Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #5 - Leaders Debate Two

[Awol]

ridiculous comments Jon - show me where you have been against Murdoch and his support for Labour?

Murdoch is / was a nasty piece of work. You are seeing that now, you saw it with Fox and Obama. The right wing led media of the Sun / Times / Mail / Telegraph / BBC (Robinson branch!) are being shown up time and time again with this election for what they do. The only one of those mentioned previously that "supported" Labour was the Sun I believe. You can't stop a paper supporting a party,but it does not mean they are right and acceptable. Mugabe has gone on record saying he wants Cameron to win, so using your criteria Cameron = Mugabe?

So why are you now so happy to accept and welcome Murdoch, why do you support his comments? Show me examples where you have said he is not right etc etc ..................... Note: I don't expect you to do that, but am just showing you that your demand / request is confrontational and silly - and as I said more of what I expect from certain others

I'm not trying to be confrontational or ridiculous - the opposite in fact. I thoroughly dislike Murdoch and the influence he has in both the UK and US over political debate and the way that is framed and presented, but that isn't what I was asking you..

My question was whether you objected (and I'm not asking you to provide referenced examples) to the Murdoch empire's support for Labour for all of these years? If you did then obviously your position is consistent, but if you didn't then your anger over the fact they have now switched horses seems a little misplaced.

There is no need for the "ridiculous" "sinking so low" type comments, I'm not making personal attacks against you and your reaction seems to indicate that you may not be entirely comfortable with this question. People of all political persuasions should be able to use this thread to pose (potentially) difficult questions to other posters and explore their views, this is after all a pre-election debate.

EDIT:

BTW why are you trying to shoe horn Mugabe into this? It seems the idea is to throw as much mud at the Tories as you possibly can in every single post in the hope that some sticks. I could certainly do the same about Labour but am refraining from doing so because it becomes so tedious for others to read. Maybe you could try doing the same?

[kidlewis]

Murdoch has nothing to do with the Sun newspaper does he? I thought he just bought them and left them to it.

[drat01]

OK Jon - maybe a over reaction slightly on my part - some of the normal stupidity from certain VT posters and the "games" they like to play clouded my response.

As for Murdoch - a weasel - simple(s) - See the Indy this morning on how he has suppressed a Poll that showed the Lib Dems trouncing the Tory party? Link

The actions last night actually were a shock because I didn't think he would sink that low, but in the cold light of day after what you see on Fox News it should have been expected.

BTW why are you trying to shoe horn Mugabe into this? It seems the idea is to throw as much mud at the Tories as you possibly can in every single post in the hope that some sticks. I could certainly do the same about Labour but am refraining from doing so because it becomes so tedious for others to read. Maybe you could try doing the same?

That was obvious Jon - you were claiming support from certain people meant that you had to agree with them. As Mugabe had said he wanted Dave, I'd ask as stupid a question also. - it seems that association doesn't fit comfortable with you?

As for being comfortable - I have slippers on, sitting at home on a bright and sunny day, very much so.

As for questions - how does Mugabe supporting the Tory party fit with you? ............... :wink:

[drat01]

Murdoch has nothing to do with the Sun newspaper does he? I thought he just bought them and left them to it.

:shock:

Is this a serious question?

[blandy]

Re The Telegraph question to Clegg - it was outside the rules of the debate, I beleive.

I agree with Drat about the pernicious influence of Murdoch. There are a lot of stories about now, that he's upset that he was persuaded by his son to bacl Cameron, and as he did with McCain (again persuaded by others) that he may have backed a loser, which he hates, because he wants to back the winner all the time, to get influence and therefore money.

As to the debtae thingy, I thought there was no clear winner. They all did much the same, in diofferent ways. Cameron copied what Clegg did last week, Brown tried to ape parts of what Clegg did last week, and Clegg changed his approach slightly, to try to appear to be the man in command, rather than the plucky underdog.

Looks like the various media trainers and that have been working hard with them all.

That's the presentation. In terms of content discussed I guess it depends what your own personal political views are as to who you'd say won, if anyone. Marginally I'd say Clegg won on that, but then I agree with more of their policies than the other ones.

[kidlewis]

Murdoch has nothing to do with the Sun newspaper does he? I thought he just bought them and left them to it.

:shock:

Is this a serious question?

it was more sarcastic than anything. Murdoch clearly backed and supported Labour through previous elections whether it be Blair popping round for Nam Nams or the Sun doing their bit to help them out.

After all "It was the sun wot won it".

[PauloBarnesi]

Re; Mugabe. I am unaware that David Cameron has at any time sought the support of Bob. We know that New Labour did seek the support of News International and the Murdoch empire; they knew the value of it; yes “The Sun” did help to win it. Just as old Labour hated the City, so New Labour lauded it. They realised to win power they needed to reach out to the formerly loathed institution.

I am not sure that Cameron will be reaching out to Bob, somehow I doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

[Awol]

OK Jon - maybe a over reaction slightly on my part - some of the normal stupidity from certain VT posters and the "games" they like to play clouded my response.

No bother, I think physical distance has somehow improved our virtual relationship :winkold:

As for Murdoch - a weasel - simple(s) - See the Indy this morning on how he has suppressed a Poll that showed the Lib Dems trouncing the Tory party? Link

Ref: Indy, I'll have a look at that in a minute. I think any incoming government should take a serious look at the issue of media ownership and what is actually healthy in democracy in terms of ownership by individual media oligarchs. I'd also look at the political impartiality (or lack thereof) of the BBC. You often mention Nick Robinson but I'd contend that it has broadly been the Labour Party mouthpiece since 1997.

It won't happen of course but it should.

The actions last night actually were a shock because I didn't think he would sink that low, but in the cold light of day after what you see on Fox News it should have been expected.

I've only seen the first 20 minutes of last night's debate because the rest isn't on youtube yet (if anyone fancies putting it up I'd be very grateful) but so far it was as disappointing as the first one.

I think Clegg is seeking to portray himself as a spokesperson for a pissed off electorate but doesn't appear as a PM in waiting. The Lib Dems have some good ideas but in terms of foreign policy they are like utterly naive sixth form students.

"Dave" is shallow and trying to take people for fools and his comments over future referendums on Europe lack any credibility in my eyes.

Gordon, well you know my opinion of that lying twunt and it hasn't changed a bit.

That was obvious Jon - you were claiming support from certain people meant that you had to agree with them.

That wasn't what I meant, but I can see why you read it that way.

As Mugabe had said he wanted Dave, I'd ask as stupid a question also. - it seems that association doesn't fit comfortable with you?

...

As for questions - how does Mugabe supporting the Tory party fit with you? ............... :wink:

Zim gained independence under a Tory Government so I'd imagine that's where his soft spot originates from. As for his thoughts on British politics, well, they won't be informing my decision come May 6th.

[mykeyb]

So Labours Supporters think Brown won

Tory supporters think Cameron won

Unbiased opinion seems to be Clegg won....

Interesting that Brown went on a bit of a Clegg offensive,

[wiganvillain]

Zim gained independence under a Tory Government so I'd imagine that's where his soft spot originates from. As for his thoughts on British politics, well, they won't be informing my decision come May 6th.

Unless he sends "the lads" round Jon, long distance of course but you are closer than the rest of us

[snowychap]

Murdoch has nothing to do with the Sun newspaper does he? I thought he just bought them and left them to it.

I doubt Murdoch would ever hold back from any situation where he could have influence.

I'd suggest his influence over the currant bun is greater than it is over The Times, tbh.

[tonyh29]

Personal report card for last night, in alphabetic order.

Brown, Started a lot brighter and better but tailed off badly near the end into standard Gordo mode.

Cameron, Seems to be still searching for the glib phrase or slogan which will stick and win him the election, not performing to standard expected.

Clegg, Came across as probably the most honest but struggled and will struggle to match the hype of last week

was kinda how I read it ..though I did slightly differ from you on Cameron as I thought he just edged it last night (though had he put a gimp mask on etc :winkold:) ..he made a point of being alone on some policies .. only time will see if that is a good or a bad move

My wife watched the show as well , she not knowing a single thing about British politics really .. she thought Clegg was a bit of a "Look at me artist " and came across as arrogant ..it was all I worked in Europe and you haven't therefore I know it all , in her opinion

Watched some more TV last night ..the BBC reaction bar was interesting , the second Suasan Clegg started to speak his yellow bar went into orbit , almost from the second he said "Hello " ... gradually the longer he started to speak the line started to drop almost as if to suggest after a while he starts to bore people a little ...

The real surprise for me was on Browns "Get Real" comment .. every time he used it on Clegg the red line almost dropped below the screen .. I suspect it was a scripted line that someone in Labour HQ must have thought it was going to be a winner .. I guess that person will be clearing out their desk this morning

Interesting to see that Brown ordered Mandy to stay away last night .. wonder how Mandy will react to that given his track record on smearing anyone that dares to cross him

[tonyh29]

Unbiased opinion seems to be Clegg won....

is this real world or VT world we are talking ?

VT has a 50% + Lib Dem support rate so I'd hardly call it unbiased

I gave me honest assessment on page 2 .. I had Brown down as the winner for a long period so it's a tad unfair to just bracket people as biased or unbiased ... On immigration I just don't happen to agree with Clegg he to coin a phrase needs to "Get Real" .. i don't think he was strong on defence either .... Hence why he didn't win last night in my "biased" opinion

[snowychap]

Re The Telegraph question to Clegg - it was outside the rules of the debate, I beleive.

True and I think Clegg dismissed it quite well (though I'd have expected either of the other two to have done the same, I'd have doubted that Boulton would have thought he could have got away with asking them it).

It was so obvious that I doubt it would have met with Murdoch's approval (not that Murdoch doesn't do obvious but he doesn't often do stupidly obvious).

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised to find Boulton on the 'transfer list' out of Sky some time later in the year - the old 'emeritus' gag. That would be a shame.

[myb]

I missed the Telegrpah question (got in late). What happened?

[Condimentalist]

Murdoch has nothing to do with the Sun newspaper does he? I thought he just bought them and left them to it.

I doubt Murdoch would ever hold back from any situation where he could have influence.

I'd suggest his influence over the currant bun is greater than it is over The Times, tbh.

The Times have been on the offensive against the Lib Dems as well, but they are taking the 'anti hung parliament' line of argument instead of the smear campaign used by some of the other newspapers.

[tonyh29]

I missed the Telegraph question (got in late). What happened?

As he went to Clegg , Boulton said and of course you were in the telegraph this morning .. but it didn't really have any relevance to the question in hand

Sadly (??) for Boulton he managed to cough and splut his way through saying it ... Made we wonder if he was instructed to ask the question and felt uncomfortable with it and so he coughed to try and disguise it .. I had to rewind it and play it back to hear what was said clearly so it could well be that many people missed it

[Condimentalist]

From that Indy article:

YouGov also found that if people thought Mr Clegg's party had a significant chance of winning the election, it would win 49 per cent of the votes, with the Tories winning 25 per cent and Labour just 19 per cent. One in four people Labour and one in six Tory supporters say they would switch to the Liberal Democrats in these circumstances. The party would be ahead among both men and women, in every age and social group, and in every region. On a uniform swing across Britain, that would give the Liberal Democrats 548 MPs, Labour 41 and the Tories 25.

:shock:

Believe, people.

[snowychap]

Murdoch has nothing to do with the Sun newspaper does he? I thought he just bought them and left them to it.

I doubt Murdoch would ever hold back from any situation where he could have influence.

I'd suggest his influence over the currant bun is greater than it is over The Times, tbh.

The Times have been on the offensive against the Lib Dems as well, but they are taking the 'anti hung parliament' line of argument instead of the smear campaign used by some of the other newspapers.

True. It seems to be (slightly) more subtle. I've just read their leader (online) and even though the strapline is Two-party politics - The second televised debate was notable more for content than form. Nick Clegg and David Cameron gave assured performances, most of the comment is concentrated about how 'this mewspaper also takes a different view' with Lib Dem policies (not how it agrees with Tories).

I suppose it is a case of which approach best serves the ends depending upon the likely audience. Slightly more subtle probably suits The Times and its readership. Perhaps slightly less brazen might be more apt.

[Malachite]

Watched last night and it looked like a re-run of last week, there was no way Clegg would have the impact he did last week so he was always going to find it difficult in that respect coming of such a high. Brown looked to me like the olld war horse, portraying this forget what i look like forget what you think of me judge me on my performance thus far, which i thought was a major gamble, is opener being " if your looking for style of substance count me out" leaving me to say " **** of then". Cameron i find in all honesty laughable, everytime i look at him i see this plump face kid, school cap, blazer with braiding and short trousers of to private school, saying "mummy i want". As for Clegg, bearing in mind the whole notion of this live debate is about 3 men presenting themselves in front of camera and convincing an audience of millions that i am the one, i am the strong one that can save you, you can trust me, you can believe me, its always was going to be about presentation over substance because its visual, Clegg wins this by a million miles, his persona, when he snaps on a particular point as he did last night at both Brown and Cameron the pair disappeared up there own dust hole, if i where voting purely on the man and not on the party there would be no competition, Clegg looks mighty in comparison to the aged Brown and the weasley Cameron, who frankly when hes making a point always looks like he's pleading to me.

How Murdoch gets away with spouting the utter crap he does is beyond me, i have seen the front of the Sun, would never buy the rubbish, but to claim Cameron won it is hilarious, i'd love someone to investigate that.

Overall i thought Clegg won, not by as much as last week but we are all over the shock factor that we have a politician that actually seems like a leader and is forceful and strongish, thought Brown was a lot better than last week, but brown will never win this kind of thing, if for nothing else then because he is the current Prime Minister and the one thing coming over in all of this is the fact people want change. Cameron, i feel a tad sorry for the guy, he comes on the back of ex party leaders like Hague and Ian Dunken Smith etc, all highly forgettable and very limp wristed, i just can't see why anybody would vote Cameron as a leader of a nation although i understand why people would vote Tory if that's what they vote.

Clegg by some way, not as much as last week though. IMO.