Leaders' Debate / GE 2015

[Atelier]

The AGS forums basically exist in a political vacuum which is essentially a good thing. Perhaps because it is an international community, and/or we are apathetic.

But did anybody in the UK watch the leaders' debate this evening on ITV? I thought it was brilliant to have all the parties together, although naturally I felt quite drained after two hours of listening to politicians.

I think that the leaders who did worst were those who had the most manicured image - ie Clegg and Miliband. In fact, most of the addresses into the lens of the camera by Miliband, in an effort to be trustworthy and friendly, ended up cringey and a tad creepy.

Any other thoughts on the GE at large?

[Monsieur OUXX]

Haha, some very political things are said every now and then around here. A few examples:

- We have an official nazi on the forums (or, if he's not, he nonetheless seems to be fascinated by nazi uniforms and accessories, the idea of a strong leader, and the idea of removing "unwanted parasitic populations" from his country). Thank god, 99.9% of the community is not like him.
- There were endless discussions about religion in some thread somewhere, between religious people and fierce secular and/or atheist guys.
- ProgZmax's forum picture is a Ron Paul in pixel art!

[Atelier]

Yeah that's true, and ProgZmax's avatar actually sprang to mind. I meant we rarely have dedicated politics threads.

[Haggis]

I like how the forum is fairly non-political but hopefully a little impartial political discussion won't change that.

In terms of the leaders debates - I watched the second half of it although I think the 'realistic' options are all as bad as each other.
- Agree, I think it's a good thing to have the debates and was disappointed by DC's attempts to weasel out of them. Some of the 'minority' party leaders rarely get the airtime alongside the 'big 2' so it's positive in that regard to give them some visibility - although why was Al Murray not invited, disgrace.
- For a seven party debate I thought it actually worked ok with limited interruptions and bickering although I believe the first half was quite shouty (but I missed that).
- My view is that they're ultimately all as bad as each other, just some are more 'politically / media honed' than the others - hence the constant cringeworthy turn-to-camera-and-execute-soundbite.
- At the end of the day, I don't trust any of them to do what they say they will. Until my trust is restored, I'll have a hard time wanting to vote for any of them. Catch 22.

[Retro Wolf]

Where was the Monster Raving Loony Party?!

[miguel]

Don't know about MRLP, but
I'm starting a party, a political party not a real party with 20 dollar whores. It's called R-FOGET (Religious Front of Guys with Enlightened Testicles) and you can subscribe here.
Our main goal is to make Khris realize that his fanatic atheism sucks.
We also make utopian political claims and promises and believe that professional companies will not win best AGS game if they compete.

[Retro Wolf]

@Miguel
I'm an Atheist, to me it's being the complete opposite of organised religion.
I read no books or articles on the subject, I don't attempt to convert others to Atheism, I don't organise or attend meetings with other Atheists.

On topic: I'm finding it hard to decide who to vote for, I do always vote, but I think in the past I voted for PARTY X because that's what my parents always voted for.
I agree Labour's current leader is a bit of a weirdo.

It's going to be an interesting election because the right wing has been split by UKIP, all those Conservative MPs jumping ship. Probably going to see another coalition.

[Monsieur OUXX]

Is it the right time to say that I was an official candidate of my party in my geographical area? (what we call "departements" in France: much larger than a town, smaller than a region/Land). If you knew my actual name you'd find pictures of me with a fancy tie and a photoshoped smile.

[Monsieur OUXX]

By the way I'd like to say something that most people will not believe or will deny, and will possibly start a flame war.

I've been thinking a lot about why abstention goes higher and higher, and many "experts" (including the people who don't vote) claim that it is because all politicians are dishonnest and democracy is "sick". Hence the need for a shock -- namely, abstention.

I've come to the personal conclusion that it is utter bullshit. In my humble opinion, if people were really educated about what politicians offer (not only what they do, but really what they suggest too. Their ideology and stuff. In detail) they would know precisely who is on their side, and who is not. Everyone has a party that matches them. they just don't know it. People have a distorted vision of these parties/candidates, because media focuses randomly on one overly visible party member or tiny insignificant fact.

Spoiler

When the party members get interviewed, they are being asked the wrong questions by journalists who have no idead what they're asking, and where lies the trick in the answer. So the interviewers cannot tell the bullshit from the truth. Very often, the interviewers point as bullshit true things, and vice versa: they take for granted things that make no sense. Because interviewers repeat urban legends. Massively. They will never question the interviewee if he backs his claims on diffuse preconceived ideas that the journalist shares.

[close]

Long things short : if people educated themselves more, there would be no abstention. And as I said, I'm not blaming the individuals, since it's very hard to get educated when the mainstream media (who often belong to rich industrials) get lazy or silly.

[Retro Wolf]

I would never abstain, my Father always drilled into me how important it is. I once witnessed my sister getting a lecture about women throwing themselves into the road to get the right to vote.

I read the newspaper most days, different ones depending on which one is spare in the canteen. You can always find which paper is pro-labour or conservative within a few pages, and I recognise the ability the media has in influencing opinion. I try to read between the lines and make my own opinions, but knowing this it's still hard NOT to come out of an article feeling slightly influenced.

[Monsieur OUXX]

I read the newspaper most days, different ones depending on which one is spare in the canteen. You can always find which paper is pro-labour or conservative within a few pages, and I recognise the ability the media has in influencing opinion. I try to read between the lines and make my own opinions, but knowing this it's still hard NOT to come out of an article feeling slightly influenced.

Also, at the risk of being perceived as a nitpicking person, I'd say it's not enough to read different newspapers. Because 95% of them belong to the same giant press groups. Whether pro-labour or pro-conservative, it doesn't matter, because the difference is only superficial: they belong to the same one person (the main shareholder) (seriously, google the relations between press groups. You'll be surprised).

The only way to have an actual opinion is to read several newspapers that do have contradictory opinions. Namely : on the one hand, 95% of the mainstrem press, and on the other hand, small investigative newspapers. Investigative and opinionated.

It is nowadays widely accepted that the truth comes from "objective facts". I personally think that it is a convenient fallacy and one of the reason why people ar emisinformed. Objective facts are needed, yes, they are essential. But once you have the actual facts, you still have nothing. You need to read diversified and genuinely contradictory interpretations of these facts. Otherwise you don't know why people did what they did. Contradictory (and even conflictual!) explanations, help you understanding where the actions came from, what's their background. That's where the issue usually lies: with finding the genuinely contradictory views. As I said, you might have the feeling that you read diversified newspapers, but in the end, unless you make a special effort, you read the same newspaper over and over.

[Retro Wolf]

They're not the same paper, not all of them have pictures of bare breasts inside!

[miguel]

@Miguel
I'm an Atheist, to me it's being the complete opposite of organised religion.
I read no books or articles on the subject, I don't attempt to convert others to Atheism, I don't organise or attend meetings with other Atheists.

You are also not Khris. And you're way too serious for me to start another forum holy war (believe me I've been there) just because you tried to sum a universal debate into 2 lines of overheard phrases. You also think you're very cool and that is just annoyingly retro.

Even if this topic is about elections in a different country than mine I am most certain that elections and politicians are pretty much the same in western europe, some guys dressed in suits tell people that economic recovery is just around the corner (if you vote for them) and that they are very responsible and incapable of stabbing people in the back once they get elected.
Sure, there are no robes and fancy hats and the modern politician looks and sounds very appealing, there is also no temples where people would gather and hear their claims, now we have the television, the new people's temple.
And the reward today is not a place in heaven but the promise of a nice house and a new car, you just have to vote for them because things will get better if you do. 

[m0ds]

Hehe yes, I did, on itv-player or whatnot but you're right it became so cringeworthy, esp creepy milliband, that I decided to stop watching the visuals and just listen to them whilst playing Skyrim. My views: Cameron and Miliband tried very hard to sway it as a 2 party only debate. Seemed unwilling to accept a third party could step into their 2 party politics and whilst the others disagreed (and occasionally agreed) with each other as you'd expect Cam and Mil just kept on at each other regardless of the other participants. UKIP only ever talk about immigration so there's little to go on, Plaid Cymru overused the word "the valleys" and Nick Clegg, who I felt did say a few sincere things, still managed to sound as scripted as ever for the other 99%. Milliband used the past as his defense and Cameron used the future as his defense. I don't know enough about the others, will maybe look more into green party though

Well last time round I voted Cameron. And I can't deny that I feel his leadership did help out in some ways, especially around business stuff. My vote at the time was strongly based on who I thought could help businesses. It's going to be the same again now,. The problem is Camo is just too pro Euro for my liking, and I'm finding a lot more small business problems being created at the EU level. So whilst I think Camo does represent economic growth, maybe at the expense of capitalism, I'm not so positive about continuing on a total Euro-zone path. So I enjoy Farage and stay open to his ideas, as I say just wish he didn't focus on immigration so much, because I think that energy could be used to do some real positive things for small UK businesses, which he clearly supports strongly but the "mainstream" has him focused on immigration. UKIP in power though even I find a gray area - but at the same time a shakeup is a shakeup and whatever it's just politics, something that needs regular shaking - a Canadian moose could run the country for now, I'm sure if there are problems we can all then connect as humans and fix them rather than wait for a higher authority to do it...

I can't remember much else about it, granted I wasn't paying much attention. Listening to it as audio didn't take long for all you can hear is that lady saying "thanks ok ed miliband, thanks ok ed miliband, thanks ok ed miliband" 8 times during one of the candidate talks. Really wish they had cut her mic when the others were talking/shouting at each other etc. Still, I didn't feel any particularly strong arguments anywhere though. Immigration is not really an issue I can personally connect with. My neighbors are polish, so is Rem Michalski... I don't have issues That said I also don't suddenly set on fire when they do talk about immigration, as seems to happen to a lot of people when Farrage starts talking about it. But maybe I haven't looked at the other policies enough. With Camo previously I had voted because of what it meant for small business. When I had issues, and election came up, and there was a fair bit of focus on an issue that could really affect me, I voted knowing it mattered (maybe!). But so far this time nothing they want to "tackle" has really grabbed me. It's fair to say though that the stuff they're discussing does matter to a lot of people. Just not me. For me, I think now it's the inner workings of political system and the political class that I feel is what needs tackling, and being a stoner who watches Russell Brand also giant corporations and an end to capitalism! So there may not be anything that particularly grabs my attention. As such, I'll always vote for whatever can cause a shake up because politics needs it. Hell, I'd be happy if elections came every 2 years so that there could be a shake up. And no politicians over the age of 45. Like sportsmen retire at 28 etc. Politicans are used up and just become creepy paid-for expenses peadophile bastards after 45. Ahh, politics!

[Atelier]

I think it's disgusting how the SNP got less than twice the vote share of UKIP but 56 times more seats.

[Retro Wolf]

Yeh it's a funny system.