howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
managed to sit throug most of it, i thought that all three did ok.
a bit disappointed with nick clegg, he kept harking on about the "old parties" and the "need for change".
cleggy was good on the amnesty for illegals though, pointing out that all would have to do community service before being granted citizenship and showing a committment to their new country.
gordon came across as very prime ministerial, playing the "i have had to deal with" card. didn't go much on the use of his "get real" cliche used a few times during the debate.
dave was excellent on many things but let himself down on the deal for pensioners, promising that the fuel allowance, tv licence, bus passes and the like would be safe with him.
gordon asked the question, "why was all this not in the manifesto"?
Unregistered User
#2
Only saw the last five minutes and then some of the post debate interviews, is it just me that finds Kay Burley arrogant and extremely rude when speaking to people?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
The Brown 'why wasnt it in the manifesto' comment was simply absurd. Take that to its logical conclusion a manifesto would get bogged down in a long list of 'won't do's' in just about every walk of life. plain nutty and a fig leaf to cover up his lies.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#4
There was an amazing amount of hype before this. It was like the Cup Final and the Olympic games rolled into one, so to some extent it was inevitable that it was going to be something of an anti-climax. With a build up this big, with running programmes on Sky and BBC News 24, well it was just bound to be anti climactic.
The phenomenal impact of the first programme wasnt there this time around but nevertheless it was good value.
Nick Clegg did manage to maintain his star appeal but it was a familiar star this time, so with this familiarity came less of an impact. The other two were much better this time. There can be no doubt about the improvement in David Cameron, who appeared much more relaxed and even made a joke or two. As did Gordon Brown who gave a very polished prime minesterial performance even though as ever a little dour. So all three did well.
First poll out after the programme showed a Cameron win
next poll showed a Clegg win with Cameron and Brown tieing
So it was much closer this time.
and Gadzooks !! all three managed to look at the camera this time where the voters are. Clearly all three leaders looked into Doverforum and followed my previous advice
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#5
i thought that gordon looked the most relaxed, probably because he was not expected to win the debate.
barry the issue of benefits to the elderly is at the forefront of many voters thinking, it should have been a manifesto committment.
#6
Does any one really think these debates will change voters minds ? We have heard nothing new .
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
I dont agree Howard, play that game and where does it stop. Brown said what he did in a desperate attempt to justify outright lies and to claim he did not authorise the leaflets, when such a leaflet was distributed in his own Constituency and appeared in a Party political broadcast is simply beyond belief.
Brown always denies responsibility for anything and everything while trying to claim credit for anything and everything. A sign of a poor and weak leader.
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
#8
I enjoyed the debate last night, all three of them seemed more composed and relaxed this time round, a very fine line in my opinion as to who came out on top as for the most part all seemed to agree on most topics. Gorden Brown was very confident in his own skin for once and David Cameron had much improved from last time. I think Nick Clegg maintained his impact from last week and will certainly be very popular with the youth market although he should have been more prepared for the question regarding the press attacks on him and should not have just dismissed it all as rubbish.
By the way I saw Briony and Saskia on TV this morning at the unearthly hour of 06.10 and again at 07.40. They are up in London with GMTV, they did very well and their comments on last night were very smart indeed, very proud of them both
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
I dont understand when you say that they seemed to agree on most topics:
Trident: Clegg get rid of it without knowing what to replace it with - Brown and Cameron, keep it.
The EU: Clegg and Brown very pro-EU with the Cleggy being a total EU enthusiast, Cameron being Eurosceptic, get powers back and a referendum for each and any more power grabs from the EU.
Terror/Afghanistan: Cameron literally skewered Brown over equipment, Brown's record against him. Cleggy wishy washy and said nothing memorable.
Nuclear Power: Clegg anti-nuclear power - Brown and Cameron pro but Cameron held Brown to account over his failure to act quickly enough over new power stations.
Expenses: Cleggy was once again skewered over his absurd claim to be whiter than white by Cameron, pointing out that they are all responsibe
Pensioners: Brown skewered by Cameron over Labour lies in leaflets and it election broadcast while Clegg offered blandness.
Immigration: Cleggy's amnesty for illegals highlighted, Cameron's limits to numbers coming in, Brown waffling and pretending the massive increase that happened since 1997 started earlier - skewered over that by Cameron
There does not seem to be much agreement there.
OK there was agreement over the Pope but that was a daft question for something like this anyway!
#10
I watched a very poor Sky programme last night where the three protagonists proved to be much of a muchness. Last night there was no clear winner but the hosting was so poor and the online broadcsting via Sky/BBC World News was abysmal, it is not surprising therefore that one was left feeling "why did I bother"?
My assessment of the three stooges? Gordon Brown did better but looks tired and a man of the past who has mightily screwed up the country and who I think, recognises he has created a trust issue, but cannot work out how to overcome that millstone round his neck. His comments about leading Britain into recovery subliminally highlighted the fact that he took us into the worst recession in our lifetime. Why would we even think about trusting him again.
Nick Clegg was good but some of the policies re immigration really didn't stand up to scrutiny. He held his ground well considering the other two clearly wanted to put him in his place. Even a stupid question about the Daily Telegraph article, crucified by the Beeb earlier in the day for being inaccurate and probably deserving of an apology, didn't throw him off track. However, he looked more lightweight last night, and round three will possibly be a step too far. We will see.
David Cameron was much more assured until he started bleating on about the big nation, or was it the film The Big Country, I can't remember. Sadly, a much improved performance was totally undone by having nothing punchy to say that would strike an immediate chord with the voters. For round three he needs to lose gloss and gain content.
Well, that's how I saw things last night. This morning a bubbly Charlie and his team knocked on my door and chatted to "she who must be obeyed". They may have swung her vote by at least bothering coming to talk to us.
Guest 656- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 2,262
#11
Ah! yes indeed BarryW, what I really meant was that they all seem to be occupying the centre ground these days, not like the old days when you had a clear left and right
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#12
Yes Sid its a fact that none of the trio made a telling and decisive move for real victory...because although there are differences between them as BarryW pointed out there, there are also mass similiarities as ColetteB was suggesting. Never before have there been so many floating voters. Its a true phenomenon. Something like 27% of people are still undecided. Its like the butterfly..it can land on any branch without noticing a huge difference in terrain.
The first week was a concensus love-in but all was judged on image and performance that time. More grit is needed as we go along, and thats what we got last night..to a degree. But I wonder does anybody do any real absorbtion of ideas and policies on a debate like this. It's all I think more about performance than anything else. If you sound right and look right then you must be right.
This is what happened in previous years with the American version. If a guy sweats, or looks at his watch, then he is finished. No one cares or cared what policy he may have been spouting.
As is clear from the interviews afterwards, every side thinks their man has won, and every side beleives it. You would need a neutral who had been living in a WWII air raid shelter to emerge for us to get a true assessment.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
I have a bit of a theory on the tactics being deployed by DC but you will have to read my blog tomorrow to see what it is!
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#14
That could me, PaulB! Alas, I didn't bother following the debate! I really had better to do! Also, there is another reason: I can't afford to get ill! I would become ill, even if they paid me to follow the debate.
#15
If there is a hung parliament can anyone see anything other than a lib lab coalition . ?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
mark
should the blues be the largest party i feel certain that the yellows will join them to form a government.
#17
There will be no hung parliament, but if I'm wrong on that I'm sure the cosying up will be Lib/Lab as that is where the real synergies lay.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
I agree with you Sid. The instincts among LibDems are with Labour, every survey shows that. Even if the leadership wanted a deal with Cameron they would have a fight on with the membership.
It all depends on the number. Cameron could still come through the middle with an overall majority, its a difficult task all the more so now since the first debate but still possible. Was it 1988 when the so called 'Alliance' were riding high in the polls and expected to cause a hung Parliament, we had a second landslide for Mrs T.
#19
We only require a 5.5% swing to have a decent overall majority.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
i did not realise you were a blue sid, i know you are very right wing but not a party member.