Cameron & Miliband: The Battle For Number 10 (Overall Poll)

[Kag]

Paxman worked in Miliband's favour towards the end. I'm a fan of his style, but his line of question was wholly inappropriate and quite repetitive. Miliband responded well.

His policies, however, are paper thin. And if they're not, it's more to do with his inability to explain what will happen and how, with emphasis on budgetary-based reasoning.

Cameron did well, probably better of the two in the end, but he's better at this sort of thing full stop.

A predictable outcome, and if people are to be swayed by faux drama on the television then more fool them.

 

[Gambit]

After watching it all I've decided who I want to run the country. Paxman.

 

[Adebesi]

I don't watch Sky News so I wasn't really aware of Kay Burley. She's a massive tool.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Cameron seemed to know how to handle this stuff. This miliband chap looked really awkward particularly during the interview.

 

[berbatrick]

Both were getting pummeled on policy (probably Miliband was even worse) but the moment the attacks became personal Miliband came out stronger.

 

[Mojo_]

The only thing I see unions do these days is keep kids off school and stifle the health system. It's old fashioned and unnecessary in today's working demographic. I've never liked the tories and Blair ruined the labour party along with the country. Not one career politician gives a feck about the working class and they'll spin any shite they can to keep themselves in a job that serves the people last. Therefore, not voting until the vote counts to the person with the most votes not the seat.

 

[Cheesy]

The only thing I see unions do these days is keep kids off school and stifle the health system. It's old fashioned and unnecessary in today's working demographic. I've never liked the tories and Blair ruined the labour party along with the country. Not one career politician gives a feck about the working class and they'll spin any shite they can to keep themselves in a job that serves the people last. Therefore, not voting until the vote counts to the person with the most votes not the seat.

Don't you have any minor parties you could even just throw a vote on?

 

[Mojo_]

Don't you have any minor parties you could even just throw a vote on?

Of course, I live in south wales, no one other than labour are getting in. It'll take a few more generations in order for that to happen. The ghost of thatcher still haunts these parts. Besides, I don't even know where I stand politically anymore.

 

[Zarlak]

That entire video just made me cringe. politics is such a joke. its just little children trying to catch each other off gaurd.

This. David Mitchell puts it quite well here.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/29/david-cameron-third-term-declaration-election

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

ill start by saying ill vote labour, simply because my family votes labour and i agree with some of the principle policies, whilst i dont like the Tories at all, ultimately i appreciate that its irrelevant who comes into power as the job for ANY party/leader is basically "make loads of promises to try get elected" then when you actually get into power its a game of trying to do the best you can with the information your given. and at the end of the day we would see progression and regression in different areas of the country regardless of who comes into power, so it becomes a "who do you think is less of a cnut" as all of them will have the best interests of the country at heart, and it would be incredibly offensive to say they dont care about the country.

 

[Jippy]

ill start by saying ill vote labour, simply because my family votes labour and i agree with some of the principle policies, whilst i dont like the Tories at all, ultimately i appreciate that its irrelevant who comes into power as the job for ANY party/leader is basically "make loads of promises to try get elected" then when you actually get into power its a game of trying to do the best you can with the information your given. and at the end of the day we would see progression and regression in different areas of the country regardless of who comes into power, so it becomes a "who do you think is less of a cnut" as all of them will have the best interests of the country at heart, and it would be incredibly offensive to say they dont care about the country.

I never got the inter-generational voting patterns thing. Why do you hate the Tories out of interest?

 

[Flamingo Purple]

Paxman's questioning of Miliband was completely inappropriate, he didn't really give Miliband time to speak either, he was constantly interrupting. Paxman loves to make every interview about him and it severely impedes the quality in my opinion. Him and Kay Burley had me cringing quite a lot, thought Cameron and Miliband handled it well.

Overall I'd say Miliband came out the best, liked the way he admitted he couldn't make promises even when pressured to. He also denounced New Labour and displayed a more socialist sentiment, I was impressed.

 

[peterstorey]

I'm in a Trade Union but I've never used it and am thinking of leaving.

Yes, you have. You have benefited from years of negotiation on pay and conditions.

 

[soap]

I never got the inter-generational voting patterns thing. Why do you hate the Tories out of interest?

My mum and dad are the same, it used to do my head in until I gradually, begrudgingly accepted it. Ed n the boys could goosestep into the House of Commons and they'd still vote for them. Support your football team even if they turn to shit, not a political party!

It does get my goat a bit when without a hint of irony, people with those attitudes try to lecture me when I say there's a good chance I won't vote or that I'm wasting a vote by voting for anyone other than the big two,

 

[Will Absolute]

Do you actually believe in the free market? Do you really believe that without any government intervention to labour laws in the last century British workers would be in a better position than they are now?

I give you ........... The United States of America.

Standards of living in the SE Asian tiger economies grew spectacularly in the last half century with workforces which were largely non-unionized.

In developed countries, whatever the penetration of unions, the large majority of national income goes to 'workers' i.e. people whose income comes from wages, rather than rent, interest or dividends.

In dynamic, growing economies, employment patterns are constantly changing, and the need to keep existing workers and attract new ones ensures that 'capital' can't get more than a reasonable share. By 'reasonable' I mean enough to make investment a worthwhile activity.

 

[DOTA]

I give you ........... The United States of America.

Rather you kept it.

 

[SteveJ]

I give you ........... The United States of America.

Thank you very much. That'll come in handy.

 

[Will Absolute]

You might not need it now, but a day might come when you want to bomb France.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I never got the inter-generational voting patterns thing. Why do you hate the Tories out of interest?

Heard a theory recently that people voting based upon their parental preferences is one of the biggest barriers to a progressive democracy. The suggestion was that not everyone should have a right to vote. You should earn your right by passing some sort of quiz about the key policies of all the various political parties. So the government is elected based on informed opinion, rather than tribal allegiances. Have to say it kind of makes sense.

 

[Red Defence]

Paxman's questioning of Miliband was completely inappropriate, he didn't really give Miliband time to speak either, he was constantly interrupting. Paxman loves to make every interview about him and it severely impedes the quality in my opinion. Him and Kay Burley had me cringing quite a lot, thought Cameron and Miliband handled it well.

Overall I'd say Miliband came out the best, liked the way he admitted he couldn't make promises even when pressured to. He also denounced New Labour and displayed a more socialist sentiment, I was impressed.

Surprisingly I was also impressed. Pax's approach to Mili was far too personal, we just don't want to hear that stuff, but Mili did cope well with it. (He also eats a bacon butty just fine too. None of this refined nibbling we see from others. He got his "laughing tackle" round it and ate it as it should be eaten).

Cameron on the other hand....got up to get the remote to switch channels just as it started but then I heard Paxo ask about food banks so I sat back down and listened. Boy, was he uncomfortable. Sadly he should have been embarrassed and ashamed too but unfortunately those are emotions DC doesn't see to have in his repertoire. Least not as far as his treatment of the poor are concerned anyway. By the time he had made a fool of himself trying to rather badly bluff his way round the zero hours contracts questions we could all see exactly why he didn't want that 4-way debate. He's not even a decent PM, he's just a smooth talking bully and a coward in a suit.

 

[Ubik]

Heard a theory recently that people voting based upon their parental preferences is one of the biggest barriers to a progressive democracy. The suggestion was that not everyone should have a right to vote. You should earn your right by passing some sort of quiz about the key policies of all the various political parties. So the government is elected based on informed opinion, rather than tribal allegiances. Have to say it kind of makes sense.

That kind of voting goes on for the most part I suspect in extremely safe seats where parties barely even bother campaigning any more. In terms of reversing the slide in political engagement and encouraging a more proactive electorate, there are innumerable measures that should be put before widespread disenfranchisement based on a subjective judgement of who's "informed".

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Heard a theory recently that people voting based upon their parental preferences is one of the biggest barriers to a progressive democracy. The suggestion was that not everyone should have a right to vote. You should earn your right by passing some sort of quiz about the key policies of all the various political parties. So the government is elected based on informed opinion, rather than tribal allegiances. Have to say it kind of makes sense.

That is going to be a tough quiz given that no one seems to want to say what their key policies are.

 

[Jippy]

Heard a theory recently that people voting based upon their parental preferences is one of the biggest barriers to a progressive democracy. The suggestion was that not everyone should have a right to vote. You should earn your right by passing some sort of quiz about the key policies of all the various political parties. So the government is elected based on informed opinion, rather than tribal allegiances. Have to say it kind of makes sense.

There is merit to at least some form of sentience test before people can vote. Would be interesting to see what happened if a party rammed it through with the parliament act. Bit of selective suffrage.

My mum and dad are the same, it used to do my head in until I gradually, begrudgingly accepted it. Ed n the boys could goosestep into the House of Commons and they'd still vote for them. Support your football team even if they turn to shit, not a political party!

It does get my goat a bit when without a hint of irony, people with those attitudes try to lecture me when I say there's a good chance I won't vote or that I'm wasting a vote by voting for anyone other than the big two,

Presume it's a legacy of the class system with people in inner city shitholes always going to vote Labour while the leafy suburbs vote Tory, as a broadbrush generalisation. With some of those families were no-one works, it does seem to pass down the generations. Saw it in Hull.

 

[peterstorey]

The only thing I see unions do these days is keep kids off school and stifle the health system. It's old fashioned and unnecessary in today's working demographic.

What a pile of crap. Why do you think workers' pay and conditions are deteriorating with the introduction of zero-hours contracts and other shite.

 

[Mojo_]

What a pile of crap. Why do you think workers' pay and conditions are deteriorating with the introduction of zero-hours contracts and other shite.

No Union has ever kept me in a job, had a fair few too. Waste of money

 

[Jippy]

What a pile of crap. Why do you think workers' pay and conditions are deteriorating with the introduction of zero-hours contracts and other shite.

Zero hours contracts are obviously shite but given the amount of coverage they get, you wouldn't think only 2.3% of the working population are on them.

 

[peterstorey]

I give you ........... The United States of America.

US blue collar salaries have declined in real terms since the mid-80s:

'Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it's not just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes have been stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tier has surged ahead at lighting speed.

In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400, adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much had changed: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008, according to IRS data'.

 

[peterstorey]

Zero hours contracts are obviously shite but given the amount of coverage they get, you wouldn't think only 2.3% of the working population are on them.

They're just an egregious example, there's plenty of other shite around: not paying minimum wage, derisory penalties for unfair dismissal, no pension provisions etc etc. Many of the positive improvements in working conditions fought for by unions over the years have been dissipated over the last 15 years.

 

[Jippy]

They're just an egregious example, there's plenty of other shite around: not paying minimum wage, derisory penalties for unfair dismissal, no pension provisions etc etc. Many of the positive improvements in working conditions fought for by unions over the years have been dissipated over the last 15 years.

Didn't realise a third of charity workers are on them. That is egregious.
Auto-enrolment is getting more people into workplace pension and minimum is enshrined in law. It's not a perfect system -and never will be, regardless of who is in power- but arguably workers' rights are stronger than they've ever been...of course in part thanks to the work of the unions back in the day.

 

[Agent Red]

Yes, you have. You have benefited from years of negotiation on pay and conditions.

I meant at an individual level, as in I have never approached them for any service.

 

[peterstorey]

I meant at an individual level, as in I have never approached them for any service.

Yes but you're benefiting from the efforts of the union and the subs of others over the years. It's massively selfish not to play your part and contribute your dues on the basis that you haven't required individual attention.

 

[Agent Red]

Yes but you're benefiting from the efforts of the union and the subs of others over the years. It's massively selfish not to play your part and contribute your dues on the basis that you haven't required individual attention.

Typical inflammatory post with usual over exaggeration. It's not outrageous to suggest people have a choice with how to spend what is not an insignificant amount of money, especially if they do not agree with their Union policy positions. I am aware you disagree with this idea though.

 

[JustAFan]

Heard a theory recently that people voting based upon their parental preferences is one of the biggest barriers to a progressive democracy. The suggestion was that not everyone should have a right to vote. You should earn your right by passing some sort of quiz about the key policies of all the various political parties. So the government is elected based on informed opinion, rather than tribal allegiances. Have to say it kind of makes sense.

In the south they used "intelligence tests" to disenfranchise black voters. While it sounds good it is a dangerous line to decide someone gets to vote or not based on some other persons determination of their intelligence. I think most countries have a voting age but bit sore if that is based on a presumption of intelligence or not

 

[peterstorey]

Typical inflammatory post with usual over exaggeration. It's not outrageous to suggest people have a choice with how to spend what is not an insignificant amount of money, especially if they do not agree with their Union policy positions. I am aware you disagree with this idea though.

No exaggeration whatsoever - you want a free ride on the back of others efforts and subs. Disgraceful parasitic behaviour.

 

[Agent Red]

No exaggeration whatsoever - you want a free ride on the back of others efforts and subs. Disgraceful parasitic behaviour.

You have literally no idea what Union I'm in, what our working conditions are and how they have changed over the years, what their policies are or what subs I pay so I have no idea how you reach conclusions like this. This only makes sense if you have one blanket view that remains unchanged regardless of facts or circumstances, which I never understand as a position.

 

[sincher]

Heard a theory recently that people voting based upon their parental preferences is one of the biggest barriers to a progressive democracy. The suggestion was that not everyone should have a right to vote. You should earn your right by passing some sort of quiz about the key policies of all the various political parties. So the government is elected based on informed opinion, rather than tribal allegiances. Have to say it kind of makes sense.

My folks took the interesting approach of never once telling us who they voted for. I'm not even sure they told each other.

 

[peterstorey]

You have literally no idea what Union I'm in, what our working conditions are and how they have changed over the years, what their policies are or what subs I pay so I have no idea how you reach conclusions like this. This only makes sense if you have one blanket view that remains unchanged regardless of facts or circumstances, which I never understand as a position.

You work for the public sector and belong to a union which I supported and for which I played a part in negotiations to prevent outsourcing of work that could be done by in-house staff (among other issues). I don't understand the utter selfishness of people like you who want out of paying for collective bargaining while enjoying its benefits.

 

[Agent Red]

You work for the public sector and belong to a union which I supported and for which I played a part in negotiations to prevent outsourcing of work that could be done by in-house staff (among other issues). I don't understand the utter selfishness of people like you who want out of paying for collective bargaining while enjoying its benefits.

I assume you're referring to the PCS, which isn't the Union for my area of work. I've also at no point said I want to still enjoy the benefits if I did choose to leave my Union, I find my employer to be reasonable and know a few of those who have been in on the negotiations and what their aims are, which I don't believe is the decimation of workers rights. I've referenced the fact I don't agree with my Union's policy on everything and I think some of the fights they choose to have over T&Cs are actually over pretty reasonable and necessary changes. I don't understand 'people like you' who hold blind support for a position with no knowledge of the circumstances or facts. The personal insults in your posts towards me are completely bizarre given how little interaction we've had on this forum and the fact my position is far from extreme, this has all come about from me saying I hadn't approached my Union for a service to which you responded saying I was a 'disgraceful parasite'. You also have no idea what my income is or expenditure needs and whether Union subs are therefore affordable or not. If your argument is that people should give altruistically, arguably there are better causes, you may well disagree but I'd hope you could at least recognise that is subjective.

 

[peterstorey]

I assume you're referring to the PCS, which isn't the Union for my area of work. I've also at no point said I want to still enjoy the benefits if I did choose to leave my Union, I find my employer to be reasonable and know a few of those who have been in on the negotiations and what their aims are, which I don't believe is the decimation of workers rights. I've referenced the fact I don't agree with my Union's policy on everything and I think some of the fights they choose to have over T&Cs are actually over pretty reasonable and necessary changes. I don't understand 'people like you' who hold blind support for a position with no knowledge of the circumstances or facts. The personal insults in your posts towards me are completely bizarre given how little interaction we've had on this forum and the fact my position is far from extreme, this has all come about from me saying I hadn't approached my Union for a service to which you responded saying I was a 'disgraceful parasite'. You also have no idea what my income is or expenditure needs and whether Union subs are therefore affordable or not. If your argument is that people should give altruistically, arguably there are better causes, you may well disagree but I'd hope you could at least recognise that is subjective.

I don't need to know the detail of the circumstances to criticise someone who wants to opt out of paying their dues for a public sector union. If you leave you will continue to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining, while enjoying that extra pint a week.

 

[Agent Red]

I don't need to know the detail of the circumstances to criticise someone who wants to opt out of paying their dues for a public sector union. If you leave you will continue to enjoy the benefits of collective bargaining, while enjoying that extra pint a week.

Basically 'I don't need any detail before I decide to insult someone'. It comes down to whether you think people should have control over their own income or not. It seems you're in favour of mandatory union payments and consider any alternative to that as immoral. I think people should be able to choose based on circumstances and whether they believe in their union or not. I suggest we just put it aside because I remain unconvinced on your position and you quite clearly disagree with mine. The pint comment assumes people will spend the extra income selfishly, which again is the worst assumption of the options available. Whether someone gets the 'benefits of collective bargaining' is out of their control at that point. As long as there's no expectation there and they're not put out if their working terms get worse, I don't really see how that's an unreasonable position. It's an inevitable outcome unless you make union membership and subs compulsory, which you'd probably welcome but, again, is subjective.