|
Title: Question time Post by: henrik777 on May 21, 2009, 09:59:44 PM Lol at the audience wanting a general election because Gordon Brown wasn't voted in as prime Minister by the people.
Sandy Title: Re: Question time Post by: boldie on May 22, 2009, 07:48:13 AM I can't watch Question Time anymore..I'd end up throwing stuff at the telly. The level of the show has dropped dramatically over the past few years (or was it always this bad?) and both the audience and panel members tend to piss me off after about 5 minutes.
Title: Re: Question time Post by: kinboshi on May 22, 2009, 10:21:17 AM I can't watch Question Time anymore..I'd end up throwing stuff at the telly. The level of the show has dropped dramatically over the past few years (or was it always this bad?) and both the audience and panel members tend to piss me off after about 5 minutes. It's always been like that Victor. Title: Re: Question time Post by: thetank on May 22, 2009, 10:36:53 AM I can't watch Question Time anymore..I'd end up throwing stuff at the telly. The level of the show has dropped dramatically over the past few years (or was it always this bad?) and both the audience and panel members tend to piss me off after about 5 minutes. It's always been like that Victor. Nah, it used to be meatier. Either that or I've gotten less dense Title: Re: Question time Post by: Royal Flush on May 22, 2009, 12:08:09 PM I can't watch Question Time anymore..I'd end up throwing stuff at the telly. The level of the show has dropped dramatically over the past few years (or was it always this bad?) and both the audience and panel members tend to piss me off after about 5 minutes. It's always been like that Victor. Nah, it used to be meatier. Either that or I've gotten less dense Used t be meatier ftw! Title: Re: Question time Post by: AndrewT on May 22, 2009, 12:14:10 PM The problem with QT is that the audience seems to be entirely made up of people who post on the Have Your Say boards on the BBC site or who call radio phone-ins, and the politicians they have on are no-talent junior ministers who are terrified of being asked questions about, well, anything, but who want to be on the telly to boost their profile.
It would be improved immensely if they got rid of the questions and just handed out rotten fruit to the audience. Title: Re: Question time Post by: Acidmouse on May 22, 2009, 12:23:21 PM The last few shows have been quality entertainment, watching politicions squirm and the audience being outraged at something everyone with more then 1 brain cell knew had been going on for years. I guess it beats talking about pig flu.
Title: Re: Question time Post by: kinboshi on May 22, 2009, 01:51:17 PM I can't watch Question Time anymore..I'd end up throwing stuff at the telly. The level of the show has dropped dramatically over the past few years (or was it always this bad?) and both the audience and panel members tend to piss me off after about 5 minutes. It's always been like that Victor. Nah, it used to be meatier. Either that or I've gotten less dense Watch an old episode, I think you've become a more discerning viewer. Title: Re: Question time Post by: henrik777 on May 22, 2009, 04:03:28 PM The last few shows have been quality entertainment, watching politicions squirm and the audience being outraged at something everyone with more then 1 brain cell knew had been going on for years. I guess it beats talking about pig flu. Anybody with half a brain knows you don't get ballot papers with your choice of prime minister on them so i guess you are right :) It would be interesting to compare the general level of trust in mps before and after as i think the scores would be lower but not by much. Sandy Title: Re: Question time Post by: Grier78 on May 22, 2009, 04:28:19 PM The last few shows have been quality entertainment, watching politicions squirm and the audience being outraged at something everyone with more then 1 brain cell knew had been going on for years. I guess it beats talking about pig flu. Anybody with half a brain knows you don't get ballot papers with your choice of prime minister on them so i guess you are right :) It would be interesting to compare the general level of trust in mps before and after as i think the scores would be lower but not by much. Sandy You do if you live in either Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath or Witney. Title: Re: Question time Post by: henrik777 on May 22, 2009, 05:56:06 PM They get to vote for their mp same as the rest of us. If they both got voted out then it wouldn't follow that the next pm would come from those 2 seats.
Sandy Title: Re: Question time Post by: Claw75 on May 22, 2009, 06:08:44 PM Anybody with half a brain knows you don't get ballot papers with your choice of prime minister on them so i guess you are right :) of course people know this, but with the way our general elections work a lot of people will be looking at the bigger picture rather than just voting for who they want to be their constituency MP - voting for the candidate for the party whose leader is most appetising to them as prime minister is what a lot of people do - FACT (or should that be factoid?). Title: Re: Question time Post by: henrik777 on May 22, 2009, 06:49:10 PM Some people look at the bigger picture but many do not. Only 67.55% of votes cast in 2005 were for the 2 biggest parties. That means around 1 in every 3 people have voted for people in parties they know have no chance of containing the PM.
Of the 67.55% I'd imagine a fairly hefty chunk of that vote for a party and have done so for years with the leader of that party making little odds to that choice. My local mp was voted in many years ago due to Labour voters knowing they couldn't get an mp here so they voted for Menzies Campell to keep the Tories out. He has done well around here and as a result it isn't seen as a blocking vote but a vote for a good MP and being a good Mp is why he gets more than 52% of the votes now. (1400 initial margin which is now 12500) Sandy Title: Re: Question time Post by: Claw75 on May 23, 2009, 12:05:48 AM Some people look at the bigger picture but many do not. Only 67.55% of votes cast in 2005 were for the 2 biggest parties. That means around 1 in every 3 people have voted for people in parties they know have no chance of containing the PM. Of the 67.55% I'd imagine a fairly hefty chunk of that vote for a party and have done so for years with the leader of that party making little odds to that choice. My local mp was voted in many years ago due to Labour voters knowing they couldn't get an mp here so they voted for Menzies Campell to keep the Tories out. He has done well around here and as a result it isn't seen as a blocking vote but a vote for a good MP and being a good Mp is why he gets more than 52% of the votes now. (1400 initial margin which is now 12500) Sandy In my experience Lib Dem MPs are very good on a local level. My current MP (tory) might as well be invisible for all I know about him and whatever he does around here. Title: Re: Question time Post by: AndrewT on May 23, 2009, 12:14:22 AM Some people look at the bigger picture but many do not. Only 67.55% of votes cast in 2005 were for the 2 biggest parties. That means around 1 in every 3 people have voted for people in parties they know have no chance of containing the PM. Of the 67.55% I'd imagine a fairly hefty chunk of that vote for a party and have done so for years with the leader of that party making little odds to that choice. My local mp was voted in many years ago due to Labour voters knowing they couldn't get an mp here so they voted for Menzies Campell to keep the Tories out. He has done well around here and as a result it isn't seen as a blocking vote but a vote for a good MP and being a good Mp is why he gets more than 52% of the votes now. (1400 initial margin which is now 12500) Sandy In my experience Lib Dem MPs are very good on a local level. My current MP (tory) might as well be invisible for all I know about him and whatever he does around here. I think he does a very good job, considering. (http://thewright3.wikispaces.com/file/view/invisible_man.jpg) Title: Re: Question time Post by: WarBwastard on May 23, 2009, 12:19:37 AM Some people look at the bigger picture but many do not. Only 67.55% of votes cast in 2005 were for the 2 biggest parties. That means around 1 in every 3 people have voted for people in parties they know have no chance of containing the PM. Of the 67.55% I'd imagine a fairly hefty chunk of that vote for a party and have done so for years with the leader of that party making little odds to that choice. My local mp was voted in many years ago due to Labour voters knowing they couldn't get an mp here so they voted for Menzies Campell to keep the Tories out. He has done well around here and as a result it isn't seen as a blocking vote but a vote for a good MP and being a good Mp is why he gets more than 52% of the votes now. (1400 initial margin which is now 12500) Sandy In my experience Lib Dem MPs are very good on a local level. My current MP (tory) might as well be invisible for all I know about him and whatever he does around here. Mine too. David Cameron or something I think his name is. Title: Re: Question time Post by: thetank on May 23, 2009, 01:38:10 AM What do you make of the suggestions that we choose who is going to stand for each seat by having smaller priamry elections first?
I think at some point it was mentioned that they also wanted a constitution, a bill of rights and an NFL franchise. Title: Re: Question time Post by: AndrewT on May 23, 2009, 01:55:56 AM What do you make of the suggestions that we choose who is going to stand for each seat by having smaller priamry elections first? I think at some point it was mentioned that they also wanted a constitution, a bill of rights and an NFL franchise. NFL can fk off - should be WWE Royal Rumble to decide things. Title: Re: Question time Post by: WarBwastard on May 23, 2009, 04:14:03 AM I'd like to see a really eccentric dictator take over for a generation or two and an NHL franchise - they could play at the ice rink in Oxford.
Title: Re: Question time Post by: Jon MW on May 23, 2009, 10:41:43 AM Some people look at the bigger picture but many do not. Only 67.55% of votes cast in 2005 were for the 2 biggest parties. That means around 1 in every 3 people have voted for people in parties they know have no chance of containing the PM. Of the 67.55% I'd imagine a fairly hefty chunk of that vote for a party and have done so for years with the leader of that party making little odds to that choice. My local mp was voted in many years ago due to Labour voters knowing they couldn't get an mp here so they voted for Menzies Campell to keep the Tories out. He has done well around here and as a result it isn't seen as a blocking vote but a vote for a good MP and being a good Mp is why he gets more than 52% of the votes now. (1400 initial margin which is now 12500) Sandy In my experience Lib Dem MPs are very good on a local level. My current MP (tory) might as well be invisible for all I know about him and whatever he does around here. Mine too. David Cameron or something I think his name is. Our local labour MP isn't invisible. He mainly keeps his profile up by voting against measures which would help our fishing fleet for example - and by having the largest expenses claims of any MP in the region. Lib Dems do tend to be the best local MP's, but only because they can afford to put constituency >>>> country >>>> Party whereas the government and opposition MP's are liable to put Party >>>> country >>>> constituency some may claim the first 2 are the other way round, but either way it leaves the one's who voted them in last. |