5punk

If I was British, I'd vote for this guy. Just so you know.

Mr. Johnson wrote:If I was British, I'd vote for this guy. Just so you know.

He would totally get my vote.

Mr. Johnson wrote:If I was British, I'd vote for this guy. Just so you know.

His duck's theme tune is Knights of Cydonia. Sold.

http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/politics/ ... n-20-april

Whilst it doesn't actually mean all that much, and the sample size isn't brilliant, YouGov tends to be pretty accurate and it's quite interesting.

ROLL UP!
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-OckfqdP6s[/media]

It concerns me slightly that Lib Dem have rocketed after those TV debates. Nick Clegg seems to be on the end of a very good publicity machine, and I'm suspicious of the how the media is promoting him. I noticed one TV station (I forget which) immediately afterwards running a report on why he shouldn't have come off as well as he did, backing Gordon Brown's criticisms of him after the fact. Not that I'm necessarily suspicious of Lib Dem, more the people around all the parties who are using the media to manipulate public opinion.

Well the links between reporting mediums and parties are pretty inextricable since the days of secret huge donors. That fucking cock rupert murdoch always has his papers support who he wants.

Even the supposedly impartial BBC news is gently massaged to whoever is in power, it's been pretty much admitted by various high up types over the years.

Sky news is surprisingly less obvious in its support given who they're owned by, which is news international, who're owned by news corporation, who're owned by that fucking cock rupert murdoch.

He's worse than piers morgan and simon cowell rolled together really.

Well that's another discussion, but I agree, and it's people like Murdoch who make me consider the media's motives vey carefully when they write anything political.

The reason why the Lib Dems have rocketed up the polls after the TV debate can be explained by the "Nick Clegg... who?" jokes that were in the papers/tv shows etc up until recently.

Simply put, that debate on national tv which was watched by something like 11-12 million (I think) put him and the Lib Dems on equal footing to Labour and the Tories, whereas before they were always on the sidelines (mostly due to the media not bothering with them), they were given a chance to stand up and say their part. Which they seized.

They're now being viewed as a credible party for the election so people are looking at them, listening to what they've got to say and by all accounts, liking what they're hearing.

I imagine a victory for the Lib Dem outsiders would also sell a lot of news, so there's another good reason for the mass media to be interested in it.

After much pondering, I have decided that for the first time I am going to vote Lib Dem in the election.

Previously I have never had time for them - I (and probably a lot of other people) held the view that they were permanent also rans who could promise what they wanted as there was no chance of them getting in.

Now however, there is a real chance that they could be successful. The thing that impressed me most was Nick Clegg's openness during the TV debate. The other two just came across as complete cocks who were more interested in scoring points off each other rather than the future of the country.

I cannot vote Labour back in. The Labour government (mostly under Blair) did some wonderful things for this country, but it is obvious that their steam ran out a long, long time ago. I am also still angry at the sheer volume of Labour MPs caught up in the expenses scandal (my uncle included!).

Cameron is a showman whose "policies" are emptier than an Easter egg. What the fuck is Big Society? No one, not even some Conservatives, seem to know what the fuck he's banging on about with that. I am also massively sceptical of people who try to be all things to all people, and David 'call me Dave' Cameron is worse than Blair when it comes to that. Also, if Cameron doesn't get in it will be a massive kick in the balls for Rupert Murdoch who, as Pete mentioned previously, is quite possibly more evil than Satan himself.

Note for anyone who thinks that a vote for Lib Dem is "wasted": lol!

Actually that made me laugh on the TV debate - Cameron giving his nauseating speech about "believe in hope, not fear", then the next day goes on to say if you vote Lib Dem then Labour will get back in and we'll have to sell the Queen to Arab pimps!

I'd be inclined to agree, but I'm always held back from voting for anybody (although I will vote) by the manifestos which all paint themselves as sunshine and lollipops while making out the other guys are evil. None are in the least believable. I just had a quick look at the Lib Dem website to try to get an informed opinion, and all I saw was self promotion with no substance. It doesn't affect my opinions on anything, as I'm sure the other parties have the same thing, but it frustrates me that the truth is so hard to find.

Someone on Twitter pointed out that Clegg did a lot of finger pointing at the other two and it really reminded me of this from The Young Ones. Expect two instead of three.

I thought Brown came out well in the TV debate, although there was a touch of him and Cameron sharing a joke at the new boy who didn't know what he was on about. On professional knowledge of what is actually required, only the big two convinced me, of course Brown holds all the cards of knowing the exact details, which made him appear a little smug. I would probably trust him most to know what he's doing.

I didn't like theat Clegg wouldn't apologise about the expenses scandal, though his party were admittedly far less guilty than the other two, and he was the first to start with the negative stuff about the others. He seemed a little lacking in real knowledge in how to do the job, but made up for it with enthusiasm.

I actually found myself liking Cameron a bit, despite him being a nasty Conservative, his competency and knowledge of the system, despite never having been PM was impressive.

Before the debate I scribbled down some areas I thought they'd discuss, and my preconceived ideas about the parties I thought would be "strong" on them, by which I mean robust, workable policies, not necessarily ones I agree with:

Health - Labour
Education - Liberals
Defense - Conservative
Immigration - Conservative
Crime - Conservative
Budget - Conservative
Welfare- Labour
Reform - Liberals
Tax - Conservative

After the debate, which covered seven of those, I scored them again:

Immigration - Liberals, although my heart would be with Labour's more permissive approach
Crime - Still Conservatives
Education - Labour for education for all, Conservative for quality education - Clegg didn't convince me at all here
Budget- Still Conservatives, but Brown earns points as a former Chancellor plus quoted some proper actual numbers
Defense - Labour/Conservative tie, Liberals absolutely zero points for wanting to save money and thinking a Trident replacement isn't necessary
Health - Still Labour
Welfare - Still Labour

So, a few changes in my opinion generally, but some quite shocking ones on the Lib's education and defense policies which have really put me off them. Quite surprisingly (on this test) it means I'm now torn between Lab and Cons, not Lab and Lib as I thought I would be.

.

I like what you've done there FJ. Everone knows that unless you're an ardent party follower you'll never agree with 100% of anyone's policies, so you go with best fit. It'll be interesting to see how tonight's debate shapes opinions.

Unfortunately I missed the debate tonight. I've seen the headlines, but what do 5punkers think?

I didn't realise it was on earlier? I'm about to watch it on BBC2 for a nice bit of pre-bed rage.

I watched some of it, but the misses came and talked over the bit I wanted too listen too..... Also, I think they were trying to be hip and down with the kids....

.