can supervise.

All he needed to do was start the broadcast with Land of Hope and Glory, and mention rosey cheeked youngsters frolicking in the streets, and we'd have been right back in 1940. You can hardly blame them for taking that tack, as it is the last time they had an idea.

We're all in this together - gee ta.

[steakbake]

The thought of the Tories winning makes me feel a bit ill, to be honest.

They are in a very fortunate position of relative strength and they are playing it well. They can tell us how horrendously wrong the UK economy has gone over the past 18 months and give us all kinds suggestions for cuts until the cows come home and it won't be an assault on their record. All they need to do is to say that cuts and austeroty are needed and they will take on the appearance of being honest.

I still think Labour are in a state of denial. Their economic record helped them to win the last election, but it will cost them this one and they have yet to realise it. Brown still thinks he saved the world, yet from what I read, banks and other financial institutions were actively upping sticks to come to the City of London to enjoy a total lack of regulation - which more or less his first act as chancellor, he brought in. He has also supervised over an apparent economic growth which now as we get the bill, we realise was based entirely on unrealistic credit, increasingly unaffordable personal debt and by encouraging rampant materialism.

Strange how history repeats itself as it is absolutely this absurd illusion which the Tories managed to manufacture to make [some] people feel rich in the 80s.

[Beefster]

19 out of 29 members of the shadow cabinet are millionaires. :rolleyes:

So some of those millionaires had successful careers before becoming politicians. Is that a bad thing? Obama was a millionaire before becoming President.

Incidentally, at least, one Labour Cabinet Minister has a butler. Not very socialist, is it?

[Betty Boop]

So some of those millionaires had successful careers before becoming politicians. Is that a bad thing? Obama was a millionaire before becoming President.

Incidentally, at least, one Labour Cabinet Minister has a butler. Not very socialist, is it?

Certainly not, but I would hardly describe New Labour as Socialists.:greengrin

[steakbake]

Certainly not, but I would hardly describe New Labour as Socialists.:greengrin

Labour and the Tories are remarkably similar. LibDems are more left wing than Labour, yet they are considered centralists.

As for Labour and Tories, both have left of centre members and right of centre members. Labour have a bunch of regressive left-wingers on their back benches and the Tories have a bunch of regressive right-wingers on their back benches. It's all much of a muchness, to be honest. Just depends where you are from and which was the more likely party to get you elected and land you in a well paid job with brilliant expenses after you'd failed at being a lawyer.

Simples.