The Newsroom

General Election Debates

Rules Published (December 2009)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
SC
Schwing
Me 12! Are you 12? This is supposed to be a tv debate and I put 1 point and im slagged off for it! Your just childish!


I would hardly call my critique of your 'Vote LABOUR' position a 'slagging off'. More of a reminder (albeit a sarcastic one) that this is a forum for discussing television presentation, such as straps, DOGs, VT, etc. Your little 'I Love Labour' rallying call isn't appropriate here.

Quote:
The last time the Tories were in power they brought are towns and cities to there knees! Labour has never and will never do that! The recent poll showed the tories have a 14 point lead over Labour and if they win, we'll go back to the times were the country was at unrest and I never want to see those times return.


If you do want to discuss the merits of your argument, however, I suggest that you first Google 'Wilson' and 'Inflation' or 'Callaghan' and 'Winter of Discontent'. If you want a lesson in how to bring a country to its knees, then you need look no further than 1975-1979. If you'd like to reconsider your argument and perhaps amend it to 'The Conservatives and Labour are both responsible for bringing towns and cities to their knees' then please feel free to do so. BTW, did you notice how I corrected your spelling? You might want to learn the difference between 'are' and 'our', and 'their' and 'there'.
Last edited by Schwing on 22 December 2009 1:06pm
:-(
A former member
So we all agree when should give the libs dems a chance Laughing Embarassed
JJ
jjne

If you do want to discuss the merits of your argument, however, I suggest that you first Google 'Wilson' and 'Inflation' or 'Callaghan' and 'Winter of Discontent'. If you want a lesson in how to bring a country to its knees, then you need look no further than 1975-1979.


Without wanting to get caught in the mud-slinging, *technically* this was a Liberal-Labour Government, and as such arguably doesn't count.

Britain was stuffed in the 70s; until Mrs Thatcher came along and "cured" the problem by basically pulling the rug from under anyone employed by the old regime it really didn't matter which lot were in charge.

("Cured" being a debatable point considering what has happened to the banking culture brought in to replace the manufacturing base that went before).

This does of course have bearing on the subject at hand, since if Thatcher hadn't been in charge, the chances are ITV would still be regulated to a tighter degree than it is now, Sky would probably have gone under due to a more "restrictive" government probably deciding to prop up BSB at the expense of an otherwise-bankrupt Sky and as such the pressure for a debate would perhaps not have been so great (being as it is the product of commercial pressure from Sky TV).
:-(
A former member
I think Alex Salmond, could get his way, he could PROVE that the tories have not a chance in hell in winner seats in scotland even in a UK wide election.

we could end up have 2 hour debate with 6 partys
LJ
Live at five with Jeremy
I think Alex Salmond, could get his way, he could PROVE that the tories have not a chance in hell in winner seats in scotland even in a UK wide election.

we could end up have 2 hour debate with 6 partys


Sky are reporting that there will be a separate debate for Wales and Scotland which I think is fair. Considering Alex Salmond wants Scotland to be independent I would have thought he would be in favour of a separate debate for Scotland.
WW
WW Update
jjne posted:
This does of course have bearing on the subject at hand, since if Thatcher hadn't been in charge, the chances are ITV would still be regulated to a tighter degree than it is now, Sky would probably have gone under due to a more "restrictive" government probably deciding to prop up BSB at the expense of an otherwise-bankrupt Sky and as such the pressure for a debate would perhaps not have been so great (being as it is the product of commercial pressure from Sky TV).


That's difficult to say. Pretty much all of Europe saw thorough deregulation of the broadcast industry in the late 1980s and, to an even greater extent, in the 1990s. This happened both in countries with right-leaning governments and in countries with right-leaning governments, so I'm not entirely convinced that British broadcasting would be that different if Labour were in power. It's perhaps more likely that some of the same changes would have happened, just at a slower pace.

Besides, televised election debates are common throughout Europe, so the UK would probably have followed suit sooner or later (just as Germany did several years ago).
CH
Chie
I really do hope LABOUR WIN! The last time the Tories were in power they brought are towns and cities to there knees! Labour has never and will never do that! The recent poll showed the tories have a 14 point lead over Labour and if they win, we'll go back to the times were the country was at unrest and I never want to see those times return. So please people vote LABOUR in the General Election! Please

Wtf?? If you want to talk politics dear there's a thread for that on Metropol.

http://www.metropol247.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5720&p=99193

I'll just say now that if you think Labour will never bring the country to it's knees (not that we aren't royally stuffed as things are) perhaps we should vote them in again next year just to see what they'll do next. Wink

I think Alex Salmond, could get his way, he could PROVE that the tories have not a chance in hell in winner seats in scotland even in a UK wide election.

Yes, we know. Rolling Eyes
JO
Jon
Chie posted:
I really do hope LABOUR WIN! The last time the Tories were in power they brought are towns and cities to there knees! Labour has never and will never do that! The recent poll showed the tories have a 14 point lead over Labour and if they win, we'll go back to the times were the country was at unrest and I never want to see those times return. So please people vote LABOUR in the General Election! Please

Wtf?? If you want to talk politics dear there's a thread for that on Metropol.

http://www.metropol247.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5720&p=99193


No, just no. Rolling Eyes
Unlike ITV,Sky and the BBC will make their debates available to other broadcasters to simulcast live.

Which makes sense really it's the kind of thing the BBC should be making available to all broadcasters as a publicly funded broadcaster and for Sky it's a good advert for their brand, but ITV would gain no advantage from allowing others to show it.

Who else do we reckon will show Sky's debate? Sky One, Five and BBC News Channel?
Last edited by Jon on 22 December 2009 2:10pm - 3 times in total
JJ
jjne
jjne posted:
This does of course have bearing on the subject at hand, since if Thatcher hadn't been in charge, the chances are ITV would still be regulated to a tighter degree than it is now, Sky would probably have gone under due to a more "restrictive" government probably deciding to prop up BSB at the expense of an otherwise-bankrupt Sky and as such the pressure for a debate would perhaps not have been so great (being as it is the product of commercial pressure from Sky TV).


That's difficult to say. Pretty much all of Europe saw thorough deregulation of the broadcast industry in the late 1980s and, to an even greater extent, in the 1990s. This happened both in countries with right-leaning governments and in countries with right-leaning governments, so I'm not entirely convinced that British broadcasting would be that different if Labour were in power. It's perhaps more likely that some of the same changes would have happened, just at a slower pace.


Oh I agree that change was inevitable, however the pace is highly likely to have been much slower. Most of Europe was pretty deregulated to begin with; most of Scandinavia and certainly Germany still have vast swathes of the old broadcasters still very much in place.

Sky would never have achieved the dominance it has without Thatcher, if indeed it had survived at all. The old regime would have protected BSB to a much greater extent. The old regional ITV would probably still exist in some form; I'd suggest that a full integration would only now be viable, if at all. Who knows, On-Digital might even have survived the onslaught from a weaker satellite sector coupled to more protection of the system from government.

Quote:
Besides, televised election debates are common throughout Europe, so the UK would probably have followed suit sooner or later (just as Germany did several years ago).


Yes indeed, but they would have been different, and without so much pressure from broadcasters they'd have probably taken several more elections before coming to pass. It's not the public that demanded them remember.
WW
WW Update
jjne posted:
Most of Europe was pretty deregulated to begin with; most of Scandinavia and certainly Germany still have vast swathes of the old broadcasters still very much in place.


Certainly, but so does the UK with the BBC. On the other hand, if you look at Germany's commercial broadcasters, they aren't heavily regulated at all.

jjne posted:
Sky would never have achieved the dominance it has without Thatcher, if indeed it had survived at all. The old regime would have protected BSB to a much greater extent.


Perhaps, but for how long? Maybe long enough for Sky to fail, yes, but wouldn't new technologies opened the door to new. market-based Sky-like competitiors from major media multinationals sooner rather than later? After all, even countries with left-leaning governments gave up on having "official", top-down pay-TV providers.

jjne posted:
Yes indeed, but they would have been different, and without so much pressure from broadcasters they'd have probably taken several more elections before coming to pass. It's not the public that demanded them remember.


Perhaps, but most European countries, regardless of their regulatory framework, adopted televised debates before the UK did. So the real question here is why the UK was a relative latecomer in this respect.
JJ
jjne
> Perhaps, but most European countries, regardless of their regulatory framework, adopted televised debates before the UK did. So the real question here is why the UK was a relative latecomer in this respect.

Probably because of the legal wrangles we're now seeing. In a system such as ours you have to make an arbitrary decision as to which parties deserve to take part.

Where do you place that dividing line? That's the fundamental question now -- why should, for example, the London-based debates be shown in Scotland without the SNP (and similarly for Wales)? Why shouldn't UKIP be invited -- and, for that matter, why should the Liberal Democrats (who are for the most part a regional party, scattered around bits of Scotland, the far north of England and the South West). And what do you do about NI?

This is precisely the point I've been making -- this idea has been forced on the politicians by commercial broadcasters wanting to increase their standing. The combination of relatively more regulation, coupled with the fact that this is Sky's folly and will never work, is what has kept the debates off our screens.
PE
Pete Founding member
Chie posted:

Wtf?? If you want to talk politics dear there's a thread for that on Metropol.

http://www.metropol247.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5720&p=99193


No, just no. Rolling Eyes


Nothing wrong with a bit of PR Jonathan Razz

Newer posts