The Debate

Grey

Grey

Senior Jockey
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
9,471
Location
Dublin
Brown heavily outscored the other two on the economy. The other two were lightweight on it.

Clegg's final address was cringe-making.
 
I can't believe the credit that Brown is getting for "the first laugh". He bumbled his way through a pre-prepared joke after crow-barring it in at the first half (at best) opportunity.
 
agree...it was so staged...embarrassing if anything

The economy is best left to the chancellors anyway and brown has excellent back up in Darling....who he tried to sack of course
 
clivex said:
agree...it was so staged...embarrassing if anything
Click to expand...

Spot on. Can't see it having much of an impact. Clegg arguably won on the night, but that was almost down to the fact that I got the impression that he was largely ignored by the other two (despite ripping into them consistently) for much of the debate. I was surprised Cameron let Clegg away with claiming the 'change' mantle virtually unchallenged actually.

The amount of anecdotes and overall fawning was shocking though. A strong moderator would have helped in trying to get out the nuances of the policies rather than having to settle for bland generalizations.
 
Clegg was in a no-lose situation and I'm surprised the media don't seem to have seen through that.

I too wondered about the anecdotal stuff but I suppose that's a subtle a way as they can get of saying 'we're listening to the people' without actually saying 'we're listening to the people'. When, of course, none of them are.
 
I'm surprised Brown agreed to it. He is uglier than the other two and a less competent presenter than the other two. Barring major ricks (which he's as likely to make as the other two) content and substance on these occasions is largely superfluous.
 
The amount of anecdotes and overall fawning was shocking though. A strong moderator would have helped in trying to get out the nuances of the policies rather than having to settle for bland generalizations
Click to expand...

Absolute right. Another problem was the lack of personal animosity between the three. Brown is hated by most of his colleagues more. You need that frisson of dislike to make the debates worthwhile. It was clear that McCain and obama didnt get on for example

Also the main question was avoided...

If Brown is finally stabbed to death in a fit of rage by one of his cabinet colleagues (highly likely IMO) what contingency does the secret services have to prevent Harriet Harperson running the country? Will she be shot within minutes say?

This is a serious question.
 
I only watched a small part of this and it just underlined my concerns that we are again galloping headlong down the route to it all being about persnalities and not party objectives. Anyone who believes any political party is led by one man is being naive in the extreme, so quite frankly, it's irrelevant to me to a large extent who may score the most points off the other.

This is an American format, surely and their form of politics is not a model I particularly want to follow.
 
clivex said:
If Brown is finally stabbed to death in a fit of rage by one of his cabinet colleagues (highly likely IMO) what contingency does the secret services have to prevent Harriet Harperson running the country? Will she be shot within minutes say?

This is a serious question.
Click to expand...

I've always thought there are "Powers that Be" hidden away from the public eye, people who really run the country. I think if someone like Harmen or in the past figures like Prescott or Tebbet had got the top job something would have happened to them.
 
We don't have a record for political assassinations, though, unlike the USA, a variety of Eastern European countries and Asia. I doubt we're going to start now - think how many millions of people have been brutally damaged by the recession. How many bankers have been shot dead at the electric gates to their vast estates? None. We're apathetic. We accept 'the good with the bad', the 'downside with the upside' and 'that's life' instead of smashing heads in. I'm amazed that thousands more Americans haven't run amok with their automatic rifles and wiped out entire boards of banks, day after day. Seems even they have their limits to vengeance.
 
Whoooa

As awful as she is, i wasnt being serious FFS

Yes, the catholic church. What a fine week they have had.
 
clivex said:
Absolute right. Another problem was the lack of personal animosity between the three. Brown is hated by most of his colleagues more. You need that frisson of dislike to make the debates worthwhile. It was clear that McCain and obama didnt get on for example

Also the main question was avoided...

If Brown is finally stabbed to death in a fit of rage by one of his cabinet colleagues (highly likely IMO) what contingency does the secret services have to prevent Harriet Harperson running the country? Will she be shot within minutes say?

This is a serious question.
Click to expand...

I rather figured you would lay down the next 40 years, clivex, and do it yourself for the greater good of the country.

I'm being serious. ;)

The debate was a load of bubble-gum, faux-inclusive bollix, staged to pander to those eejits who actually think that such cobblers promotes democracy.

What was marginally more irritating was the pish trotted out by that bagpipe-gobbling, fat-necked, arsehole, Alex Salmond. He called it "an affront to democracy", which would have been true in a sense.......if he didn't view everything through his tartan-kaleidescope prism of Jockish twat supremacy.

It also give Nicola Sturgeon a reason to shatter plama screens across the land, with what is surely the ugliest fizzer given airtime since The Boy David. It is a measure of SNP delinquency, that they don't view such a complete and utter gobshite munter, as an electoral handicap. Talk about fecking myopic.

At this stage, I should point out that I don't consider good looks a prerequiste to competency. But when you couple Sturgeon's gruesome - nay, hideous - panel, with her politics......it really is time to speak out.
 
Last edited:
Funnily enough i was thinking that grasshopper and elections would be "postponed" for 40 years once i seized power

I have some good policies which would include sending Salmond to the tower for treason, so i would have your vote for sure grasshopper

I would force Harperson to be the minister for Porn with a brief to actively promote the industry (although stop short of making videos). She would have to report to Ben Dover, who would be Home secretary

Strugeon is very ugly and it is agood point that mingers should not be in parliament. Provision could be made for her to wear a paper bag over head when appearing in public perhaps
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
What was marginally more irritating was the pish trotted out by that bagpipe-gobbling, fat-necked, arsehole, Alex Salmond. He called it "an affront to democracy", which would have been true in a sense.......if he didn't view everything through his tartan-kaleidescope prism of Jockish twat supremacy.
Click to expand...

Wordsworth. Shakespeare. Grasshopper.
 
A marvellous stream of consciousness there, Grassy, and yes, you've got my vote for next Poet Laureate!

But per-lease, if good looks were relevant to politics, explain Hailsham, Macmillan, Butler, Boothby et al to me!
 
I came on here to add another comment but having read some of the recent ones, I won't be contributing any more to this debate. I'm surprised (shocked, actually) some of the comments have got past the mods.
 
DO, does it help any that I'm a Jockish twat myself? I just don't have a superiority/inferiority complex about it.
 
Or is it the church thing DO?

Personally i believe that the leadership (or whatever) of your church are the ones that required moderating this week.
 
I think it was my Catholic comment. But i'm not being prejudiced, I have nothing but contempt for all Christians, not just the left footers.


krizon said:
But per-lease, if good looks were relevant to politics, explain Hailsham, Macmillan, Butler, Boothby et al to me!
Click to expand...

I think looks have been of vital relevence since colour TV came in. Maybe even 1960 if we include America. None of the munters you named would get in now.
 
Euronymous said:
Maybe that's because we don't let the wrong people, like catholics, get in charge.
Click to expand...

How about: someone to take an overview of the contents of posts, someone who is empowered to delete them if they stray over the boundaries of good taste .....

Or at least to ask for a re-phrasing; better allow for a slip of the pen, eh?
 
Back
Top