Your thoughts? Discuss..
The moderator was more interested in the camera than the candidates!
Printable View
Your thoughts? Discuss..
The moderator was more interested in the camera than the candidates!
Brown did surprisingly well given that he was defending 10 years as chancellor and 3 as prime minister.
I haven't watched it fully but it did make me think that the other two parties were more interested in looking good, they seemed to be superficial, compared to brown...
Was that on tonight guess I missed it? I can always catch the repeat next week.
I asked a question in another recent politics topic where I wanted to know how realistic the chances of the Lib Dems getting in were. Somebody mocked me saying that the odds were 300 - 1. I imagine they will be very different tomorrow.
Clegg was the star of the show for me, and according to what's being said now, and the polls, and internet response... he was for alot of others too.
This is something that hasn't been done before, and may just be what was needed... even as a someone who has no real interest in politics, I am very interested currently, and I found it fantastic.
Looking forward to the next one!
A very very good point (although I might have used a word other than 'defending'); opposition is much easier than Government. The PM looked and sounded the statesman to me, allowing himself the odd wry smile at the 'earnest', soundbite whippersnappers.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Wheelhouse
I thought it was good viewing. This and a recent topic on Hexus has inspired me to endeavour to vote for the first time. I agree with the above, Brown seemed quite genuine, the Lib Dems will be getting the most benefit from it i think.
Odds on bet365.com for an outright win as of this second:Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
Conservative: 1:7
Labour: 5:1
Lib Dems: 66:1
So already 4.5x better odds than was previously suggested.
Edit: Ladbrokes odds:
Conservative: 1:8
Labour: 5:1
Lib Dems: 100:1
Still a long shot, but not far off from the odds of winning a tenner on the Lotto.
Or of Rage Against The Machine for Xmas #1Quote:
Originally Posted by TooNice
I think most important is that the public has been given a much better view of Nick Clegg and where he stands in the election.
Brown and Cameron are ubiquitous in the public eye, most people have heard of Nick Clegg but I bet not many could pick him out of a crowd and even fewer could actually name some of his policies. The BBC got it dead on with their analysis - Brown and Cameron were playing fairly safe, nothing new. What people will remember is that what was being said was "I agree with you, Nick".
The odds of them actually winning the election may be small, but all they need is to get to be the opposition or at least hold as much of the vote as Labour and that might be enough for next time.
I keep hear Brown talking about not taking money out of the economy being critical and then saying a NI rise is necessary. Does he expect us to believe that raising taxes is somehow putting money into the economy, is he an idiot or does he just think we are idiots?
Both.Quote:
Originally Posted by G4Z
Why would anyone think differently frankly? Proven track record of incompetence and arrogance.
Sadly I think you are 100% correct :(Quote:
Originally Posted by dangel
I certainly pointed out that the odds were 300:1 and it wasn't mocking you. It was simply quoting an aggregate odds from one of the sites that summarises a variety of odds from different online and high-street bookies. It was, quite literally, the odds being offered by those prepared to put money on it to back their opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
And yes, the odds have changed. One site now offers them 66/1, and all the others I checked offered them 100:1.
A good improvement, and no doubt Clegg scored well. But so far, all it does it change the odds almost impossible to extremely unlikely.
However, it is, and remains, the case that nobody knows.
We don't even know how it will play out if Clegg's improvement resulted in a significant improvement in LD representation in Parliament, because it all depends who he takes seats from. However you cut it, it is still extremely unlikely that Clegg win be PM on May 7th. Possible yes, but very, very unlikely. I doubt you'll find any political pundit that gives him a snowball's chance .... though they could be wrong.
But a much stronger LD vote could be an important factor. Suppose they gain especially against Tories, typically in the South. It could be enough to reduce Tory MPs and put Labour back in. But .... I'd guess that most people are more likely to be choosing between LD and Labour, especially given that the LDs are a bit further "left" than much of Labour's policies these days. So it could also well be that disenchanted Labour voters unable to stomach voting Tory will see Clegg's performance as encouraging and vote LD. If so, every seat the LDs take from Labour makes Cameron's job of getting ahead of Labour that much easier. It might not help towards an overall majority but it will help make the Tories the largest overall party.
Or, of course, it could result in a hung Parliament. Some think that might be a good thing, and it works in some countries, but it's never worked in the UK.
So get a feel for the likelihood of a LD government, take a look at the numbers voting in the 2005 election.
Labour 9.5 million
Tory 8.8 million
LD 6 million (a smidgeon under, actually).
So there's about 700,000 between the total vote for the Tories and Labour, at the last election. Those are official figures, by the way. And yet, for the Tories to get back into power, they need a very large swing. The second largest in British electoral history, if I remember correctly, second only to Blair's 1997 swing. And that's to gain 700,000 votes. The LibDems need to gain something of the order of 3 to 3.5 million to gain power.
So either we need an absolutely vast landslide swing, of an order of magnitude larger than anything that's ever happened before, or we need a vast increase in turnout, nearly all of which goes to the LibDems.
So, far from mocking you, I was simply pointing out the reality of the situation. Nobody knows how the electorate will vote. Nobody can. We can only look at the job each party has to do. But all the circumstances conspire to mean that the chances of the LDs winning is very small indeed.
What they might do is upset the traditional balance. They might end up with a strong powerbase in a hung Parliament, and they certainly might change the overall game, long-term. That they stand no credible chance of winning this election doesn't mean it will necessarily be the same at the one after this. If Clegg holds up his good performance and increases his power base, and gains in seats, and if he can leverage that into a change in voting system to one a bit less loaded against them, and if the LDs raised profile changes peoples expectations about their chances, then it might all build towards the game changing in the long term.
Notice the "mights" in that last bit, because it's by no means certain. It's not certain Clegg can hold up in the next two debates, or that either Cameron or Brown won't raise their game, or change tactics to respond to Clegg. Also, the more credible the LDs seem, the more scrutiny their policies will get, and we'll have to see how Clegg and others hold up if Paxman et al start taking them seriously and push as hard as they tend to with the main two parties.
My reaction to the debate, in a couple of words .....
Boring.
Boring, boring, boring.
Booooorrring.
b....o....r....i....n....g.
Bore.....ing.
BoRiNg
*Boring*
Bee-Oh-Ahhh-Eye-Enn-Gee.
Boring.
Boring ..... BorinG
BORING
BORING!!!
.... and tedious.
The debate was actually better than I expected - in that it wasnt completely horrible.
The american debates, (both real ones and especially ficticious on The West Wing :) ) are much more entertaining, but they also seem to really just be about the man. A quick quip or something can completely change the election. Of course charisma is important for a prime minister who is meeting with foreign leaders etc, but I mean I bet Frankie Boyle could do a nice job in getting laughs during a debate, I wouldnt want him to be PM :P
Of course Clegg had the best night, which I was glad about, but I think that was partly because he was left alone as the other two attacked each other to pick and chose his moments. In the US its often portrayed as if you win the debates you win the election, but surely the best Clegg can hope for is to be in a coalition, then get electoral reform (proportional representation?) pushed through.
Anyway, I will watch debate 2 and 3 for sure.
I found myself getting annoyed as I watched it. I don't remember one occurence where either the question posed was answered directly or without going off track/making a swipe at someone else.
I got the impression that for many questions, only Clegg understood what was being asked - or was able to answer the question directly, since he either made something up largely on the spot, or by a complete fluke had rehearsed the exact question being asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by GheeTsar
For example, the question on education. The guy was asking about the general crapness of school - not low scores, but the tedious drudgery of it all. Cameron and Brown went on about failing schools and exam results - Clegg talked about letting teachers pick their own lessons rather than an encyclopedic national curriculum, to make stuff more engaging.
The theme continued throughout the debate, IMHO, of Clegg reacting to the question with an answer, and the others picking the rehearsed answer which was the closest match. Like I said, whether that's just because Clegg had the good fortune to have rehearsed the right answers, I can't possibly comment
Oh, and anyone notice Gordo's constant "yep, I agree with Clegg, vote for me 'cos I'm just like him" with a retort each time of "really, you voted against it when I suggested it" - helped make Gordo seem insincere
Yeah I felt he was trying to cosy up to Nick Clegg, possibly to start the building of a bridges for a hung parliament?Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
I agree with GheeTsar.
Maybe it's because I'm interested in politics, and so have heard pretty much everything they said, again and again.
But it didn't strike me as much of a debate. All it was, for the very large part, was a series of pre-canned sound-bites strung together, with almost nothing in the way of as cohesive argument, or either challenging or justifying of positions.
For instance, at one point, Brown said that he was in favour of electoral reform and that the Tories just wanted 10% fewer MPs and that that wasn't electoral reform. That is such a dishonest parody of the Tories that it was breathtaking. First, Brown's been in power for the last couple of years, and with Blair, for 10 years before that. They tinkered with starting Lord's reform soon after getting in in '97 and have done naff-all since .... except to emasculate the House and committee stages. If he's so in favour of reform ..... why hasn't Labour done anything about it? After all, they could have and nobody else can.
And Clegg regularly takes a similarly deceitful line .... he says he proposed such-and-such measure, such as on electoral reform and the Labour and Tories voted against (or "didn't bother to vote"), so they're against electoral reform. Rubbish. They're just opposed to, or not in favour of, that specific measure.
Just because I don't want to buy a poodle when he offers it doesn't mean I'm anti-dog. It may just be that I want a German Shepherd.
If we'd had a real debate, we'd have seen those kinds of trick refuted and called for what they are. If we'd had a real debate, we'd have seen claims and figures analysed and disputed or agreed. If we'd had a real debate, we'd have seen people agree where they agree, and argue over the bits where they don't. Instead, we got almost entirely the usual political cobblers of maintaining that nothing the other guy says could possibly be right.
The only exceptions I noted to that we're when Cameron said not everything Labour has done is bad. Well, shock horror. He doesn't disagree with the bits the electorate clearly like. And, of course, Brown trying to seduce Clegg with repeated "I agree with Nick...." and "Nick agrees with me ..." very clearly very much to Clegg's intense irritation, as he's furiously trying to portray himself as new and "change", and both the other two as "same old, same old" ..... as evidenced when he lashed out at Brown saying (paraphrasing) .... "if you agree with me so much, why haven't you done any of it when you had the chance".
Nah, aside from the occasional spark of real interaction, it wasn't a debate as far as I was concerned, it was a boring rehash of the same old superficial sound bites, with precious little detail, "spiced" up with an occasional naff and evidently pre-planned "joke". Particularly offensive (to me) was Brown's jibe at Cameron that it's "answer time" not Question Time, when I watch PMQ's and week after week end up shouting "answering the flaming question" when Brown totally ignores the question he was asked, whether it's loaded or not, and goes on about how Cameron never uses the chance to give Tory policy. Well, Mr Brown, it's because it's PM's Question Time not Opposition Leader's Policy Statement time, you moron. How about occasionally, just for the sake of variety, actually providing a flaming answer?
No, I learned nothing by the end I hadn't known at the beginning, except that Clegg is far better at presentation skills than I thought he was.
He's needs help with that? I thought he regularly puts in a masterful performance all on his own. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
Or to suggest to LD potential voters worried about a Tory win that he really isn't so different from Clegg .... so vote for us. Or both.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddAussie
Only time will tell if it has been a worthwhile exercise running these party leader TV shows. I refuse to call them debates for the same reasons as mentioned by Saracen. Personally I believe that they are a step in the wrong direction because they are all about appearance, and we have enough problems with people voting on that basis as it is currently. Still as the majority of the electorate are emotive, illogical and ignorant it is hardly surprising.
Wow, that bad eh. Well, at least I presume that it's civil. At least compared to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Djdy_fhvZuM or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht9WEpdi5JY (random YTing, there are probably worse)Quote:
Originally Posted by Saracen
Am I the only person in the UK who's oppinion of Nick Clegg has gone down since the debate? Sure, he answered some questions more directly but it's easier to when you have no power at all, you can make promises without having other people mention that you haven't kept your word in the past. And all too often Nick Clegg would just say "Well it's all very well saying that but will you actually do it?"
Answer is hopefully: Yes. What kind of stupid question is that to ask, will you actually do it...
He was repetitive and worst of all, he managed to claim that he healed sick babies when really he meant that the hospital did. Rookie mistake.
While people seem generally positive with the way Nick presented himself I did find him a little smug and overly aware of what he is doing and saying. I always feel uncomfortable watching someone who is essentially acting when I just want facts and discussion.
On the other hand I was impressed with Gordon who was usually calm and unemotional. He made the others look a bit eager and naive as if they don't really understand that you cant change the world overnight with wishful thinking.
Personally I'm not putting much attention into those 3 as leaders and I'm more interested in the party manifestos. As people have said, it was mostly just reading out the relevant policies for each 'question' which were essentially just vague topic titles. A bit dull.
Edit: Also, I'm an ignorant first time voter and wondering if anyone can explain to me why I have two parliamentary voting cards? I have one card for my home address and one for my university address (plus one local election card).
I have always voted labour. Not this time though. Nick gets my vote this time. Sick of the other 2 parties and their constant bullsh.t.
You're in the unique position where you have 2 stable locations, therefore you're offered access to vote at your choice of 2 different polling stations dependant on where you're located on May 6th.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarlet Infidel
I.e. if you're at home, you use that one, if at Uni, you use that one :)
It's only students that are offered this AFAIK :)
Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by TAKTAK
So I'm voting for an MP to represent my interests, but I can arbitrarily choose to vote at either place (but I assume not both)? This just complicates my decisions.
Amusingly I am going to be moving to a new area shortly after the election anyway (Leicester = family home, Manchester = university, Cambridge = new job - and yes there are plenty of jobs available to graduates if anyone was curious).
From what I saw, Cameron and Brown really ignored Clegg a lot of the time and he played to that advantage. Maybe stick Clegg in-between Brown and Cameron next time?
Clegg as Prime Minister? No, I don't think it will happen. Its the first of three debates isn't it? I don't like the format much, and the moderator was OK, but I think they could do better than him.
I would have thought that they will be forced to give them all a turn in the middle in the interest of impartiality...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stringent
I commented on the main hexus debate thread: http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-channe...-stutters.html
Perhaps they should be merged?
I also thought the debate was a bit of a pointless bore, other than illustrating that Clegg is just as competent at spouting sugar-coated verbal diarrhoea as the other two. If the country had a pound for every time we heard 'Only the other week at the hospital/job centre/Iraq I met this brave/heroic/selfless person and they said...' the deficit could probably be halved by May 6th, forget within the next 4 years.
I'm also a student and I think am allowed to vote in either constituency. I guess the logical way of doing things to see which is likely to be more marginal and vote there.
Yeah, I can either vote tactically or idealistically. Personally my principles are such that I will probably vote for the party/MP I like regardless of it is a 'wasted vote'. One of my areas offers much greater choice than the other too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanky123
Cameron said he's met a black once! He's mister multicultural!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanky123
Tonight's odds:
Bet365:
Conservative 1:8 (up from 1:7)
Labour 11:2 (down from 5:1)
Lib Dems 25:1 (up from 66:1)
Ladbrokes:
Conservative 1:8 (static)
Labour 5:1 (static)
Lib Dems 50:1 (up from 100:1)
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by directhex
They all do that, it's condescending as hell when they play the 'I'm in touch with the community' card, but it can be a source of amusement at the same time.
Shamelessly stolen from Anubis on FB:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0QsSoV0SRo
I have just watched it in Youtube. I agree with David more and I like his final statement. He is sure to be the PM.
If you're betting, I'd suggest putting your money in Dollars. When we get a hung parliament, which we probably will, the Pound will tank.
The dollar is hardly safe money either, better off buying euros.
With Greece in the poop the Euro is hardly stable either... buy gold :p
Yeah, but Germany's stability offsets Greece's instability.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
Yes, that's as short as 8/1 and as long as 40/1Code:| Labour | Tory | Lib Dem
----------------+--------+------+---------
Ladbrokes | 5/1 | 1/8 | 20/1
Eurobet | 4/1 | 1/6 | 20/1
Bet365 | 9/2 | 1/6 | 20/1
William Hill | 9/2 | 2/9 | 8/1
PaddyPower | 4/1 | 1/6 | 25/1
Boylesports | 11/2 | 1/7 | 40/1
Victor Chandler | 9/2 | 1/7 | 28/1
Sky Bet | 9/2 | 1/6 | 33/1
Extrabet | 4/1 | 1/6 | 33/1
888.com | 9/2 | 1/6 | 25/1
Totesport | 4/1 | 1/6 | 28/1
Blue Square | 9/2 | 1/6 | 25/1
Sportingbet | 5/1 | 1/7 | 22/1
Had you followed my advice, and invested 10,000GBP into USD on 4/17/2010, and then traded back today, you'd have around 10400GBP, a 400GBP or 4% profit in the space of two weeks with minimal risk. Rather better than making a bet?
The same in Euros would have given you a loss of 200GBP, thanks to Greece.