Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: Media on politics

  1. #41
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520
    I dunno, the Irish seem to be managing ok, though largely since they started electing women called Mary - perhaps that's the secret

  2. #42
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456


    "Then why did they take part in a presidential style debate? What was Cleggmania?"

    I ask the same thing but, in this context, what's your point? Presuming you have one.

  3. #43
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456
    So, Kate, we have to secure independence and elect presidents called Mair? Could work I suppose, every other system seems haphazard and run by the clueless so I think we should give it a try.

  4. #44
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520
    Ok, Mal. Do we want to declare independence for Wales, or start modestly with ambitious plans? By which I mean, declare the Republic of Penarth and Dinas Powys. My middle name is Mary, btw.

  5. #45
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456
    OK, you may know that the Welsh custom is, or used to be, to use the second given name as the main name so you qualify for president of the prospective republic. When do we start the revolt? More to the point, where do we start it, Starbucks?

  6. #46
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520
    Excellent. Starbucks sounds fine, wanna meet for coffee? Let me know next time you're coming over to the 'big town'

  7. #47
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456
    Was there today, didn't see you. Mind you those tinted glass windows of Starbucks are a bugger when you're trying to see who's in.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator Metric Kate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    42,520
    I was in work today. I do have to go into Kairdiff every now and then.

  9. #49
    Goon
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    263
    I don't want to get down to trivial bigotry or regional assassinationyet with Mal Mawrit is very tempting and would be so easy to go down that path butbecause I have always found that fragile little egos are so easy to prick, there would be no sport in it, a bit like shooting Pheasants.

  10. #50
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456


    Talking of pricks.

    What's the matter Cush? Did my highlighting of your historical inaccuracy hurt your feelings?

  11. #51
    ‹bermensch Jester*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,987
    Quote Originally Posted by AT ([url
    http://AyrshireTiger.wordpress.com/[/url]);835724]
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel. View Post
    Having said that, Labour had the opportunity and were offered that olive branch by SNP and said no. Putting their pride first meant letting the Tories in, when they could have blocked them.
    Surely it was the Lib Dems who were offering an olive branch and not the SNP!The Lib Dems alone weren't enough. The Labour party needed the support of the SNP amongst others, or is my maths not very good?
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel. View Post
    Then why did they take part in a presidential style debate? What was Cleggmania?

    We cast our vote with one eye on the local picture, and one on the big picture. The parties stand for election with a leader who will, if they win, become Prime Minister. By ditching leaders and substituting them for others, they break trust with the electorate.
    As Cush says, bollocks. Both Tory and Labour have change leaders mid-term over the years. You vote for an MP, presumably on the back of their party affiliation. The debates were meant to be about policy but admittedly turned out to be as much about personality. However it doesn't change the fact that we do not have a presidential style elections!

    Why the abuse?

    To clarify, the parties nationally ran a presidential style of campaign, (due to the waste of time leaders debates), where media focus was on the run up to, the event itself, and the aftermath. Apart from bigotgate there was little else. So if the parties run their campaign based on the cult of personality, they shouldn't be ditching the aforementioned as soon as they get in to office. Vote Blair, get Brown, as they once said.

    People vote for parties for any number of reasons, they may support the party, they may like the leader, they may like the MP, they may be voting to stop the other party from getting in, they may be protesting. The vote does not reflect any of that, so you really can't say why most people vote the way they do, unless of course you have personally asked them all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mal Mawr View Post

    "Then why did they take part in a presidential style debate? What was Cleggmania?"

    I ask the same thing but, in this context, what's your point? Presuming you have one.
    My point was that........

    Oh read the above.
    </blockquote>

  12. #52
    Ultra King AT (http://AyrshireTiger.wordpress.com/)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,457
    [QUOTE=Grendel.;835935]
    Quote Originally Posted by AT ([url
    http://AyrshireTiger.wordpress.com/[/url]);835724]
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel. View Post
    <blockquote class=quote>Having said that, Labour had the opportunity and were offered that olive branch by SNP and said no. Putting their pride first meant letting the Tories in, when they could have blocked them.
    Surely it was the Lib Dems who were offering an olive branch and not the SNP!The Lib Dems alone weren't enough. The Labour party needed the support of the SNP amongst others, or is my maths not very good?
    </blockquote>But it wasn't the SNP they really needed, it was the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems said no. Doesn't really matter what the SNP or others were offering it wasn't going to make a scrap of difference without the Lib Dems. I don't think it was anything to do with Labour's pride, it was simply the reality that a rainbow coalition wouldn't have lasted.

  13. #53
    ‹bermensch Jester*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,987
    [QUOTE=AT ([url]http://AyrshireTiger.wordpress.com/[/url]);835944][QUOTE=Grendel.;835935]
    Quote Originally Posted by AT ([url
    http://AyrshireTiger.wordpress.com/[/url]);835724]<blockquote class=quote>
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendel. View Post
    <blockquote class=quote>Having said that, Labour had the opportunity and were offered that olive branch by SNP and said no. Putting their pride first meant letting the Tories in, when they could have blocked them.
    Surely it was the Lib Dems who were offering an olive branch and not the SNP!The Lib Dems alone weren't enough. The Labour party needed the support of the SNP amongst others, or is my maths not very good?
    </blockquote>But it wasn't the SNP they really needed, it was the Lib Dems, and the Lib Dems said no. Doesn't really matter what the SNP or others were offering it wasn't going to make a scrap of difference without the Lib Dems. I don't think it was anything to do with Labour's pride, it was simply the reality that a rainbow coalition wouldn't have lasted.</blockquote>To be honest they needed them all. LD, PC, SNP et al. The SNP had ofered before their support before the LibDems walked away. By dismissing the SNP out of hand the game was over, although I doubt how much help it would have been if the SNP stuck to their policy of not voting on English only matters.

  14. #54
    Ultra King AT (http://AyrshireTiger.wordpress.com/)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,457


    Aye, fair enough Grendel, but I suspect there was a bit of mischief in their offer!

    More to the point I suspect the Lib Con coalition will benefit Labour and possibly SNP as any left leaning Lib Dem voters will presumably vote differently at the next (Scottish and UK) Parliaments.

  15. #55
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456


    Grendel

    The only real point is that a presidential style campaign should not happen. Anyway, I thought the leaders of the big 3 attended the televised so called debates to expound the policies and present the differences of approach of each party to various issues, to sell their party line to the public and should not have presented themselves as prime ministerial candidates. A person becomes prime minister because they are the leader of the elected party and it is a known and accepted fact that leadership of all parties can and do change whether or not they are in power. If people would only see it that way the con would gain no ground. If people other than the leaders' constituents believe they should be voting for the parties' leaders they are deluded even if they are ably aided and abetted by the political system and the media. I understand that people will be influenced by the qualities of the respective leaders but for personality and performance in front of a TV camera to be the main determining factor in motivating which way a vote is cast is undemocratic and plain wrong.

  16. #56
    Ultra King Frum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    19,193


    There are differences between:

    1. Voting for an individual candidate.

    2. Voting for a leader.

    3. Voting for one of the parties to form a government.

    Mal, you are ignoring the third, which is in my opinion the most important factor in deciding where to mark your 'X'.

  17. #57
    Ultra King
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    12,456


    Frum,

    I'm ignoring nothing of the sort, I took it as given. Perhaps you think I'm being charitable in assuming the dimmest of the dim would understand the trinitarian nature of general elections. The fact that I wasn't actually addressing your point 3 doesn't mean I am unaware of it or that I don't think that it is pivotally important, it's just that I was taking up others' specific points and giving my own view because it differs from theirs. I didn't intend to broaden the discussion to cross every T and dot every I of all aspects of the electoral process and the relative importance of each of them.

Similar Threads

  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-27536800
    By Metric Kate in forum Walking and Climbing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23-05-2014, 01:11 PM
  2. POLITICS
    By rocket in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 26-03-2012, 07:26 PM
  3. OMM In Eye Of Media Storm
    By Paul Burke 2 in forum Walking and Climbing
    Replies: 78
    Last Post: 01-12-2008, 07:10 PM
  4. Media
    By Robbie Williams in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 103
    Last Post: 20-03-2004, 09:43 PM
  5. Outdoors Media
    By Ben Hedley in forum Soapbox
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 01-10-2002, 12:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •