Election debate. How did they perform?

[Snods Shinpad 2]

Rate the politicians performance by comparing them to a Rovers' player past or present...

James Gordon Brown (age 59):
Steady, reliable, unexciting. Flaws easily exposed under pressure.
DRFC Rating: Mark Wilson

David William Donald Cameron (age 43):
Promises much, but doesn't seem to be able to deliver. Question marks remain over attitude and application.
DRFC Rating: Jonathan Forte

Nicholas William Peter 'Nick' Clegg (age 43)
Unorthodox and unheralded, yet occasionally capable of embarrassing the opposition.
DRFC Rating: John Buckley

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I personally thought Brown struggled.  He just does not realise that Labour have failed to provide strong government recently.

I thought Cameron made good comments on his policies.  Instead of being a big salesman like normal, he spoke with substance, now he's being criticised for simply talking about policy and being a bit boring, they guy can't win.

Clegg did well.  He comes accross very well but I just can't trust his policies.  They look great but they're all idealistic.  Let's get rid of Trident when Iran wants a Nuclear bomb and the Russians still fly over, yet he thinks the cold war is over?  It's all well and good getting rid of tax under 10k, but VAT will go up, Capital Gains goes up, Corporation Tax goes up.  That's all well and good but our economy is based on business now manufacturing has gone, can we afford to lose business aswell?

[CusworthRovers]

Let's get rid of Trident when Iran wants a Nuclear bomb and the Russians still fly over, yet he thinks the cold war is over?


Wants and have are 2 entirely seperate words. Nth Korea/China have Nuclear capabilities. Russians flying over???? Aeroflot have many charter flights all over the world.

Are USA and Russia not in agreement to reduce Nuclear weapons?

The Cold War is long dead mucker, think the fall of Communism and the Berlin Wall. Threats are still in existance elsewhere, but not from beyond the Iron Curtain.

Ps

Brown = Shiels for obvious reasons
Cameron is very southern, home county ish and posh = Stocky
Clegg just can't quite break into the fold = Sam Hird

[The L J Monk]

The Russians won't be flying over whilst Iceland continues to deploy its weapon of mass destruction.

Interesting to hear Cameron claim to have had a chat with a 40 year old black man who'd been in the navy for 30 years.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

CusworthRovers wrote:

The Cold War is long dead mucker, think the fall of Communism and the Berlin Wall. Threats are still in existance elsewhere, but not from beyond the Iron Curtain.

In its historical context yes, but do we really know what is around the corner?  Why get rid of a deterrant?  Surely we need to be equipped for any scenario in the future?  Nick Clegg doesn't seem to understand that we need a nuclear deterrant.

[Barmby Rover]

Rigoglioso wrote:

Brown is still an impostor. How can he claim to be prime minister for this country when he hasn't even been elected in the past?

Clegg was the winner for me. At least he had the intelligence to keep out of the Brown vs Cameron show and let them two slug it out (something which in effect made Clegg look a bit more dignified).

It'll still end up as a major battle between Cameron and Brown for Number 10, though. Not that any single party will come out on top!

Basic political facts Rigo, Gordon Brown HAS been elected, as an MP just the same as the general public voted for the other two as the leader of their party. This is why it shouldn't be happening, the great British ignorant public do not realise we don't vote for a presidential type leader, we vote a PARTY into power and it chooses the best amongst them to carry out it's policies. A waste of time.

[Barmby Rover]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

The Cold War is long dead mucker, think the fall of Communism and the Berlin Wall. Threats are still in existance elsewhere, but not from beyond the Iron Curtain.

In its historical context yes, but do we really know what is around the corner?  Why get rid of a deterrant?  Surely we need to be equipped for any scenario in the future?  Nick Clegg doesn't seem to understand that we need a nuclear deterrant.

What deterrant? Do you seriously think that it is ours? The British government has never been able to make the decision to push the button even if it wanted to. The Americans have always been able to have a veto on our weapons as it would trigger a global conflict. So why have them if a) You would never be allowed to use it and b) it costs an absolute fortune to replace and c) getting rid would allow us to build hospitals, employ policemen etc etc depending how you want to use it. I will not vote Liberal, but it is not a daft idea.

[The Red Baron]

Interesting that by common consent the one bloke who will NOT be Prime Minister come May 7th won the debate. Personally I thought Clegg had the advantage of (a) having least to lose and (b) being able to play the \"anti-politics\" card. To be fair to him, he made the most of those advantages. The consolation for both Brown and Cameron is that neither of them performed disastrously.

One down, two to go in terms of debates. I really don't think there's the material for two more. This one wasn't supposed to be on the economy but the NI rise got a good airing. Surprised Europe didn't get mentioned: although the parties' positions are not radically different, it is something of an elephant in the room. When you talk about immigration, you soon realise that any attempts to control it would be doomed to failure while we remain obliged to accept any migrants from within the EU.

One final thing to consider: it is possible that the next Prime Minister was not even taking part in the debate. Consider this: Labour can be the largest party in terms of seats on 33% of the vote, especially if the Lib Dems take proportionately more votes off the Tories. Suppose that happened, and the Lib Dems made a condition of a coalition that they wouldn't serve under Brown. He is forced out by Labour MPs because the alternative is a Cameron-led minority Government. We could end up with Jack Straw, Alan Johnson or even (heaven forbid!) Harriet Harman as PM. Now THERE'S a scary thought!

[DonnyNoel]

Got to go with the consensus here - Clegg came across best but are the policies written with an element of \"we won't get it so we might as well say it\"? That said, in a hung parliament.....

I could see this one going to the wire

[Thinwhiteduke]

Rigoglioso wrote:

Brown is still an impostor. How can he claim to be prime minister for this country when he hasn't even been elected in the past?

Argghhh! I hate this evertime it comes up.

How many times. You vote for a Party and its policies, not the man who fronts that party. Why, if a leader of a party steps down , do we have to elect a new prime minister? IT IS STILL THE SAME GOVERNMENT.

[River Don]

The consensus this morning seems to be Clegg won.

A hung parliament with a larger Lib Dem presence in it would be no bad thing.

[River Don]

The Red Baron wrote:

One down, two to go in terms of debates. I really don't think there's the material for two more. This one wasn't supposed to be on the economy but the NI rise got a good airing. Surprised Europe didn't get mentioned: although the parties' positions are not radically different, it is something of an elephant in the room. When you talk about immigration, you soon realise that any attempts to control it would be doomed to failure while we remain obliged to accept any migrants from within the EU.

There are a few issues the main parties simply don't want to discuss, Europe, immigration and the environment are the main three.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

Rigoglioso wrote:

Brown is still an impostor. How can he claim to be prime minister for this country when he hasn't even been elected in the past?

Argghhh! I hate this evertime it comes up.

How many times. You vote for a Party and its policies, not the man who fronts that party. Why, if a leader of a party steps down , do we have to elect a new prime minister? IT IS STILL THE SAME GOVERNMENT.

Yes, but in some respects we're moving away from this.  Clegg won the debate last night because of him, not because of his party, now people will vote for Lib Dem MPs who could be monkeys but they've seen Clegg do well so.....

That's a bit of a flaw in the whole thing really.  The only worry would be this helping Labour.  I know this is a Donny board and the people of Donny would vote Labour if Bin Laden was candidate, but that would just be a huge disappointment for me if we end up with a Labour government again.

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

Rigoglioso wrote:

Brown is still an impostor. How can he claim to be prime minister for this country when he hasn't even been elected in the past?

Argghhh! I hate this evertime it comes up.

How many times. You vote for a Party and its policies, not the man who fronts that party. Why, if a leader of a party steps down , do we have to elect a new prime minister? IT IS STILL THE SAME GOVERNMENT.

Yes, but in some respects we're moving away from this.  Clegg won the debate last night because of him, not because of his party, now people will vote for Lib Dem MPs who could be monkeys but they've seen Clegg do well so.....

That's a bit of a flaw in the whole thing really.  The only worry would be this helping Labour.  I know this is a Donny board and the people of Donny would vote Labour if Bin Laden was candidate, but that would just be a huge disappointment for me if we end up with a Labour government again.

Two thoughts.

1) If you think it would be a huge disappointment for Labour to get back in, I'm guessing you're not old enough to remember what happened to Donny and South Yorkshire last time the Tories were in charge? Go and look it up, then think why this current recession hasn't brutalised and decimated our area in the way that the 1981 and 1990 recessions did. Perhaps it's been because we have had a Labour Government that has deliberately used policies to mitigate the worst effects, whilst the Tories approach would have been to let the markets do their worst, just like they always do. Leaving it to the markets was EXACTLY what Cameron and Osbourne were screaming for us to do when the credit crunch hit in 07-08. That would have been a horrific disaster, and tipped us into the mother of all Depressions. Any respectable economist in the world would agree with that. If they called the most importangt decision of the last 4 years so horribly wrong, how can you trust their judgement on ANYTHING? (And by the way, they've got previous: In the last recession, the one in which unemployment rates in our area hit 20+% back in the early 90s, Cameron was a Special Advisor to the then Chancellor. Go figure...)

2) You're bang on that the Leaders' Debate is almost entirely about image and style, rather than substance. Back in 2001, I remember hearing some American guy being interviewed after the Presidential Elections. He said, \"I thought Al Gore had a lot of good ideas, but George Dubya sounds like ther sort of guy I'd like to have a beer with, so I'll be voting for him.\" Clegg had an impressive style, but I'm struggling to think of a single meaningful policy that he has put forward - certainly none that would stand up to any detailed scrutiny. AND he's having an easy ride. Both Cameron and Brown know that they have to woo him in case he holds the balance of power. He had the easiest ride imaginable last night, but that was absolutely NOT a fair way of appraising whether he has either the policies or the personal substance required.

[River Don]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Clegg had an impressive style, but I'm struggling to think of a single meaningful policy that he has put forward - certainly none that would stand up to any detailed scrutiny. AND he's having an easy ride.

For me Nick Clegg did successfully put one policy across well by exposing the other two candidates as mere road blocks to political reform. Though it was interesting that David Cameron (virtually unreported) stated that he wants a \"predominately elected\" House of Lords and appeared to rule out the possibility of the hereditary peers from ever returning.

Reform of our parliamentary system is desperately needed and should be high on the agenda in this election.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I just look at it from the perspective that affects me.  I've spent 4 years studying that's put me in £28,000 of debt from a system the government decided didn't work correctly meaning it was changed (apart from for those who were already in it, I've got much bigger student debt than my sister despite being means tested from the same parents).

Now can I find work?  Nope.  I was at an assessment day recently and I was competing with people who've spent large amounts of time already working because they got laid off in this recession they're now going for graduate jobs.  I'm going for jobs I've spent 4 years studying for and competing with people twice my age who've previously spent my whole lifetime in employment earning big money.

I have friends who are on the dole after graduating finding others 'signing on' rolling up in Jaguars and claiming their dole money as they to cannot find work.  It's a big struggle and feels like I've wasted my time at uni a little bit.  I don't really feel like the country offers me much in terms of options at the moment and it is a big worry.  But then it's good for the government they've been able to put me out of the unemployed stats for the last 4 years, come June that's not going to be the case.

[Thinwhiteduke]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Now can I find work?  Nope.  I was at an assessment day recently and I was competing with people who've spent large amounts of time already working because they got laid off in this recession they're now going for graduate jobs.  I'm going for jobs I've spent 4 years studying for and competing with people twice my age who've previously spent my whole lifetime in employment earning big money.

Sometimes experience counts for a lot though.

Put it this way, I am not formally qualified for my job, if Id never done it before and was applying for it I wouldnt get it. However, no one does my job, in my company, better than I do, thats why I have won colleague of the year twice and am best paid in my role.

You can be educated to the hilt, and we have graduates come in in better paid jobs (different roles) than me, who know bugger all. Ive also had Managers whove come in as graduates who wouldnt say boo to a goose - and frankly its embarrasing that, just because they are 'educated' they earn more yet know less, needless to say they rarely last long before they are'moved on'.

Experience and on the job knowledge over education 95% of the time for me, thats why we should be doing more apprenticeships in this country rather than trying to push everyone into University.

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

I just look at it from the perspective that affects me.  I've spent 4 years studying that's put me in £28,000 of debt from a system the government decided didn't work correctly meaning it was changed (apart from for those who were already in it, I've got much bigger student debt than my sister despite being means tested from the same parents).

Now can I find work?  Nope.  I was at an assessment day recently and I was competing with people who've spent large amounts of time already working because they got laid off in this recession they're now going for graduate jobs.  I'm going for jobs I've spent 4 years studying for and competing with people twice my age who've previously spent my whole lifetime in employment earning big money.

I have friends who are on the dole after graduating finding others 'signing on' rolling up in Jaguars and claiming their dole money as they to cannot find work.  It's a big struggle and feels like I've wasted my time at uni a little bit.  I don't really feel like the country offers me much in terms of options at the moment and it is a big worry.  But then it's good for the government they've been able to put me out of the unemployed stats for the last 4 years, come June that's not going to be the case.

You have my genuine commiserations. I was lucky enough to graduate between the Tories' two catastrophic recessions in 81 and 90, but I know people who were caught in the way that you are and it's bloody hard.

I can assure you though that if we'd had Osbourne and Cameron in charge for the last 2 years, unemoyment would be far, far higher than it is today. No one disputes that.

It's probably not much consolation, but the global conditions in thus recession have been harder than either 81 or 90. And yet our unemployment rates are far lower than they were on those two recessions, lower than Germany, France, Italy or America. That's not come about by chance. It's the result of deliberate policy decisions by this Government to NOT do what the Tories wanted. If the Government had cut back public expenditure 2 years ago like Osbourne wanted to do, we'd have 4 million on the dole now. Voting for them now will not help your personal prospects.

[donnyjay]

I wasn't impressed with Brown's 'this isn't Question Time, this is answer time' quip. Who's his gag writer? CusworthRovers?

P.S.

Gordon Brown - Bad tempered Scot whose ambition outweighs his ability. Michael Mcindoe

Dave Cameron - Would probably burn Briton to the ground and claim the insurance. Ken Richardson

Nick Clegg - Looks good at debating but flatters to deceive. Lewis Guy

[Barmby Rover]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

I just look at it from the perspective that affects me.  I've spent 4 years studying that's put me in £28,000 of debt from a system the government decided didn't work correctly meaning it was changed (apart from for those who were already in it, I've got much bigger student debt than my sister despite being means tested from the same parents).

Now can I find work?  Nope.  I was at an assessment day recently and I was competing with people who've spent large amounts of time already working because they got laid off in this recession they're now going for graduate jobs.  I'm going for jobs I've spent 4 years studying for and competing with people twice my age who've previously spent my whole lifetime in employment earning big money.

I have friends who are on the dole after graduating finding others 'signing on' rolling up in Jaguars and claiming their dole money as they to cannot find work.  It's a big struggle and feels like I've wasted my time at uni a little bit.  I don't really feel like the country offers me much in terms of options at the moment and it is a big worry.  But then it's good for the government they've been able to put me out of the unemployed stats for the last 4 years, come June that's not going to be the case.

From somebody who graduated the year Thatcher came to power I have more than sympathy with you. I spent two years out of three unemployed with only two six month contracts to break it up. The difference being that I was part of 35% unemployed in Scunthorpe when they shut down two steelworks out of three and I stood no chance. The only way off it was to become a teacher which is not what I wanted and have never had a job in my life that I have had any particular satisfaction from. I am still struggling and have been from the day I graduated. God luck to you, I hope you have better luck than I did.

[BillyStubbsTears]

...in one quote.

I was on a train last night and listened to the Leaders' Debate on the iPhone. Kept cutting out when it lost the signal.

There was one bit where Cameron came so close to losing the election in a single sentence. He was waffling on about how hard it is to claim welfare support and said, \"Y'know, when we were trying to get help when my child was ill, it was difficult. There were, like, 4 lever arch files full of guidance notes. I mean, it was hard enough for ME...\"

And the signal was lost.

So can anybody enlighten me? Did he drop his mask? Did David \"You can call me great-great-great-great-great-grandson of William IV and 5th cousin of the Queen....err...no...sorry...wrong audience...I mean 'Dave'\" Cameron finally let slip the Everyman facade that he's so carefully built up and show his true elitist colours? Did he go on to say, \"...to understand it - me with my Eton/Oxbridge education and Bullingdon Club pals to fall back on, let alone some thick as pig-shit, Comp-educated, working-class scum from 'ooop north'\"?

Did he? Somebody make my weekend and tell me he did.

[CusworthRovers]

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

Put it this way, I am not formally qualified for my job, if Id never done it before and was applying for it I wouldnt get it. However, no one does my job, in my company, better than I do, thats why I have won colleague of the year twice and am best paid in my role.

You can be educated to the hilt, and we have graduates come in in better paid jobs (different roles) than me, who know bugger all. Ive also had Managers whove come in as graduates who wouldnt say boo to a goose - and frankly its embarrasing that, just because they are 'educated' they earn more yet know less, needless to say they rarely last long before they are'moved on'.

Experience and on the job knowledge over education 95% of the time for me, thats why we should be doing more apprenticeships in this country rather than trying to push everyone into University.

You don't work at Burger King do you TWD.


As for the Bummingdon Boys Club BST, he did say his old mucker/drinking club buddy Mr Rothschild was once down to his last £100m, so he's seen at first hand what poverty is.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Good old ITV though, eh? Embracing new technology by putting Tweets onto the screen during the debate. Let the fair-minded and intelligent British Public have their say on the fine upstanding men who want to be our leaders and broadcast these musings straight to the Nation. Here's an example...

[CusworthRovers]

Go on then Billy, is your real name Nick Brett?. Pure poetry from Nicholas

[BillyStubbsTears]

What? You reckon I'd support that non-entity Clegg?

Actually, the boundary to his constituency is just outside my back window. Think I might go and have an al fresco piss over the back fence.

[The Red Baron]

The Red Baron wrote:

One final thing to consider: it is possible that the next Prime Minister was not even taking part in the debate. Consider this: Labour can be the largest party in terms of seats on 33% of the vote, especially if the Lib Dems take proportionately more votes off the Tories. Suppose that happened, and the Lib Dems made a condition of a coalition that they wouldn't serve under Brown. He is forced out by Labour MPs because the alternative is a Cameron-led minority Government. We could end up with Jack Straw, Alan Johnson or even (heaven forbid!) Harriet Harman as PM. Now THERE'S a scary thought!

I posted the above yesterday- the latest polls seem to think my hypothesis is not that wide of the mark. Expect a lot of questions directed at Clegg and the Lib Dems in the coming days about who they would support in the event of a hung parliament.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

For once I do not need to add a caveat about changes being inside the margin of error and not necessarily being significant – today’s YouGov poll for the Sun shows a huge surge for the Liberal Democrats on the back of Nick Clegg’s debate performance, putting the Lib Dems ahead of Labour and into second place. The topline figures are CON 33%(-4), LAB 28%(-3), LDEM 30%(+8). The surge in Lib Dem support therefore seems to have come pretty evenly at the expence of the Conservatives and Labour. This is the highest level of support YouGov have recorded for the Liberal Democrats since the aftermath of the Brent East by-election victory, way back in 2003.

On a uniform swing these figures would leave Labour the largest party, despite being in third place. The Lib Dems would have around about 100 seats. In reality though, it’s almost impossible to say how this would translate into an election result. In 1983 when the SDP Liberal Alliance almost pushed Labour into third place UNS was actually a pretty good predictor of the result, but who knows how it would work in practice now. If the Lib Dems stay at this sort of figure I’m sure we’ll eventually see some more detailled polling to see how the electoral plates are shifting, but till then it is speculation.

[NickDRFC]

Thinwhiteduke wrote:

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Now can I find work?  Nope.  I was at an assessment day recently and I was competing with people who've spent large amounts of time already working because they got laid off in this recession they're now going for graduate jobs.  I'm going for jobs I've spent 4 years studying for and competing with people twice my age who've previously spent my whole lifetime in employment earning big money.

Sometimes experience counts for a lot though.

Put it this way, I am not formally qualified for my job, if Id never done it before and was applying for it I wouldnt get it. However, no one does my job, in my company, better than I do, thats why I have won colleague of the year twice and am best paid in my role.

You can be educated to the hilt, and we have graduates come in in better paid jobs (different roles) than me, who know bugger all. Ive also had Managers whove come in as graduates who wouldnt say boo to a goose - and frankly its embarrasing that, just because they are 'educated' they earn more yet know less, needless to say they rarely last long before they are'moved on'.

Experience and on the job knowledge over education 95% of the time for me, thats why we should be doing more apprenticeships in this country rather than trying to push everyone into University.

And how do you get that experience? Are you saying you were the best at your job, and the highest paid, as soon as you started? Clearly on the job experience counts for a lot, but everyone has got to start somewhere, whether straight out of uni or straight into the job.