The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[neil999]

Why cant they just make a party with UKIP's stance on immigration and Europe, the Conservatives stance on not demonising the rich for being rich and the general economy, and labours stance on helping the most needy in the country?

I don't even get politics and why they cant all just use common sense?

you need to create a party! your a big fan of the gays as well are you not? as am I..love the gays

traditional political views are very different now eg you get people who pro gay rights,but also pro free market capitalist economy

 

[EFCNIK]

you need to create a party! your a big fan of the gays as well are you not? as am I..love the gays

traditional political views are very different now eg you get people who pro gay rights,but also pro free market capitalist economy

Gay people tend to be the funnest to hang with. Gay clubs are sound.

 

[Jxg]

....I think Sky News is free to air for lots.

Yeah, but Sky is funded though subscriptions and advertising.

 

[Clint Planet]

Why should TV channels be impartial though? They're not designed for that. They're entertainment, just as that bloke on YouTube you like is.

It's irrelevant what they're "designed for."

 

[Clint Planet]

Wasn't Benefit Street on Channel 4 too? Lets face it, they're just the place to go to for lo-brow television.

Don't ever turn over to C5, Bruce. Your eyes will start bleedng.

You complain about television companies and programs being bias, but they know full well that people are broadly speaking entrenched in their points of view, so usually pit one off against the other in the hope of obtaining ratings.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. I suspect it is in the interests of having a lively, interesting, even-handed debate. I really don't thing QT is any sort of ratings magnet. Expect to see this sort of political discourse programming kicked into tech as soon as the BBC is privatised.

 

[Clint Planet]

The thing is, any coalition government is only really any good if the members of it can work together. If they can't stand each other, it kinda sucks.

That's just you thinking off the top of your head. Simplistic and not necessarily true. For a start, Blairites and Brownites were at each others' throats - in government - for 13 years. Similarly with Thatcherites and Wets. Conversely, many countries have functioned rather successfully with coalition governments.

 

[rascal]

Unless the QT team get their act together we won't be losing out if it was taken off screen. It's gone the way of Panorama for me - absolute jarg.

 

[Clint Planet]

What do the other channels offer, though?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's just you thinking off the top of your head. Simplistic and not necessarily true. For a start, Blairites and Brownites were at each others' throats - in government - for 13 years. Similarly with Thatcherites and Wets. Conversely, many countries have functioned rather successfully with coalition governments.

Basic management isn't it? If you have half of an organization (whether company, school, government, whatever) actively trying to undermine and disrupt the other, it's hard to see how anything positive can occur.

We see that in America, where Republicans and Democrats are so opposed that the Republicans simply sought to block everything the Democrats did, and vice versa.

It would be great if all of the parties could work together better than they currently do. Who knows, maybe this playground squabbling is just for our pre-election entertainment?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

What do the other channels offer, though?

Should you be looking to television for any kind of enlightenment though? I mean QT is only an incredibly superficial look at any of the topics they cover. Each speaker gets maybe a minute to reel off some soundbites.

Sure, it's better than nothing, but if you're relying on that to form the basis of your opinions...

 

[Blue 1]

This UKIP programme is a stupid idea. The ballbags already get a disproportionately large amount of airtime, it's bound to be a stupid piece of tabloid trash TV and will only entrench the views of kippers and their opponents further. It will add nothing worthwhile to the discourse whatsoever.

 

[Jxg]

This UKIP programme is a stupid idea. The ballbags already get a disproportionately large amount of airtime, it's bound to be a stupid piece of tabloid trash TV and will only entrench the views of kippers and their opponents further. It will add nothing worthwhile to the discourse whatsoever.

Are Channel 4 funded by a country-wide tax?

If the answer is yes, then they should definitely not be showing this UKIP spoof, as it's either going to be completely biased towards or against the party. They should be completely impartial.

If the answer is no, and they are funded by advertising, then they're free to do what they want. They can bum UKIP or hate them. It doesn't matter because they're not providing a biased report with the public's money.

http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq/name/does-channel-4-get-any-of-the-licence-fee/id/400286880

Oh, it seems as though they can do what they want.

 

[Blue 1]

Are Channel 4 funded by a country-wide tax?

If the answer is yes, then they should definitely not be showing this UKIP spoof, as it's either going to be completely biased towards or against the party. They should be completely impartial.

If the answer is no, and they are funded by advertising, then they're free to do what they want. They can bum UKIP or hate them. It doesn't matter because they're not providing a biased report with the public's money.

http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq/name/does-channel-4-get-any-of-the-licence-fee/id/400286880

Oh, it seems as though they can do what they want.

Yes, they can. And I can call it a load of horsewank if I want, too. I didn't call for it to be banned or anything, did I?

 

[rascal]

What do the other channels offer, though?

That's a fair point. TBH I have totally given up on tv as far as news and current affairs coverage is concerned.

 

[Clint Planet]

Basic management isn't it? If you have half of an organization (whether company, school, government, whatever) actively trying to undermine and disrupt the other, it's hard to see how anything positive can occur.

Typical of you to try to reduce it to "management."

Again, what you're saying is fascile and ill-thought-out. One aspect of politics is the constant battle to impose your own ideas and aganda, even within parties or alliances. Whether everyone is "actively trying to undermine and disrupt" is open to debate. Sure, it will sometimes happen but it could alternatively be characterised, within a coalition setting, as "arguing their case" or "lobbying their position" or even "representing the interests of their constituents."

Almost everyone predicted that this Coalition would crumble within 18 months but, whatever you may think of its achievements, it found a way of functioning.

I am more and more convinced that our current voting system and absolute majorities are bad for this country, despite the usual mantra from mainstream parties.

We see that in America, where Republicans and Democrats are so opposed that the Republicans simply sought to block everything the Democrats did, and vice versa.

You're not making any sense at all. America is anything but a coalition government situation so it hardly backs up your point.