Fun and games with ballot papers

[LMcD]

That's the way to do it.

In a way, Mr Punch could be said to embody the spirit of much of the current campaign.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think the character of Mr Punch would be a splendi

Did the crocodile get you, LMcD?!

[Serial_Apologist]

That's the way to do it.

It's so fisticated.

[LMcD]

Did the crocodile get you, LMcD?!

The whole thing has descended into pure slap stick.
'So fisticated' - brilliant!
If you want an indication of the public's view of the campaign - ITV's head-to-head debate attracted 6.72 million on the night, BBC 1's 4.42 million.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

'So fisticated' - brilliant!

[Serial_Apologist]

The whole thing has descended into pure slap stick.
'So fisticated' - brilliant!
If you want an indication of the public's view of the campaign - ITV's head-to-head debate attracted 6.72 million on the night, BBC 1's 4.42 million.

I'm trying to think why that might be the case. It could be because the public have finally twigged as to the inadequacy of these joustings, in which each protagonist is allowed only enough time to frame things in simplified generalised one-liners. It's all of a pattern with the BBC Today interviewer, who interrupts halfway through an interviewee's second sentance, giving his or her own opinion rather than winkling it out by "do you not think that...?" type questions, and interjecting "yes, yes, yes" while being given an answer, signalling that he or she, BBC person, is about to run out of schedule. There is no expansion or filling out of each soundbite, let alone scope for developing interchanges that get to any sort of nitty-gritty. And so, it's no surprise that a public spoonfed unelaborated morsels by patronsing media outlets who either think or want them to be too thick to take more than the barest minimum of something to support or reject have tumbled to the falseness of it all, and are now becoming bored. Is this what I am supposed to think (rhetorical question)?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm trying to think why that might be the case.

ITV broadcast on Tuesday evening - BBC on Friday at Pub o'clock, perhaps?

[oddoneout]

It would seem there are different rules for being an MP and being able to vote, in terms of residence

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/info/362/elections_and_voting/5622/register_to_vote_qualifying_foreign_citizens

https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/members/electing-mps/candidates/

The Australian vote - same sort of opinions as would be found 'on the UK High Street' ?

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/australians-tell-us-how-they-ll-vote-in-the-british-election-and-why-20191127-p53es2.html

[Andy Freude]

The Australian vote - same sort of opinions as would be found 'on the UK High Street' ?
https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/...27-p53es2.html

The Conservative-voting Australians seem to think that Brexit will be good for Australia and make free movement between the two countries easier.

It didn't say that you need to be resident in the UK to stand as an MP, though if you're not you won't be able to vote in the election. Bizarre?

[burning dog]

The interviewers on the BBC want politicians to predict the future. "How many new NHS nurses will there be by January 1st 2023?" "Do you promise to commit suicide if this figure is not acheived?" Political leaders can (or should) only promise things they won't do with absolute certainty.

I am surprised how high those quoted viewing figures are.

The programme featuring Johnson and Corbyn treated them as Presidential candidates when I'd have thought there is a reasonable chance neither will be Prime Minister. The Libs Dems would have preferred a coalition with Labour in 2010 but wanted Brown to stand down, so there could been a Darling PM (an open goal for headline writers) or a D.Miliband PM, who instead became controller of Thunderbirds

[Dave2002]

I'm trying to think why that might be the case. It could be because the public have finally twigged as to the inadequacy of these joustings, in which each protagonist is allowed only enough time to frame things in simplified generalised one-liners. It's all of a pattern with the BBC Today interviewer, who interrupts halfway through an interviewee's second sentance, giving his or her own opinion rather than winkling it out by "do you not think that...?" type questions, and interjecting "yes, yes, yes" while being given an answer, signalling that he or she, BBC person, is about to run out of schedule. There is no expansion or filling out of each soundbite, let alone scope for developing interchanges that get to any sort of nitty-gritty. And so, it's no surprise that a public spoonfed unelaborated morsels by patronsing media outlets who either think or want them to be too thick to take more than the barest minimum of something to support or reject have tumbled to the falseness of it all, and are now becoming bored. Is this what I am supposed to think (rhetorical question)?

I think interviewers - if that's what you call them - with the talent of Jo Coburn (Politics Live - BBC) should be taken out and given a three month (or longer) course in manners. OK - we know that politicians may (will) try to avoid answering questions, or "shade" their answers, and that sometimes perhaps more detailed questioning is needed, but Jo Coburn asks questions, than almost immediately starts talking over any answer the interviewee tries to give. She's not the only one, but she may be the most extreme. Justin Webb on the Radio has been getting a bit uppitty and aggressive too, lately. I really dislike this, though in the past I have quite liked his style.

There's the "answer the question - Yes or No" style. Appalling! The assumption is that the interviewer has framed a question which "must" be answered, and there is a binary choice.

Another really sickening thing which I've just noticed. I have spent some time today looking at YouTube videos and tutorials. About 30 minutes ago, an advert for the CONS flashed up on my screen. I wouldn't mind if it cost them £100 per shot, then they could send me as many as they like and I'd ignore them all, but really - this form of advertising stinks. I hope other people react in the same way as I do, but I fear they won't all.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think interviewers - if that's what you call them - with the talent of Jo Coburn (Politics Live - BBC) should be taken out and given a three month (or longer) course in manners. OK - we know that politicians may (will) try to avoid answering questions, or "shade" their answers, and that sometimes perhaps more detailed questioning is needed, but Jo Coburn asks questions, than almost immediately starts talking over any answer the interviewee tries to give. She's not the only one, but she may be the most extreme. Justin Webb on the Radio has been getting a bit uppitty and aggressive tool, lately. I really dislike this, though in the past I have quite liked his style.

There's the "answer the question - Yes or No" style. Appalling! The assumption is that the interviewer has framed a question which "must" be answered, and there is a binary choice.

Another really sickening thing which I've just noticed. I have spent some time today looking at YouTube videos and tutorials. About 30 minutes ago, an advert for the CONS flashed up on my screen. I wouldn't mind if it cost them £100 per shot, then they could send me as many as they like and I'd ignore them all, but really - this form of advertising stinks. I hope other people react in the same way as I do, but I fear they won't all.

I totally agree, Dave. And I wonder if such Youtube advertising avoids election expenses declarations.

[muzzer]

I can’t speak for those interviewers personally but the BBC has had alot of criticism for allowing politicians of all colours to avoid answering questions, and they will BS on and on unless pressed. We’ve all heard their stock answers and sound bites for far too long. Having to answer a few questions should be the least of their worries imho.

[Richard Barrett]

The Libs Dems would have preferred a coalition with Labour in 2010 but wanted Brown to stand down

They're saying the same kind of thing now of course. I wonder what gives them the idea that they have the right to decide on other party's leaders. I also wonder why they thought, as they obviously did, that Cameron would make a better prime minister than Brown; it seemed pretty clear in 2010 that he wouldn't, also that the LibDems would have to abandon some of the promises they were elected on (like tuition fees) and that the Tories would hoodwink them regarding any vote on PR, which duly happened. It all seems centuries ago now though!

[Conchis]

They're saying the same kind of thing now of course. I wonder what gives them the idea that they have the right to decide on other party's leaders. I also wonder why they thought, as they obviously did, that Cameron would make a better prime minister than Brown; it seemed pretty clear in 2010 that he wouldn't, also that the LibDems would have to abandon some of the promises they were elected on (like tuition fees) and that the Tories would hoodwink them regarding any vote on PR, which duly happened. It all seems centuries ago now though!

It does seem like centuries ago.

The 2010s has been a miserable decade for Britain, arguably for the entire western world. A decade in which people were encouraged to forget about aspirations and just concentrate on merely surviving. A decade of sloth, inertia and chronic under-achievement. A ‘low, dishonest decade’ indeed.

I don’t think anyone, whatever their political persuasion, will look back on the 2010s with affection.

It might be salutary to remind ourselves that the government that was elected in 2010 and which persists (albeit in slightly altered form) to this day was the government no-one really wanted.

It was also supposed to be a ‘one-term government’. Received wisdom at the time declared that the ‘swingeing austerity’ that any government elected in that year would have to impose would ensure that it would be booted out five years later.

I would blame the Mililband Project’s failure to capture the popular imagination for the fact that it wasn’t.

Yet it’s still here - and on Thursday, it will be re-elected, quite possibly with a massive majority that will give its egregious CEO a licence to what the hell he likes.

Only in Britain could a government elected under sufferance and on a minority of the popular vote sign the country up to a programme of ‘radical’ change that will alter it (and for the worse) forever.

Anyone with school-age children has an ethical obligation to leave this country as soon as possible and make a better life for their progeny elsewhere - preferably in Europe.

Britain is finished. For good.