Question Time. Negative and patronising career politicians, even on the final live television exchange.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/30/camerons-question-time-performance-smooth-smiley-but-unconvincing#comments
I watched "Question Time " last night and at the end of the 90 minute programme, my opinion, that the politics of the traditional parties of this country has become nothing more than a patronising appeal for votes, was vindicated. Moreover, even at the last live televised exchange, the "Party leaders" could not bring themselves to depart from the negative "don't vote for him" rhetoric that has plagued this campaign (and many others before, it just happens that this was the worst one) from day 1. At one point, a member of the audience, clearly exasperated by the endless negativity from the parties asked why the candidates would not explain what they were going to do and why people should vote for them, rather than trying to rubbish the others. I know how she felt.
How many times is it possible within a space of 28 minutes to repeat the phrase "Having to fix the economic mess that we inherited"? (As if it had not been repeated enough over the last 5 years). How many times can someone say "Reduce the deficit and balance the books" without saying how? Even the last "leader", during his 28 minutes continued the negative don't vote for him because of the possible combination of coalition partners. He clearly still has this delusional vision of the Liberal Democrats being in a position of retaining their cabinet positions, ministerial cars, inflated salaries and the associated kudos of office, albeit in a reshuffled format.
It seemed as if all three of them, in their almost desperate bid to dismiss the others had rejected the idea that a party can form a government from a minority position, without any form of coalition, formal or otherwise, and proceed on a vote by vote basis.
It seemed as though they had also by accident or design, overlooked the fact that the British people (apart from a few in the selected audience of 25% support for each and 25% for the others) are affronted by the constant patronising from career politicians followed by apparent indifference shown towards ordinary people between elections.
It was a poor programme with poor participants.
Who won the exchanges? You may take your pick of one from three, depending on which if any of their parties you may happen to support. That is what the media, social, press or television seem to have done.
The point however is did "Question Time" have any impact on voting intentions?
A televisual reminder of why this election is the worst thing ever
 |
| Career politicians |
I watched "Question Time " last night and at the end of the 90 minute programme, my opinion, that the politics of the traditional parties of this country has become nothing more than a patronising appeal for votes, was vindicated. Moreover, even at the last live televised exchange, the "Party leaders" could not bring themselves to depart from the negative "don't vote for him" rhetoric that has plagued this campaign (and many others before, it just happens that this was the worst one) from day 1. At one point, a member of the audience, clearly exasperated by the endless negativity from the parties asked why the candidates would not explain what they were going to do and why people should vote for them, rather than trying to rubbish the others. I know how she felt.
How many times is it possible within a space of 28 minutes to repeat the phrase "Having to fix the economic mess that we inherited"? (As if it had not been repeated enough over the last 5 years). How many times can someone say "Reduce the deficit and balance the books" without saying how? Even the last "leader", during his 28 minutes continued the negative don't vote for him because of the possible combination of coalition partners. He clearly still has this delusional vision of the Liberal Democrats being in a position of retaining their cabinet positions, ministerial cars, inflated salaries and the associated kudos of office, albeit in a reshuffled format.
It seemed as if all three of them, in their almost desperate bid to dismiss the others had rejected the idea that a party can form a government from a minority position, without any form of coalition, formal or otherwise, and proceed on a vote by vote basis.
It seemed as though they had also by accident or design, overlooked the fact that the British people (apart from a few in the selected audience of 25% support for each and 25% for the others) are affronted by the constant patronising from career politicians followed by apparent indifference shown towards ordinary people between elections.
 |
| One of these two will probably be the next PM. Britain deserves better. |
It was a poor programme with poor participants.
Who won the exchanges? You may take your pick of one from three, depending on which if any of their parties you may happen to support. That is what the media, social, press or television seem to have done.
The point however is did "Question Time" have any impact on voting intentions?
Comments
Post a Comment