I have to say it's most refreshing seeing a clear nd possitive debate from the Conservatives. And certainly a good scoop by the BBC to get such a programme, seldom seen over here as aposed to the USA.
I think David's coming our better than David, but I have to admit I'm not sure about David's tie.
As a Labour supporter, I am glad Ken Clarke has gone, he is the only one who could ever have made me consider the conservatives, so let this puppet show go on, find the leader of the opposition, and then let him sink and drown, all for another puppet show in 4-5 years time...
As a Labour supporter, I am glad Ken Clarke has gone, he is the only one who could ever have made me consider the conservatives, so let this puppet show go on, find the leader of the opposition, and then let him sink and drown, all for another puppet show in 4-5 years time...
Could you not argue however that in order for the Labour party to stay fresh, vibrant, and on it's toes, they do need a decent opposition?
The Labour Party have an absolute tonne of opposition...
It goes by the name of the Daily Mail, the Express, the Sunday Times, the Telegraph, most of England...
Cameron is too inexperienced - highlighted by his constant claims tonight that ''I know what needs to be done'' but not actually saying what that is - and Davis is too boring - most of his answers went on far too long and didn't really get to the point.
I think David Cameron looks pretty promising. I'm not expecting instant results from him but I certainly think he's capable of at least putting the Tory wheels in motion once more, maybe a little like John Smith did for Labour.
As a Labour supporter, I am glad Ken Clarke has gone, he is the only one who could ever have made me consider the conservatives, so let this puppet show go on, find the leader of the opposition, and then let him sink and drown, all for another puppet show in 4-5 years time...
Could you not argue however that in order for the Labour party to stay fresh, vibrant, and on it's toes, they do need a decent opposition?
Of course we need a strong opposition, but Cameron and Davis are not upto the job. Ken Clarke was the only contender I was concerned about, as he would be a strong leader, and could challenge Labour. Eitherway, Blair is more than a match for the two Davids, I can even imagine Cameron crying and being destroyed at PMQs. Davis at least sounds like he has some Balls.
I simply cannot see the attraction of Ken Clarke. Yes, he's loud and speaks his mind, but that's about it, he's not exactly the sort of person I want to have running the country. The problem with Clarke, Davis and Fox is that they are all more of the same of what the Tories have had in the last few years. Cameron is something new and different - that at least will attract attention, if nothing else. The Tories have some excellent policies - which is exactly why I vote for them - but the problem they have is that people don't listen to what they have to say. They need to disassociate themselves with their past if they have any intentions of winning, and David Cameron is the person to lead them to that.
As a Labour supporter, I am glad Ken Clarke has gone, he is the only one who could ever have made me consider the conservatives, so let this puppet show go on, find the leader of the opposition, and then let him sink and drown, all for another puppet show in 4-5 years time...
Could you not argue however that in order for the Labour party to stay fresh, vibrant, and on it's toes, they do need a decent opposition?
Of course we need a strong opposition, but Cameron and Davis are not upto the job. Ken Clarke was the only contender I was concerned about, as he would be a strong leader, and could challenge Labour. Eitherway, Blair is more than a match for the two Davids, I can even imagine Cameron crying and being destroyed at PMQs. Davis at least sounds like he has some Balls.
I don't think Ken Clarke was the only strong contender. You have to remember that you shouldn't think they are weak simply becuase you don't agree with their policies. I thought a lot of the talk about the interests of business and the need to cut taxes to the economy was dangerous talk, but then I disagree with the outcomes that would achieve. A lot of people do agree with the idea of lower tax and more money for themselves (esp. in business) so I wouldn't dismiss either of them too quickly.
However, I do think that neither of them are as big and macho as the media have, up until now, played them up to be.
Just out of interest Martin, when you said "we" in the first line of your reply, who exactly were you referring to?
I simply cannot see the attraction of Ken Clarke. Yes, he's loud and speaks his mind, but that's about it, he's not exactly the sort of person I want to have running the country. The problem with Clarke, Davis and Fox is that they are all more of the same of what the Tories have had in the last few years. Cameron is something new and different - that at least will attract attention, if nothing else. The Tories have some excellent policies - which is exactly why I vote for them - but the problem they have is that people don't listen to what they have to say. They need to disassociate themselves with their past if they have any intentions of winning, and David Cameron is the person to lead them to that.
Clarke is, compared with the other contenders, a true liberal though. I don't agree with him on everything but he's a man of principle, something we have far too little of in politics right now. He is yesterday's man though, with a lot of baggage from the Major government.
I really don't know what to make of Cameron. What does he stand for? He seems even more of a chameleon than Blair, which is not what anyone needs right now. David Davis is too right-wing, and boring as well. At least Cameron was making some reasonable comments on Europe (sceptical but rational), rather than the rabid anti-everyone brigade that infests the modern Tory party.