Labour ?

Free school meals as well - they genuinely did have influence probably very considerably beyond that of a minority party. 

Hmack posted:

I find the comments about David Davis in the above posts really strange. My impression of this edition of question time are in complete contrast to those. I guess it proves that most people (I should probably include myself in this) hear what we want to hear in these TV debates. 

 

Yes like you say,  maybe we hear what we want to hear,  but discussing QT with a group of (aprx 10) peeps this morning they all tended to favour Davis as a man who impresses & most thought Gardiner did not.       

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I always thought we'd come to realise Clegg's qualities, and the effectiveness of the LDs in coalition to moderate more radical Tory elements.

Bruce

I have to say that I think the FibDumbs did absolutely nothing of the sort. They are a byword for treachery and cowardice.

The architect of the bodged and disgraceful Royal Mail sell-off (something even Thatch was against) was Vince Cable, and Clegg, with his misguided desire to get his party into power, betrayed everything they supposedly believed in. They sold out one of the most ideologically committed party supports in the UK. He was weak and completely ineffective in moderating the Tories.

The voting public knew this and punished the party severely in the 2015. I suspect that under Timmy - the big annoying dozy bluebottle of British politics - they will continue their slide into irrelevance. And good riddance to them too. Clegg, one suspects, will do OK. He'll get a nice well-paid job as some sort of consultant, perhaps with the EU.

How different things could have been if Charles Kennedy - a flawed man, but one of principle (he was against the Con-Dem coalition) whose boots Clegg and Farron are not worthy to lick, let alone put on - had lived and remained at the helm of the party.

Kevin

After the election of 2015 do you think they should have refused to enter into a coalition?

Once in coalition they had 25 or something seats to Cons 200+. How much influence do you think they had?

Ones man's cowardice and treacheryl is another's pragmatism perhaps?

As for Kennedy, in fairness I'm not sure that an increasingly unreliable chronic alcoholic was actually a good leader.

Bruce

Bruce, they could have tried to enter into a coalition with Labour, much more natural bedfellows with both the party and its supporters. Instead they joined forces with a party which - apart from UKIP - could not be further from their own ideals nd traditions. If that's not the defnition of duplicitous treachery I don't know what is. Or they could have chosen to remain unaffiliated to either side.

Clegg, Cable and the rest of their treacherous gang were so keen for power they not only betrayed their supporters but became enablers for an appalling Conservative government and its austerity policies. They weren't being pragmatic, they were being greedy for power. Kennedy, despite being an "unreliable alcoholic" saw that the party would be bullied and neutralised by their more senior coalition partners.

I did say Kennedy was flawed, but at least he was a man of honour and principle, which is more you can say of the likes of Cable and Clegg.

I don't understand why you are making excuses for these people.

I don't think a coalition between the defeated incumbents and the third place party would have had any legitimacy.

I think the LDs assumed they could moderate Tory austerity-perhaps they did too. What we see post coalition suggests they did. As I said; how much influence could they ever have had when you consider the size of their parliamentary party vs the Tories?  Propping up a defeated Labour Party would have been perceived by me as more of a betrayal of the electorate despite greater ideological similarities. It was not on offer anyway.

Kennedy was increasingly unreliable. He would miss meetings and appointments due to his condition.

Bruce

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

I don't think a coalition between the defeated incumbents and the third place party would have had any legitimacy.

It also wouldn't have given a majority ... it would have taken a coalition of Labour and Liberal Democrats along with SNP and Plaid Cymru to give anything approaching a majority (and thats if you exclude the Sinn Féin seats).

I think the could have argued that the two parties together represented over 50% of the votes, but I'm in agreement with you Bruce that I don't think it would have been seen as legitimate.

They (Lib Dem) could possibly have managed to paralyse the Conservatives as part of the opposition but I don't think the public would have looked kindly on them in the inevitable 2011/2012 election if that had been the situation.

A question... whatever side of the debate you're on... do people think that "advertising" political parties place on Facebook, Google, etc. (the internet generally) should be held to the same standards as they would be if placed on TV?  

My thinking of this question is in regard to videos being distributed by CCHQ (I'm not discounting that other parties are also doing similar) which selectively edit videos of Corbyn interviews - if they tried it as a party political broadcast they would be shut down - should this be tolerated just because it's Facebook not BBC.

Eloise posted:

A question... whatever side of the debate you're on... do people think that "advertising" political parties place on Facebook, Google, etc. (the internet generally) should be held to the same standards as they would be if placed on TV?  

My thinking of this question is in regard to videos being distributed by CCHQ (I'm not discounting that other parties are also doing similar) which selectively edit videos of Corbyn interviews - if they tried it as a party political broadcast they would be shut down - should this be tolerated just because it's Facebook not BBC.

I have noticed some very biased sound bites on a number of media's,  the BBC included, I would suggest it's probably impossible to monitor, let alone shutdown.  

I like to assume, possibly wrongly, that people should be intelligent enough to work out when someone has been misrepresented.

Don't really know the answer to that.  I guess that the internet be it Google or Facebook etc just puts the whole thing on a completely different dimension.    

One would hope that it would be positive in that more young people would be inclined to vote?

If distributed by party organs, IMO all information should be held to standards (maybe party election broadcasts, maybe not, I don't know the details for PEBs) which make sure it isn't misleading, especially during election campaigns.

Official political material can do without politicos trying to ape Cassetteboy.

What a completely phoney debate.   Neither side have a clue what to do over Brexit,  they are all just branding stuff around about the NHS, Education. 

Just ridiculous!

Eloise posted:

A question... whatever side of the debate you're on... do people think that "advertising" political parties place on Facebook, Google, etc. (the internet generally) should be held to the same standards as they would be if placed on TV?  

My thinking of this question is in regard to videos being distributed by CCHQ (I'm not discounting that other parties are also doing similar) which selectively edit videos of Corbyn interviews - if they tried it as a party political broadcast they would be shut down - should this be tolerated just because it's Facebook not BBC.

The answer to your question is part of a much wider debate, which is: are Google, Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, Instagram etc merely platforms; or broadcasters and publishers?

The owners of these companies would argue that they are tech platforms, and they are not responsible for what goes on them. Given that they rake in billions through search and programmatic advertising, the claims of the Silicon Valley giants looks increasingly hollow.

As one might expect, sections of the "old media" have long sought to have governments impose similar rules on Facebook, Google and the rest as are imposed on them; increasingly, the public and advertisers are doing so too (remember the 'YouTube advertising boycott' of earlier this year?).

I agree that it is time for these social media and other platforms to be subject to the same strictures as broadcasters and publishers. After all, their influence is huge. The problem is, these guys have global reach and given that each country has its own rules (you can get away with stuff on US or Italian TV that you couldn't get away with here in the UK). Policing and enforcing rules would be difficult and complex. Thst's not worth saying it's not worth trying, or at least thinking about. I would rather the tech giants put their own house in order, but many of them sre dragging their feet.

The only countries that police social media are Cuba, North Korea, Turkey, Saudi, Iran and other deplorable regimes. Only the North Koreans are 100% successful, because only the ruling party elite have access to the internet. China is stunningly successful at controlling social media - Facebook, Google and Twitter are banned.  I guess none of us want to live in China.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

What a completely phoney debate.   Neither side have a clue what to do over Brexit,  they are all just branding stuff around about the NHS, Education. 

Just ridiculous!

I've no idea whether you're being ironic or not.

But let's assume you are being serious:

That's because, despite what Theresa May (who desperately wants this to be about Brexit, which hasn't happened yet, because her record on everything else is so dismal) and bedwetting Bremaniacs like Timmy F might tell you, this GE isn't really about Brexit at all. It's about the stuff that really energises ordinary people - NHS, schools, crime/policing, terrorism, immigration, transport/infrastructure, housing, defence, pensions etc. The majority of people just want the best Brexit possible and are getting on with their daily lives. Only the fanatics on both sides are really exorcised by it. Of course, that's not to say that citizens might not become much more engaged with Brexit matters once negotiations get underway, but at the moment the GE isn't going to May's plan. Thankfully.

Now let's assume you'e being ironic:

I wasn't seeking to be ironic but if you read it that way that's your call.  More I genuinely think this is the worst election campaign of my adult life.   All being played out on spurious statistics and falsehoods - on both sides. 

I was softening towards  labour, but unfortunately after just listening to Question time on the BBC,  it's becoming increasingly obvious that JC is making policy promises that sound good but in  reality cannot be funded, he was referred to, as Santa Claus, sadly that seems to be a good description. 

How can anyone claim they are going to create 1m real jobs?  Absolutely no ways of measuring such a claim.   Even more fanciful that TM's immigration figures. 

Been meaning to ask as I haven't read Labour's manifesto (haven't read any of them) but is there anything in there with regard to constitutional reform?

I am watching Newsnight, and Boris Johnson is on. He is doing quite badly, as well he might: he is an evasive, flatulent, floppy-haired bag of wind. The facade is crumbling and the 'loveable buffoon' is exposed as a brittle, vacuous nonentity with nothing of substance to say about anything. His retorts to Emily Maitlis - hardly the toughest of interviewers - were feeble in the extreme.

Kevin-W posted:

I am watching Newsnight, and Boris Johnson is on. He is doing quite badly, as well he might: he is an evasive, flatulent, floppy-haired bag of wind. The facade is crumbling and the 'loveable buffoon' is exposed as a brittle, vacuous nonentity with nothing of substance to say about anything. His retorts to Emily Maitlis - hardly the toughest of interviewers - were feeble in the extreme.

For a split second I thought I was reading the Trump thread. Of well.

Clay Bingham posted:

Kevin-W posted:

I am watching Newsnight, and Boris Johnson is on. He is doing quite badly, as well he might: he is an evasive, flatulent, floppy-haired bag of wind. The facade is crumbling and the 'loveable buffoon' is exposed as a brittle, vacuous nonentity with nothing of substance to say about anything. His retorts to Emily Maitlis - hardly the toughest of interviewers - were feeble in the extreme.

For a split second I thought I was reading the Trump thread. Of well.

Have you ever seen Trump and Johnson in the same room at the same times?

Me neither - surely no coincidence!

Kevin-W posted:

Eloise posted:

A question... whatever side of the debate you're on... do people think that "advertising" political parties place on Facebook, Google, etc. (the internet generally) should be held to the same standards as they would be if placed on TV?  

My thinking of this question is in regard to videos being distributed by CCHQ (I'm not discounting that other parties are also doing similar) which selectively edit videos of Corbyn interviews - if they tried it as a party political broadcast they would be shut down - should this be tolerated just because it's Facebook not BBC.

The answer to your question is part of a much wider debate, which is: are Google, Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, Instagram etc merely platforms; or broadcasters and publishers?

The owners of these companies would argue that they are tech platforms, and they are not responsible for what goes on them. Given that they rake in billions through search and programmatic advertising, the claims of the Silicon Valley giants looks increasingly hollow.

As one might expect, sections of the "old media" have long sought to have governments impose similar rules on Facebook, Google and the rest as are imposed on them; increasingly, the public and advertisers are doing so too (remember the 'YouTube advertising boycott' of earlier this year?).

I agree that it is time for these social media and other platforms to be subject to the same strictures as broadcasters and publishers. After all, their influence is huge. The problem is, these guys have global reach and given that each country has its own rules (you can get away with stuff on US or Italian TV that you couldn't get away with here in the UK). Policing and enforcing rules would be difficult and complex. Thst's not worth saying it's not worth trying, or at least thinking about. I would rather the tech giants put their own house in order, but many of them sre dragging their feet.

The only countries that police social media are Cuba, North Korea, Turkey, Saudi, Iran and other deplorable regimes. Only the North Koreans are 100% successful, because only the ruling party elite have access to the internet. China is stunningly successful at controlling social media - Facebook, Google and Twitter are banned.  I guess none of us want to live in China.

Kevin ... I wasn't so much thinking that Facebook et al should be being held to the same standard as the BBC / ITV so much as that political parties should be held to the same standard wherever they are advertising.  The problem appears to me that it's Offcom who sets and monitors the standards and they have no authority over Facebook et al so the parties can get away with more.  This perhaps goes back though to a wider question of who really runs political campaigns and who is ultimately responsible.  

Eloise posted:

A question... whatever side of the debate you're on... do people think that "advertising" political parties place on Facebook, Google, etc. (the internet generally) should be held to the same standards as they would be if placed on TV?  

My thinking of this question is in regard to videos being distributed by CCHQ (I'm not discounting that other parties are also doing similar) which selectively edit videos of Corbyn interviews - if they tried it as a party political broadcast they would be shut down - should this be tolerated just because it's Facebook not BBC.

Yes I do, I read earlier this week that companies are employed by the parties to target certain sectors.  In my area I very rarely get anything promoting the Tories but I get swamped on Facebook with Corbyn and Labour propaganda.  What is incredibly annoying is that they tend to be short memes that are either totally exaggerated or highely inaccurate.  All political advertising should be controlled in my view or we wil have the gullible basing their decisions on who best lies to them on facebook and Twitter 

Which is exactly how the Brexit debate was decided..... But yes, I agree wholeheartedly that it should be properly regulated. 

The problem is most politicians are somewhat vague with the truth anyway,  and plenty of the electorate are gullible enough to believe whatever soundbites they are fed.

I tend to question everything I hear or read? 

Unfortunately many people spend a lot of time on social media and opinions are formed by the information they view, hence the reason it's used.

It seems it's a prime way of influencing and radicalising extremists.

Maybe after the shocking events of last night's terrorist attacks more careful monitoring and regulation will be required..