So, the first TV debate is tonight (ITV, 8:30).
Will you be watching? And do you expect to learn anything?
Moreover, do you think it will change anything?
Printable View
So, the first TV debate is tonight (ITV, 8:30).
Will you be watching? And do you expect to learn anything?
Moreover, do you think it will change anything?
I would just like to say *YAWN* it seems they have come up with the set of rules guaranteed to make it boring. What we want to see celebrity death match, 3 men enter one man leaves!
Personally, I will be watching. Or at least, I'll give it a try. Whether I stick it out for the duration, or give up and go watch paint dry, will probably depend on how close I get to lobbing a brick through the TV screen. Which reminds me .... make arrangements to go a friends house to watch it, just in case. :D
Also, I asked "will it make a difference". Personally, I doubt it'll convince many, if any, on policies, but it is entirely possible to do very well, or very badly, in terms of personality. There have certainly been many examples in the US where moments on Presidential debates have been claimed afterwards as being the turning point, or at least, where a likely result became set in stone. And there have been some huge gaffs. Obama's performance is certainly alleged to have been influential, as was Kennedy versus Nixon, and many in-between.
But we don't have President's here. I'm rather inclined to support Thatcher's view on this ... we should be choosing a party based on policy, and TV debates are more about who is the best actor. Mind you, that being the case the past(like that YouTube video) suggests that it's a two-way fight between Cameron and Clegg and that Brown might as well start packing now, so maybe its no bad thing. :D
The biggest challenge for each candidate, in my view, is to make sure they don't step too badly on their own pecker. If they come out of each debate not having wrecked their own campaign, it's a victory. Cynic? Moi? :D
Yeah, the rules do seem very constricting. But perhaps, they're designed to try to make it about actual debate, not about acting, or rough and tumble.Quote:
Originally Posted by oolon
For instance, the rule about no audience clapping (other than at the start and end). Yeah, it sounds restrictive. But, on the other hand, if we get a minute of audience clapping a the start and end of every question, we'll hear more clapping than we will political answers. It does waste a lot of time.
If I want anything out of this, it's actual debate. I want to see the protagonists meeting each other, point for point. I want to see them directly confronting the arguments, the policies, not the posing and primping we get in Question Time or the playground-level point-scoring PM's Questions. And no, I'm not holding my breath, because I don't expect to get honest debate on the issues. There isn't enough attitude for that in the rules. We'll most likely get more of a canned speech recital, followed by an opposing canned speech recital.
Having said that, after Cameron's conference speech with no notes and no teleprompter, I've got to wonder if he might not be much better equipped to go ad-hoc in his points, and especially his replies? He might well come across a lot better (to the undecided, which is who this is really about) if he appears natural. It'll be interesting to see how Brown copes with it. For his sake, it'd better be a lot improved over YouTube.
Sure, the rules mean we won't get a fast-moving punch-and-jab debate, but at least we (hopefully) won't get the utter farce that is PMQ's.
This brings out the very worst kind of politics.
What use is been able to charismatically answer pre-prepared and carefully chosen questions, whilst making snide, populist remarks at your opponent going to do for your ability to lead a party in running a country.
I will be out tonight on a date, and if it ends early, I'll be dis-assembling a washing machine. An evening much more productively spent.
It's probably more a reflection of the way I watch TV these days (record and watch at my leisure, skipping ads and breaks) but I had no idea this was going on.
I might watch them with some interest, I suspect they won't change my position but I'll stay open minded. I agree with Saracen, they'll be worth it if they actually debate the issues properly but if it's all just posturing and rhetoric I'll be turning off fairly quickly.
Sadly though all politicians seems to be well trained to:- acknowledge the question, mitigate the answer, then speak what they want to talk about. I think there should be a panel, if they go off the point they get warning lights, a second offense and they lose the rest of the time. This would also give us an unofficial score! If there is a score we have something to bet one... YAY! more interest already.
I heard that the audience are not allowed to comment on any of the answers given. So they cannot voice their disagreement. Is that right?
I've voted "not if you paid me", but that's because I don't have a television and don't watch broadcast TV, rather than any particular disinclination to watch the debates. I can't see them making a huge difference to the outcome of the election, mind you - I'm guessing three kinds of people will watch: those who are genuinely interested in politics - but they are unlikely to be swayed by a TV debate vs. actually reading the manifestos and deciding which way to vote based on policy; the party faithful who'll watch to "cheer on" the party they've already decided to vote for; and the apathetic, who can't be bothered to change the channel and probably won't bother voting anyway. Cynical, me? ;)
As an aside, there is another important contributing factor stopping me watching them: my wife would divorce me if she caught me taking an interest in party politics... ;)
Yes, it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by VR46
The rules also stipulate what the cameras can cover in terms of audience close and wide shots. For instance, no close-ups of the questioner's response to the answers from any of the candidates, so no close ups of nods of agreement or frowns of disdain unless the candidate addresses the questions directly with the answer.
There are, IIRC, 17 rules on the principles of the debates, and some 76 on the format of the program, with points like the above.
wth?Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
There's two ways you coulkd read that question, of course.Quote:
Is that right?
As Saracen says, you are correct - the format of the programs is very tightly controlled.
But you could also be asking if that's fair / appropriate. And tbh, I think it is, yes. This is meant to be a program about the leaders debating with each other - allow audience interaction and you'll get the one or two vocal audience members (who would almost certainly be party members / activists with an axe to grind) taking over the program, which isn't the point. Think of it as more of an extended party political broadcast where each party gets to respond to the others, rather than a special edition of question time.
She strongly disagrees with the whole concept of part politics (as do I, increasingly). "divorce" might be hyperbole, but I would certainly not be in her good books. I think she struggled hard enough to get over the fact that I stood for election once... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Salazaar
I shall be going for a run instead.
That's the danger .... but being to smug, snide or clever in a "debate" that immediately precedes a general election could be a dangerous tactic. If one candidate comes across as personable and open, inclusive, engaging with the public and the other is distant, disdainful and clearly evasive, it can be very damaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
For instance, when Bush Senior debated Clinton, Bush dodged questions, like how someone wealthy could know what it was like to suffer in the decline the country was facing. Bush dodged, and actually said he didn't understand the question. Clinton, on the other hand, was much more open, he walked up to the audience, engaged with them and answered about how he personally felt, by being engaged with the people. The subtext was clear .... I might be a multi-millionaire, but I'm, one of you too. True or not, it worked.
Similarly, Obama more or less buried McCain because Obama was open, the body language was warm, he moved about a bit, he faced McCain and addressed him, while McCain studiously refused to address Obama or even make eye contact with him.
In both cases, it wasn't just what they said, but how they said it.
In a way, that both makes and refutes your point. The TV debates are, at the very least, in large part about how well you handle TV debates rather than polities. So yes, in that sense, it brings out the worst. On the other hand, it may well be that the usual evasion and avoidance of answering the actual question will be seen as patronising and disdainful of the audience which, after all, this the people they're going to want to vote for them in 3 weeks. I'm sure they all have professional advisers telling them that dissing the audience and then saying "but please vote for me" is a dangerous and probably counter-productive strategy.
What we might well get is a positive reaction to who best appears to be open, inclusive, etc. He who looks to be evading the question may pay the price, while he who avoids it while not appearing to will cash in.
Which is why I agree with Thatcher, we ought to be choosing based on policy, not acting skills.
Maybe, but I'd guess there'll be an element of a fourth, and this time especially large, group - those who want to vote but as yet haven't a clue who to vote for. That very likely will include a lot who voted Labour in recent years, but are either much less convinced to do so now, or have decided that they'll vote but it will like hell be Labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
Potentially, this time could be game-changing. In '97, a lot of people voted Labour that had previously voted Tory, out of disenchantment with the Tories with sleaze, etc. A good proportion of those will be historically Tory voters who may well now be tempted to go back.
Also, a lot of people comment, and saying polls, that they're undecided. Sure, they can read manifestos but I'd bet that the vast majority won't. So what can they decide on? They may well decide to watch a debate or two, and make up their mind which way to go based on what they see and hear. If so, the impressions that these debates give out could prove to be decisive in making up the minds of the large group currently undecided. The big issue becomes even more critical then, which is .... will they decide on policy, or personality?
Unfortunately, the media expects our politicians to dance to the performance tune which is why the whole campaign of each party has little substance. I mean, let's face it, there is precious little any Government can offer in the current financial stranglehold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Your wife's not Chinese is she? She may have been expecting you to go for something other than an 'election'.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
The problem is there is plenty they should be doing, but we know physiologically that the great unwashed don't like to be told how bad things really are.Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
We should be given more choice over where the cuts are going to be, and where the tax should be increased.
However we get the stupidity with the Tories planning to ring fence "front line" services.... I can't help but think define front line!
The verbose but completely insane tax reforms of the lib dems (see Stephanomic's analysis of why I dislike anything that discourages saving and investing)
And dear old Labour trying to distract from the fact its farcical debt bringing spending during the good times not only can't continue but are going to cause massive harm predominantly to lower income people for the next decade at the very least.
Until we have some honesty from the candidates who respect voters like me, I have no respect or time for them, nor will I pretend its anything but a lesser of two evils, i'll have the douche rather than the brown turd.
But I guess we can't have that because they know from focus groups that been the harbinger of doom, whilst the opponent is promising sunshine lollypops and PFI schemes does you no favours.
A commentator mentioned this morning that when the Nixon/JFK debate took place, Kennedy refused TV makeup and Nixon followed suit so as not to appear less macho. Later, Kennedy was covertly made up in his ready room leaving Nixon exposed with the now imfamous sweaty, five o'clock shadow look that people rightly interpreted as shiftiness.
Look out for tonight's shifty character. The one with the silver spoon and forked tongue.
They also said that radio listeners judged Nixon as the winner whilst television viewers judged JFK as the winner.
Whilst I don't have much sympathy with any politician (they choose to do it, after all) I wouldn't like to be one of this lot tonight. Lots of pressure. Lots of coaching from Obama's people for both sides too, apparently.
I'm torn between thinking that this is a good idea and between thinking it's a contrived stunt that doesn't do us any substantial favours. That said, politics and our country are in such a mess you could probably elect a syphillitic goat* and it wouldn't do much worse.
*Some may contend that this has already happened. More than once.
Hmmmm. Slick if young and inspiring visionary, or deceitful puppet-master. Chips or Daddy?Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
:D
I think I'll go for the slick, presentable young one, not the deceitful old hack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
I had long suspected that much of the reason people vote labour is to "stick it to the wealthy" out of spite and envy. Thanks for confirming your own attitudes to us, at least.
A rash presumption. You associate yourself with the wealthy when you have no idea at all about my circumstances. Please, stop embarrassing yourself. I am an altruist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
I associate myself with no-one. Explain, then, the reason for your out-of-the-blue 'silver-spoon' comment.
There's no need for an explanation; contributors here are intelligent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
You're supporting the lib dems then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
:mrgreen:
You mean "I can't think of an explanation that doesn't make it look like it's all about envy"?Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
No big surprise... :)
No, I couldn't think of a polite way of saying that point-scoring, me-smarter-than-you discussion doesn't interest me. Yawn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
beat me to it you old codger :stupid:Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
If you're incapable of justifying what you write, why write it? I'd suggest you grow a pair, but it's obvious that you don't have enough faith in your convictions to attempt to defend them.
endless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
Yep! Not all of us run away when we can't justify our comments...
He does it to me too, its a shocking endightment of my mild compulsive behaviour that I keep writing justified points, which just get ignored with an emotive putdown :(
Sorry old chap. But this is a forum not a way of life. You could just ignore me and save yourself the anguish.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Don't worry Animus; he's either a troll, or not as smart as he likes to think he is ;) If someone is unable to respond to your comments or arguments, whatever the reason, it can be thought of as their conceding the point. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsive_behavior
"Compulsive behavior is behaviour which a person does compulsively—in other words, not because they want to behave that way"
Weak goading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
"Unable to respond to" and "chooses not to respond to" are different things. I prefer discussion with value.
In which case, I'm helping you to ignore me.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
It's pretty unfair to begin an argument then refuse to follow through with justification. I can see no real reason for you not to, therefore it's logical for me to assume that you are unable, rather than unwilling, to do so.
It's a nice excuse, but I suspect everyone here sees through it. You just keep telling yourself that, though! I'd be more inclined to believe it if you didn't get involved at all, rather than initially getting involved in these debates, and then backing out half way through without responding to any of the points.Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
This is kind of the 'problem' I have. I've a plathora of learning difficulties, dyslexia been the most obvious, short term memory for names and numbers. However my logic and problem solving abilities, well they come with some baggage, I get almost axcious if there is something I'm trying to understand which isn't demonstrating simple rational traits. Even the most complex structures are a collection of simplicity at its atomic level after all.This is also why I'm so well adjusted to software design, happiness of a perfect solution is amazingly euphoric.Quote:
Originally Posted by format
Works the other way I'm afraid, I'm compelled to bring rationality to the situation, the easiest way is to write you off which is what I've been chastised for in the past, trying to pigeon hole into "does it to wind me up", "does it because he is thick", "religious zeal"Quote:
Originally Posted by santa claus
I will continue to enjoy myself at this forum in a manner that does not contravene the rules. You can simply ignore me if you prefer. I started an argument?Quote:
Originally Posted by format
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
I do my best to understand, and make allowance, for your weaknesses, perhaps you ought to offer me the same respect?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAnimus
And we will all continue to think of you as a bit of a substance-less joke :mrgreen: It's a deal!
If only there was an ignore option :(
note that this is nothing personal - I just don\'t want to waste time reading your posts if I know you\'re not inclined to back them up if challenged.
Guys, knock it off.
This is about the election debates. Keep to it, please.
There is!Quote:
Originally Posted by format
Good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kata
Double good. My lucky day :rolleyes:.Quote:
Originally Posted by format
NVM, found it, cheers :D
Is this going to be advert-free even though its on ITV ?
Yes. Adverts aren't permitted by the rules. Same applies to the one on Sky, and obviously, to the BBC one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Terbinator
I couldn't get along with any of them in the debate. Some of the post debate commentary has been amusing I though, disecting what they wore and so on. Those bemoaning the lack of applause and answering back from the audience are wrong I feel, i'd rather hear from the candidates predominantly, and like a debate in the commons the structure lends itself a sense of respect and professionalism (as opposed to what's been seen in this thread for instance :)). Did Clegg 'win'? I thought they were all rather dry, and Clegg's admonishment of the queens speech he delivered in commons far more intices me voting for them than his apperance in the 'debate'.
I think the mods should really get on top of some of the tit for tat nonsense we keep getting in some of these threads. I know it can be hard to follow and you end up being accused of being some kind of draconion dictatorship, but it would make things easier to follow, and having to instead outright ignore people who often post somthing thought provoking or amusing is a shame.
Erm ..... three days ago, post 44. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by yamangman
If the rules get any tighter round here the contributions will be more controlled than an Election Debate :D