UK copies US-style televised campaign debate

deanhills · Apr 30, 2010

Looks as though Britain is copy-catting the US Presidential campaign debates. Britain held its first US-style televised campaign debate on Thursday, and I'm most certain Brown must have been unhappy to have agreed to this debate as the underdog of the three leading contenders in the race stole the show. Amazing what a difference a debate like this can make and the powerful effect on the outcome of the election. Will be interesting to see what will happen next Thursday. Any views on what the results may be?

Britain staged its first U.S.-style televised campaign debate Thursday night, generating 90 minutes of engaging repartee that ended with the biggest underdog in the tightest prime minister's race in generations here emerging the apparent victor.

For the prime-time exchange, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the Labor Party incumbent, took to a stage in Manchester alongside Conservative Party front-runner David Cameron and Nicholas Clegg of the third-place Liberal Democrats. But Clegg's performance -- two viewers' polls showed him winning by a landslide -- raised the prospect that the three debates planned ahead of the May 6 election could give him the kind of boost H. Ross Perot initially received after facing down Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Washingtonpost.com

[YOUTUBE]lGpikgxn-VM[/YOUTUBE]

Dirk · Apr 30, 2010

deanhills said:
Looks as though Britain is copy-catting the US Presidential campaign debates. Britain held its first US-style televised campaign debate on Thursday, and I'm most certain Brown must have been unhappy to have agreed to this debate as the underdog of the three leading contenders in the race stole the show. Amazing what a difference a debate like this can make and the powerful effect on the outcome of the election. Will be interesting to see what will happen next Thursday. Any views on what the results may be?

I live in Britain. I watched some of the debates. I hate the idea.

The results, i expect, will be that the Conservative Party will win, unfortunately, taking the most seats. The New Labour Party will take the second highest number of seats, with the Liberal Democrat Party with the third highest. I expect 2 or 3 seats will be held by smaller parties.

Because of the electoral system in Britain, which i despise, there is a possibility the New Labour Party will get the most seats, even if they don't get the most votes (which they definitely won't). Equally, the Liberal Democrats will not have a greater number of seats, even if they gain a massive majority in votes. I don't like any of the main parties anyway, though. At this point, I expect a Conservative minority Government.

deanhills · May 1, 2010

Dirk said:
I live in Britain. I watched some of the debates. I hate the idea.

The results, i expect, will be that the Conservative Party will win, unfortunately, taking the most seats. The New Labour Party will take the second highest number of seats, with the Liberal Democrat Party with the third highest. I expect 2 or 3 seats will be held by smaller parties.

Because of the electoral system in Britain, which i despise, there is a possibility the New Labour Party will get the most seats, even if they don't get the most votes (which they definitely won't). Equally, the Liberal Democrats will not have a greater number of seats, even if they gain a massive majority in votes. I don't like any of the main parties anyway, though. At this point, I expect a Conservative minority Government.

I like the debates, especially the way the Brits did them. They had a very good moderator and I learned quite a lot from the discussions. I don't know as much as you do, but get a feeling that there may be a good chance of a "hung parliament" and that the debates actually helped to put the Liberal Democrats on the map. Perhaps the Liberal Dems and the Labour Party will have to go into some sort of alliance. If the Conservatives should win, I don't think they will win by much, and the Labour Party will still have most of the seats. That will of course be a disaster for future Government. So for that reason I hope the Conservatives won't win.

Dirk · May 1, 2010

deanhills said:
I hope the Conservatives won't win.

The Government, I expect, will break down through lack of ability to put through legislation. Maybe another election will be called, maybe nothing much will be able to be done. Both outcomes don't seem so bad. Haha.

deanhills · May 2, 2010

Dirk said:
The Government, I expect, will break down through lack of ability to put through legislation. Maybe another election will be called, maybe nothing much will be able to be done. Both outcomes don't seem so bad. Haha.

It looks as though the UK is in real trouble however, deficit wise. It probably needs a really good Government to make some fundamental changes, otherwise it could be facing some real dark days ahead. Gordon Brown repeated a few times that the decisions that are taken along the lines of spending vs cutting costs in the UK, could make or break the progress for getting out of the recession by next year.

Dirk · May 2, 2010

deanhills said:
It looks as though the UK is in real trouble however, deficit wise. It probably needs a really good Government to make some fundamental changes, otherwise it could be facing some real dark days ahead. Gordon Brown repeated a few times that the decisions that are taken along the lines of spending vs cutting costs in the UK, could make or break the progress for getting out of the recession by next year.

The deficit is shockingly easy to fix at no unusual expense to the ordinary taxpayer, without cutting public services. The main parties just won't consider it.

deanhills · May 2, 2010

Dirk said:
The deficit is shockingly easy to fix at no unusual expense to the ordinary taxpayer, without cutting public services. The main parties just won't consider it.

Wow! Tell us about it? How would you fix the deficit with no unusual expense to the ordinary taxpayer, and without cutting public services?

el canadiano · May 2, 2010

Dirk said:
Because of the electoral system in Britain, which i despise, there is a possibility the New Labour Party will get the most seats, even if they don't get the most votes (which they definitely won't). Equally, the Liberal Democrats will not have a greater number of seats, even if they gain a massive majority in votes. I don't like any of the main parties anyway, though. At this point, I expect a Conservative minority Government.

Are you a supporter of something different, like Proportional Representation?

I find it funny that it's Britain's turn to copy something Americans do.

Dirk · May 2, 2010

deanhills said:
Wow! Tell us about it? How would you fix the deficit with no unusual expense to the ordinary taxpayer, and without cutting public services?

* Cancel the Trident update
* Abolish Trident
* Reduce tax evasion by the rich
* Abolish the monarchy
* Remove troops from Iraq/Afghanistan
* Cancel the ID card programme
* Abolish the database state
* Reallocate funds from policing to social programs

All of that is very desirable to me, and all of that will save a hell of a lot of money, not to mention make life better for a lot of people and protect civil liberties. It would mean the complete repayment of the deficit within a year, with no cuts to public services. If there's a surplus (which is a distinct possibility), I would recommend either:

* Paying the extra revenue back as tax credits

OR

* Investing in green energy

el canadiano said:
Are you a supporter of something different, like Proportional Representation?

I find it funny that it's Britain's turn to copy something Americans do.

I'm very rarely a supporter of much. Haha. I usually pick the idea or system I hate the least, or make up my own.

Proportional Representation is the only system that can be considered even vaguely democratic. A system that is biased in favour of two political parties dominating the political stage, not allowing smaller parties to realistically participate is almost as bad as a single party state. It's sickening. I'd like to find a way to make Proportional Representation more open and democratic. Maybe so that party members would be able to elect the candidate for their constituency, or something.

el canadiano · May 3, 2010

Dirk said:
Proportional Representation is the only system that can be considered even vaguely democratic. A system that is biased in favour of two political parties dominating the political stage, not allowing smaller parties to realistically participate is almost as bad as a single party state. It's sickening. I'd like to find a way to make Proportional Representation more open and democratic. Maybe so that party members would be able to elect the candidate for their constituency, or something.

But if it's purely proportional representation, would that basically mean you might not be represented by someone you majorly voted for? New Zealand uses a PR/FPTP hybrid.

Mind you, I do also think that the American Electoral system would work much better under PR (ie. you might get 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans in a 5-seat congress if 60% of a state votes Democrat) than a Canadian/Commonwealth system.

deanhills · May 3, 2010

Dirk said:
* Cancel the Trident update
* Abolish Trident

OK, so what happens if there is no longer a Trident? An imbalance of global power and the UK becoming a nuclear target? Also remember Trident created jobs, as well as skills that put the British side by side with global leaders in nuclear armaments.

Dirk said:
* Reduce tax evasion by the rich

Agreed. I sometimes wonder whether there is an alliance between Government and the rich along "you pat my back, I pat your back" lines.

Dirk said:
* Abolish the monarchy

Not a good idea. I believe the UK earns quite a bit from tourism. A touch of pomp and ceremony is good for the morale. But OK, let's say the monarchy is abolished, surely everything the monarchy owns, will still be theirs? So what would have been saved or gained?

Dirk said:
* Remove troops from Iraq/Afghanistan

And fight tourists in the UK instead? So the police force will have to be expanded and upgraded, perhaps at a greater cost. Not a good idea.

Dirk said:
* Cancel the ID card programme

No, I think that the ID card is a saving in that it will help look after Britain's jobs and curb illegal immigration.

Dirk said:
* Abolish the database state

Not sure what this means? Can you explain?

Dirk said:
* Reallocate funds from policing to social programs

There aren't enough funds for policing. More funds are needed to protect people from escalating crime.

Dirk said:
All of that is very desirable to me, and all of that will save a hell of a lot of money, not to mention make life better for a lot of people and protect civil liberties. It would mean the complete repayment of the deficit within a year, with no cuts to public services. If there's a surplus (which is a distinct possibility), I would recommend either:

* Paying the extra revenue back as tax credits

OR

* Investing in green energy

I don't think much money will be saved, in fact things will get worse, as the UK economy is intimately linked with the globe's and if it is to move backwards with the cuts suggested, the economy will be shrinking, not growing.

Dirk said:
Proportional Representation is the only system that can be considered even vaguely democratic.

Is your average person however sufficiently politically literate to justify your system? Maybe we have the system that we have because of the majority of people not really having the time, or wanting to make time for worrying about politics.

Dirk · May 3, 2010

el canadiano said:
But if it's purely proportional representation, would that basically mean you might not be represented by someone you majorly voted for? New Zealand uses a PR/FPTP hybrid.

Multiple representatives would solve that problem. I'm thinking add a few seats in areas the particular parties did well in order to achieve overall proportionality.

deanhills said:
OK, so what happens if there is no longer a Trident? An imbalance of global power and the UK becoming a nuclear target? Also remember Trident created jobs, as well as skills that put the British side by side with global leaders in nuclear armaments.

Nuclear weapons made the UK a nuclear target. It created a few Navy jobs, yes, but cost quite a bit to maintain, and the upgrade itself would cost ?100bn. That's not for creating jobs, it's for killing more people. The stated intention of Trident is now null, anyway.

Not a good idea. I believe the UK earns quite a bit from tourism. A touch of pomp and ceremony is good for the morale.

It doesn't. It's less than 1% of tourism income. Besides, economical ceremonial things can easily be kept.

But OK, let's say the monarchy is abolished, surely everything the monarchy owns, will still be theirs? So what would have been saved or gained?

One hundred and eighty three million pounds would be saved, every year.

And fight tourists in the UK instead? So the police force will have to be expanded and upgraded, perhaps at a greater cost. Not a good idea.

I presume you mean terrorists. The only reason the UK is a "terrorist" target is because its troops are in Afghanistan, in the first place.

No, I think that the ID card is a saving in that it will help look after Britain's jobs and curb illegal immigration.

It would be expensive, intrude on civil liberties and make it easier to enforce authoritarian "immigration" policies, meaning fewer jobs and less tax revenue.

Not sure what this means? Can you explain?

There aren't enough funds for policing. More funds are needed to protect people from escalating crime.

Initiating social programs to protect people from poverty and raise standards of living is a cheaper way of tackling crime.

I don't think much money will be saved, in fact things will get worse, as the UK economy is intimately linked with the globe's and if it is to move backwards with the cuts suggested, the economy will be shrinking, not growing.

It would improve a lot with the cuts I've suggested. The cuts the main political parties are suggesting could sabotage our economic recovery. My ideas would slash the deficit, while doing minimal damage to the economy.

Is your average person however sufficiently politically literate to justify your system?

I think people would welcome an open system that will make their votes count.

deanhills · May 4, 2010

Dirk said:
Nuclear weapons made the UK a nuclear target.

Yes, but those nuclear weapons will still be there if UK should end Trident.

Dirk said:
It doesn't. It's less than 1% of tourism income. Besides, economical ceremonial things can easily be kept.

Where did you get the 1% from. Can you back this up with evidence? What do you mean by "economical ceremonial things" being kept?

Dirk said:
One hundred and eighty three million pounds would be saved, every year.

Where does this figure come from?

Dirk said:
I presume you mean terrorists. The only reason the UK is a "terrorist" target is because its troops are in Afghanistan, in the first place.

I see, so the UK put troops in Afghanistan so that they could attract terrorists to the UK? Does that make any sense to you?

Dirk said:
It would be expensive, intrude on civil liberties and make it easier to enforce authoritarian "immigration" policies, meaning fewer jobs and less tax revenue.

How would ID cards result in fewer jobs and less tax revenue? I don't know how you bring these two together? Obviously the same jobs will be available, but will have to be filled locally. There may be less jobs, but the value would be the same, as whereas previously people had been employing immigrants at deliberate low salaries, where they have been exploited, they will have to offer salaries at the going rate, meaning less jobs, but at higher salaries. And higher salaries mean more taxes.

Dirk · May 4, 2010

deanhills said:
Yes, but those nuclear weapons will still be there if UK should end Trident.

The US ones you mean? *shrugs* Can't do anything about them, really. Could ask them to leave, I suppose. But I reckon the UK would at least have to quit NATO membership or something.

Where did you get the 1% from. Can you back this up with evidence? What do you mean by "economical ceremonial things" being kept?

First, i'd like to quote Bill Emmott:

"This [argument] is embarrassing because it suggests we should maintain a constitutional arrangement for purely commercial reasons."

Now, it comes from a survey done by VisitBritiain, it also found that of the top 20 tourist destinations, the only royal residence in it would be Windsor castle, at 17. To put it in perspective, it is beaten very comfortably by Legoland. Besides which, the royal residences are not going to magically disappear just because the monarchy has been abolished. So you'll still even have that 1%. The same survey found the monarchy is well down on the list of reasons tourists go to Britain. I will say as well - what does it mean to come because of the monarchy? It would be to see the palace, the castles, etc. They're not going to disappear. In fact, there may be a bit more tourism income from a fully accessible Buckingham Palace.

Where does this figure come from?

It comes from calculating the money spent on the monarchy in terms of the lost revenue, the civil list, subsidising state visits etc.

I see, so the UK put troops in Afghanistan so that they could attract terrorists to the UK? Does that make any sense to you?

I wasn't suggesting it was the intention, i'm suggesting it was the effect.

How would ID cards result in fewer jobs and less tax revenue? I don't know how you bring these two together?

Haha! This happens a lot, doesn't it? :giggle:

Let me clear this up. I said before that I don't like ID cards because they threaten civil liberties. You made clear you don't care. I accept you have a different opinion. That's fine. Whatever you hear, we, on the left, are not interested in controlling what people think. We just want to make them think.

Obviously the same jobs will be available, but will have to be filled locally.

Not at all. Think of all the jobs created by the presence of illegal immigrants. I imagine myp could probably explain it a lot better than I can. You know how bad I am!

el canadiano · May 4, 2010

It'd be interesting to see what would happen if this results in a minority government in Britain. Canada had one in 2004 with the Liberals in Government and from 2006 to today with the Conservatives in Government.

I find it interesting myself that the third of the three main parties (ignoring the fourth Bloc Qu?becouis) in Canada is the leftist government (similar to Britain's Labour Party), the NDP.

lorcan · May 11, 2010

I thought that these were really good, it gave me a great insight into all the leaders and I thought that David Cameron did especially well and Gordon Brown was not that convincing at all, however Nick Clegg did very well on the first night.

Abbott Presley · Feb 6, 2021

Abbott Presley · Feb 7, 2021

tecoyah · Feb 7, 2021

lorcan said:
I thought that these were really good, it gave me a great insight into all the leaders and I thought that David Cameron did especially well and Gordon Brown was not that convincing at all, however Nick Clegg did very well on the first night.

It seems to me about time the whole nation got to see who these people are.

Telstar · Feb 7, 2021

Indeed it is.

UK copies US-style televised campaign debate

Similar threads