Clegg v Farage / LBC Debate

[ivanava 10]

Reading some of the posts here it is pretty clear that no matter what the debate is, there will be people for and against and a debate like this isn't going to change opinions. As you can guess I think Clegg did a good job and won the debate. I doubt anybody not supporting either UKIP or LibDem would have an opinion on it so'exit-polls' are quite irrelevant.

 

What Clegg did was say unequivocally: If you don't believe that the EU is a bad thing and want to ensure we dont screw up and leave it - vote LibDem.

 

He had to do that, it is what will get the LibDems votes at the next election, whether it is enough to win seats remains to be seen though.

 

I don't support either party, I thought Clegg was one of the better politicians until I saw the debate, but he turned out to be no different to the majority of MP's. He avoiding questions and twisted evidence and miss directed the audience to suit his own opinion.

[Manlinose 10]

Much better to spoil your paper (I believe this figure has to be read out at the vote,) than not to vote at all.

 

but how do you differentiate between those who are actively spoiling their ballot paper and those who just unwittingly make a mistake

[ivanava 10]

Unfortunately, not voting will be interpreted as apathy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Much better to spoil your paper (I believe this figure has to be read out at the vote,) than not to vote at all.

 

They always appear concerned about the low turn out when it coming to election time, and there is little point in spoiling your paper, if you turn out to vote you might as well vote for the party you want to win even though you know your vote won't matter.

[Phanerothyme 12]

but how do you differentiate between those who are actively spoiling their ballot paper and those who just unwittingly make a mistake

That's easy - the number of people who genuinely make a mistake is generally pretty consistent. Things get a bit fouled up when people run for election with either a name or party name that closely resembles a "serious" candidate - like the bloke who stood for the "Literal Democrats".

 

But now you can't simply call yourself "The Conversative Party" or "New Labuor" and get away with it.

 

But if a sufficiently large number of people spoil their ballots, especially if it's as a result of a visible campaign, then it would certainly attract interest.

 

I don't know what would happen if the majority of ballots were spoiled, but any representative thus elected would be hard pressed to claim they had any kind of mandate, or were the "choice of the people".

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 15:40 ----------

 

They always appear concerned about the low turn out when it coming to election time, and there is little point in spoiling your paper, if you turn out to vote you might as well vote for the party you want to win even though you know your vote won't matter.

 

And if you don't want any of them to win?

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 15:42 ----------

 

I think a better system would be for people to vote against candidates. Raise the deposit to a couple of grand, and run the election publicity along more egalitarian lines, so that every candidate gets precisely the same coverage. No electioneering, just a fixed series of hustings. At the end, on election day, everyone goes and votes against the candidates they don't want to win. The candidate with the fewest votes against them wins it.

[Manlinose 10]

That's easy - the number of people who genuinely make a mistake is generally pretty consistent.

 

wouldn't it be easier just to make voting compulsory and have a "none of the above" option?

 

then we'd have a much clearer idea of what support there is for each candidate and party and what support there is (if that is the right word) for no candidate or party

[tzijlstra 11]

I don't support either party, I thought Clegg was one of the better politicians until I saw the debate, but he turned out to be no different to the majority of MP's. He avoiding questions and twisted evidence and miss directed the audience to suit his own opinion.

 

I might be mistaken, but from some of your replies to threads concerning immigrants, one could conclude you are further along the UKiP side of the scale than the LD side.

 

I saw very little evidence of miss directing the audience or twisting facts, but then it all depends on which facts you believe in.

[BEDROCK 10]

What we need rite now is a Thomas Jefferson Johnson or Montgomery Brewster approach.

 

If we are to have proper satirical campaigning then at least replace the political jokers with proper comedians

[ivanava 10]

 

 

 

And if you don't want any of them to win?

 

 

Either don't vote or vote for the one most likely to beat the one you dislike the most.

[janie48 95]

It can viewed here.

 

 

.

Thanks for that, will be viewing later.

 

Unfortunately, not voting will be interpreted as apathy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Much better to spoil your paper (I believe this figure has to be read out at the vote,) than not to vote at all.

I agree, I will be voting, but if I was undecided it would be a blank vote, best to do that then abstain completely.

 

See here> http://www.blankvote.org.uk/blank_votes_count.html

[ivanava 10]

I might be mistaken, but from some of your replies to threads concerning immigrants, one could conclude you are further along the UKiP side of the scale than the LD side.

 

I saw very little evidence of miss directing the audience or twisting facts, but then it all depends on which facts you believe in.

 

He twisted and misdirected the audience every time he was asked about the amount of people that have a right to work here, he just pointed out how the rules have been changed to stop them claiming benefits even though no one asked him about benefits.

 

He claimed their aren't 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria which is correct, but irrelevant because no one as claimed their are 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians living in Romania and Bulgaria.

 

When asked about deporting criminals his only answer was about the amount of criminals the government have imported to face trial here, he claimed it made our streets safer, even though our streets were already safe from them because they wasn't living in the UK.

 

He repeated time after time that we should deal with facts and not rhetoric even though he repeatedly used rhetoric.

 

He claimed the NHS would collapse if we stopped immigration which again is nonsense, and no one has said we should stop immigration.

 

He claimed we would loose billions if we stopped trading with the EU even though no one as said we should stop training with the EU.

[Dawn123 10]

Farage dispelled the spurious claim that he is a racist by mentioning that he'd prefer immigration from India from people who has skills we need, rather than unskilled masses from Europe..

[BEDROCK 10]

It is funny and rather predictable that the mainstream news outlets namely BBC, ITV and Channel 4 hardly reported it.

 

While Sky have actually gone up in my estimation by collaborating fantastically with LBC and it all flowed really well.

 

The LBC presenter Nick Ferrari did a fantastic job, left his ego out of the debate and rattled through the issues.

 

Something that BBC should try to emulate on the next debate, for the love of god don't let David Dimbleby host it.