Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #4 - Leaders Debate one

[Jon]

Is there anything that people who are new to politics can read which gives an idea of the policies of all three?

I'd like to make an informed decision but I get the feeling if I read the parties manifestos I wouldn't understand them.

Tone posted this link a few pages ago Laura.

Quite good, and quite quick to do!

Policies

[drat01]

Except if you do a bit of looking at the phrasing of the questions there is a bias - blimey you would think that Murdoch / Sky had a favourite?

[Jon]

will youn therefore be happy with a hung parliament/coalition government?

Depends who they make PM ..Despite the BGT vote Clegg is not PM material , Cameron is never gonna win over a lot of the people because of his background and from the story yesterday it seemed Brown has now started hinting he will stand down if it's a hung parliament .. so maybe a new leader could be found from all the parties .. someone respected by all parties ...Hague perhaps ?

Hague in charge of a coalition government? Not a bad idea, that.

I could go with that. With The Cable Guy as Chancellor :nod:

[Jon]

Except if you do a bit of looking at the phrasing of the questions there is a bias - blimey you would think that Murdoch / Sky had a favourite?

Maybe Ian.

I got 0% tory matches though :winkold:

[drat01]

just shows how bad their message is then Jon :-)

For those of you who cannot be bothered to find a TV that has Sky tonight, but you still want to listen to it - Radio 4. With that you will get none of the silliness re hand gestures, how to look at the camera and all that bollox. Plus you don't have to stare at a blatant ad for Sky all night which they will have hanging from the set apparently

[PauloBarnesi]

I feel depressed that rather than finding any candidate attractive I am desperate for the removal of Gordon Brown (and Mandelson).

What strange reasons for choosing Paul - and to think you claimed once not to be a Tory :-) - Pah - Boris loves ya!!! :-)

Believe it or not I ve voted for Liberal Democrat mostly. I have no problem (as I ve stated) to be at heart a “one nation Tory”. I would vote for anyone virtually if they bought back Grammar Schools, or anyone who guaranteed that Virgin were banned from running railways.

Why is it strange to want rid of a party who seem to have a leader who looks dead on his feet? I don’t want to get in to a long list of Brown’s wrongs, because everyone can see them (just as they can with DC or NC). And as for the prince of darkness? Do you trust this man?

As for Murdoch and Sky; your memory must be short. They were a large part of why Blair and Labour got in. I am sure you didn’t mind that :winkold:

[drat01]

It was a joke Paul - a reference back to our chats re Boris - hence the smileys

But you are seemingly happy to support a party of elitism then? A party that is happy to have favour from unknown sources? a party that encourages blood sports? a party that has a previous history of attacking the NHS and raising VAT?

Just because you don't like the way Brown looks and don't like Mandelson. But you are happy for people like Redwood, Johnson, Hannah etc etc to ru(i)n this country?

[tonyh29]

people like Redwood, Johnson, Hannah etc etc to ru(i)n this country?

not aware that any of them are even in the shadow cabinet so what part will they actually be playing in running the country ?

[PauloBarnesi]

But you are seemingly happy to support a party of elitism then?

To be honest every party and every walk of life has elements of elitism; even if its reverse snobbism. Life it self is that way. What I think we can agree on is where things are a closed shops. In many ways the most unelitist PMs were Thatcher and Major (go figure).

A party that is happy to have favour from unknown sources?

I don’t like Ashcroft. I don’t like political funding in general; every party from the Liberals to the BNP have been embroiled in funding scandals

a party that encourages blood sports?

I believe that a free vote should be given into it. I can see both sides of the arguments. To be honest its not the biggest and most important thing I think on the agenda. I think its pretty obvious that the Labour party are not particularly keen on the countryside lobby.

a party that has a previous history of attacking the NHS

I am not keen on anyone who attacks the NHS; but at the same time the NHS is a kind of sacred beast, which people seem to think should have an open cheque book. Lets be honest the NHS needs widespread changes, like the welfare state. People want these things, but aren’t necessarily prepared to fund it. I think most people would say that Labours recent record isn’t exactly perfect

and raising VAT?

We all know the public finances are in an utter utter mess. We are going to have slash expenditure and raise taxes. If the Tories raise VAT to 20%, but limit slashes, what would you say?

Just because you don't like the way Brown looks and don't like Mandelson. But you are happy for people like Redwood, Johnson, Hannah etc etc to ru(i)n this country?

Lets be honest Brown is not the man to lead the country forward. His naked ambition for power, should not disguise his inability to lead. He looks tired and without any dynamism. We could trade blows on his record, but be honest; do you believe him to be the best leader of the Labour Party? Do you think he was a good Chancellor (the man who lost billions on Gold selling)? With Mandelson do you trust a man who has left government in disgrace twice? Labour came to power because they were clean, yet by the end they are no cleaner than the Tories. Power corrupts whatever your colour. You talk about people ruining the country; surely Labour must take some blame for the mess we are in? Or aren’t we in a mess?

In the end politics is often a case of “We gave them lot time in office, they are now tired out, and we need a change”. If you want the UK to be a one party state maybe its different. Its time the others were given a chance.

[Rodders]

Laura:

www.voteforpolicy.org.uk

is also another one which just has the policies, and doesn't tell you which party they're for. Though some are a little obvious.

[Guest Ricardomeister]

I have never been a big fan of Queen but Brian May, you have gone up in my estimations after your great letter in response to the personal attack on you by a pro fox/deer murdering Tory Council leader. I fully support your "Save Me" campaign.

"A 'cosetted London rock star' am I? You have absolutely no idea about what it cost me to get where I am, or how chafed my hands are. I assume your hands are chafed by the pen you push.

I live in the Country (sic) too you ignorant man. I know exactly what I am talking about.

You are a disgrace to your office. Countryside tradition, my arse. If you ever come within sniffing distance of me I'll have your guts for garters you pathetic, arrogant, jumped-up, snivelling little dweeb"

:notworthy: Brian May

[mjmooney]

"You have absolutely no idea about what it cost me to get where I am, or how chafed my hands are".

Sorry, but that's pure Spinal Tap.

[AVFCLaura]

Is there anything that people who are new to politics can read which gives an idea of the policies of all three?

I'd like to make an informed decision but I get the feeling if I read the parties manifestos I wouldn't understand them.

Tone posted this link a few pages ago Laura.

Quite good, and quite quick to do!

Policies

I took this, apparently I favour the policies of the Liberal Democrats.

[drat01]

I appreciate he may not be everyone's favourite but this is from Alistair Campbell's blog today - and it's hard not to agree with what he says about the manner of the Tory led media

Press Clegg-bashing not helping Cameron. Debate should be on policy

2010-04-22 12:33:25

As the Tories encourage the papers to savage Nick Clegg any which way they can, it is worth remembering that they have been doing much the same to Gordon Brown for months, backed by one of the biggest and most personal poster campaigns in history. Has it helped David Cameron? Not much. His and his party's ratings have been diving south, and not just since last week's TV debate.

I am not convinced that having the Mail, Telegraph and Murdoch titles do their worst against Clegg will have the impact they would imagine. It is part of the old politics that Clegg is seeking to exploit. Newspapers have shouted so loudly for so long that people don't hear them so much any more. Also, Cameron has tried to shed the 'nasty party' image. This is reminding people what they and their politics are all about. Indeed if I were him, I might think about coming out to condemn some of the more stringent attacks and call for a proper media debate on policy.

It is right for the other parties to go for the Lib Dems, just as the Lib Dems are right to go for us and the Tories. Arguments are what elections are about. But I really believe the debate should be focused on policy. It is far more effective than the stuff being churned out through the papers. The problem is - and this benefits Clegg - it is drowning out the space where the policy debate should be.

I saw Newsnight's Kirsty Wark this morning, who said that at least tonight's debate will show up clear differences in foreign policy. Indeed it will. But then the question is where does the media take the debate thereafter - to more polls, process, hung Parliament-ology, policy again drowned out.

Almost a week from the first debate, it is incredible the extent to which policy has been so absent from the debate. There has not really even been a discussion of the future of the electoral system, a change to which would be one of the biggest changes this country could ever make. Whether that would be the right thing or the wrong thing, it is almost as though we are sleepwalking towards it without any real debate as to what it means.

That's why I think the line for all the parties should not be about process and so forth, but simply saying to the British people -- at this time, you are the boss, you are the decision-makers, and the best thing you can do is make a decision to decide, one way or the other, who you want as your PM and your government.

Kirsty was chairing an event where Michael Portillo and I were speaking and I was surprised to hear Michael say that he thought if we ended up with a scenario where the price of a Cameron Premiership propped up by the Lib Dems was a commitment to PR, the Tories would back that. I was genuinely shocked by that. Because it basically means the Tories giving up on ever forming a majority government again.

Perhaps they have. On the basis of one TV debate? These really are strange times.

As I left the event to head for Bristol, someone who had been at the event said something really interesting ... 'Looks like Brown can't win, Cameron can't win, Clegg can't win ... but someone has to form a government. So what happens now?'

Good question. We may know a little more after tonight. It is a real shame, and actually something of a scandal, that the public service broadcasters are not taking the debate live, despite being offered it by Sky. When I said that to the audience at the event with Michael Portillo, people seemed rather shocked and disgruntled. I have been involved in a lot of elections, but none quite like this, and none being followed quite so closely.

It is why there should be more not less access to the debates for the public, and more not less policy debate in the press. The shrill shrieking of the Cameron-supporting papers helps nobody, least of all DC.

[mjmooney]

How ironic - the biggest "image-spinner" of recent years saying there's not enough emphasis on policies!

He's right though.

[tonyh29]

His and his party's ratings have been diving south, and not just since last week's TV debate.

has he looked at his own party ratings lately :-)

Nicholas William Peter Clegg was kind of unkown this time last week , such is the nature of the world we live in today that anyone who suddenly comes into the public eye generates media atention ..and the media like nothing more than to dig up dirt as it sells them copies ... It doesn't really have to be a Tory conspiracy , unless Susan Boyle in the papers every day for weeks was also the work of the Tory Party ?

[Richard]

How rich Campbell talking about substance rather than spin, complaining about the media coverage and that there should be more on policy

I am also reading a definition and it is double standards though given the author I should not be surprised perhaps.

Any sign of the hypocricy over the prescott / cameron egg thrpwing incidents yet? No thought not

[OutByEaster?]

In my opinion, Tony Blair could decide this election yet.

He could lose it for Brown simply by appearing at the wrong time in support of him. Blair is mistrusted at best by the great majority of the population and detested by a good sized chunk and part of the attraction of Brown to voters is that he's different to Blair and that he might be able to take us back to a time when politicians looked like they cared.

Which is exactly the reason why he could lose the election for Cameron. David Cameron is a specially grown Blair clone who exudes that same glib, insincere quality that suggests he'd kill, tax, close and murder to further his own ends and smile at us while he was doing it. Cameron's main weakness in this election is that he reminds people of Blair. One of the Tory strap lines is "Vote for change" he should be careful what he wishes for I think.

The other spectre for the Labour party is Cherie Blair, who in the same way as her husband seems to believe that the country loves her. Every time she appears in support of Labour I can feel the cross on my card moving away Brown, he'll be very concerned to ensure that's not a feeling that's replicated across the country.

If I was Brown and the Labour party I'd put the Blair family into a shipping container with a strong lock until the election's over, providing he can keep them away, I think he's winning over the undecided like me.

[snowychap]

pro fox/deer murdering

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :?

[drat01]

pro fox/deer murdering

Is there no other issue in 'politics' that is important to you? :?

It is a major issue though. The Tory party and their blood thirsty hunt supporters want to change the law back to the barbaric one of allowing the Hooray's to smear blood on faces and the like.

Why should it not be mentioned? Or is it something that they (and maybe a few others) realise will be a vote loser if it gets mentioned