I had rather a sleepless night last night, and in desperation I finally turned my bedroom TV on about 3am and saw the final portion of the live broadcast of the debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

Although I realise that different countries do things in different ways, I was very surprised to see the approach taken by both gentlemen: whenever they were asked by a member of the audience something like "can you tell me how X is going to affect me", rather than explaining their own policy (ie answering the question that had been asked) they'd typically say something like "that's a very good question, and let me tell you why the other candidate's approach to X is going to be bad for you).

Politicians in the UK don't do that - they spend the very limited TV time they have in, generally speaking at least, laying out their own policies and tell people why they should vote for them, rather than denigrating the "opposition".

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were. All that I seemed to have learned is why each was going to do bad things.

It doesn't seem a terribly constructive way of doing things to me but, there again, I was watching as an outside observer.

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were.That's fair enough, HarryT, I'm still not convinced that either of them know what their policies would be. :shrug:

Oh, and by the way, folks, if we're going to have this discussion at all, do keep it civil, and gentle, otherwise the thread will just get closed. :shrug:

I'd far rather they focus on what they themselves plan to do myself. There are a number of ways I think that the British system is better than ours, but on the whole I prefer our system ... it's just the folks running it (all of them) I'd like to dispense with. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately at this stage of the process, we have devolved to the "My opponent is Satan on a cracker" stage of electioneering. The votes open for persuasion are very narrow in scope and it is felt that the best way to sway those votes is to scare the bejeezuz out of them. It makes for very tedious weeks of attack ads for the next month. I'd love to have a parliamentary form of government at times like this.

I wasn't criticising the American system - I have no cause to, since our own system has plenty of flaws of its own. It just struck me as being radically different to the way that we do things. Here, members of parliament at least pretend to be gentlemen, and insulting the opposition just "isn't cricket" :D. It's actually refreshing, in a way, to see that American politicians actually have the honesty to do their back-stabbing in public.

Ah, for candidates who at least pretend to be gentlemen. Heck right now I'd settle for candidates who pretend to be leaders.

I didn't take your comments as criticism, HarryT, and I didn't mean to seem defensive, sorry for that. :shrug:

It makes for very tedious weeks of attack ads for the next month.

That again is a radical difference between our systems. TV advertising by political parties is strictly banned here; all each party gets is a fixed number of short TV slots to put forward its own policies, and there are strict rules that every party gets exactly the same amount of "air time".

We do have negative advertising, but only on "bill-boards".

Now you're making me jealous.

Your campaigns are probably not so influenced by "soft money" and fundraising prowess either, I expect.

Now you're making me jealous.

Your campaigns are probably not so influenced by "soft money" and fundraising prowess either, I expect.

I don't know if it made the news in the US, but we had a huge political scandal a couple of years ago called the "Cash for Honours" affair, where all the main political parties here were accused (absolutely rightly) of giving people "honours" (ie being made a Knight or a Lord, etc) in return for a large donation to the political party (I should explain that each party has the traditional right to nominate a certain number of people for "honours" every year, but it's supposed to be for their achievements, not for giving money to the party!).

As a result of that, the funding of political parties has really been clamped down upon, and all donation above £5000 (about $9000) have to be publically declared. There are moves afoot too to limit the amount of money each party can spend in "campaigning" to a fixed amount.

It's certainly not perfect, but I think we are getting to be a lot more open and accountable than we were in the "bad old days" of secret donations, etc.

Now you're making me jealous.

You want to be really jealous, NatCh? Canada (and I suspect the UK) has only a 5-week campaign period, unlike the never-ending election cycle we see here!

Yeah, but I'm not at all jealous of Canada's government -- it's close enough we can see it fairly well from here, warts and all. :shrug:

...Politicians in the UK don't do that - they spend the very limited TV time they have in, generally speaking at least, laying out their own policies and tell people why they should vote for them, rather than denigrating the "opposition"...

I'm not sure I entirely agree. I think getting any politician anywhere to answer a straightforward question with a straightforward answer is next to impossible.

In the UK, the phrase 'a politician's answer' is now commonly used to mean blatant obfuscation with dishonest intent.

I had rather a sleepless night last night, and in desperation I finally turned my bedroom TV on about 3am and saw the final portion of the live broadcast of the debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

Although I realise that different countries do things in different ways, I was very surprised to see the approach taken by both gentlemen: whenever they were asked by a member of the audience something like "can you tell me how X is going to affect me", rather than explaining their own policy (ie answering the question that had been asked) they'd typically say something like "that's a very good question, and let me tell you why the other candidate's approach to X is going to be bad for you).

Politicians in the UK don't do that - they spend the very limited TV time they have in, generally speaking at least, laying out their own policies and tell people why they should vote for them, rather than denigrating the "opposition".

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were. All that I seemed to have learned is why each was going to do bad things.

It doesn't seem a terribly constructive way of doing things to me but, there again, I was watching as an outside observer.

Well, Harry, there is nothing particularly rational about the American campaign process. Sometimes it seems like it's all about the slogan and the sound bite.

So, I ignore the debates. I tend to decide on certain key points that really matter to me (such as Palin's view that freedom of choice should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest (or incestuous rape). That's the gigantic speed bump over which the Republican Party lost my vote this year.

It doesn't seem a terribly constructive way of doing things to me but, there again, I was watching as an outside observer.

Trust me, Harry: It doesn't make much sense to us, either.

I don't know if it made the news in the US, but we had a huge political scandal a couple of years ago called the "Cash for Honours" affair, where all the main political parties here were accused (absolutely rightly) of giving people "honours" (ie being made a Knight or a Lord, etc) in return for a large donation to the political party (I should explain that each party has the traditional right to nominate a certain number of people for "honours" every year, but it's supposed to be for their achievements, not for giving money to the party!).

In the U.K., they get "honours." In the U.S., they get "tax breaks." Then they buy their mansions and live like Lords. Pretty much the same deal.

I watched the debates, got fed up over the candidates' refusal to even abide by their own debating rules (not they were really debating anything), and turned it off.

Well, Harry, there is nothing particularly rational about the American campaign process. Sometimes it seems like it's all about the slogan and the sound bite.

So, I ignore the debates. I tend to decide on certain key points that really matter to me (such as Palin's view that freedom of choice should not be allowed even in cases of rape or incest (or incestuous rape). That's the gigantic speed bump over which the Republican Party lost my vote this year.

That is always a contentious topic. I could argue either side of the issue with equal passion. However I decided long ago that since I can never be pregnant, I should not have a vote. I'm sure that others who also could never be would not agree with such a restriction.

That makes it a really good topic to not go into here, don't you think? :shrug:

I wasn't criticising the American system - I have no cause to, since our own system has plenty of flaws of its own. It just struck me as being radically different to the way that we do things. Here, members of parliament at least pretend to be gentlemen, and insulting the opposition just "isn't cricket" :D. It's actually refreshing, in a way, to see that American politicians actually have the honesty to do their back-stabbing in public.


Many years ago we realized here that no gentleman would ever become a politician. So the question is, what kind of a crook is he/she. Are they ones who'll steal your way.

Our campaigns reflect this attitude...

Sigh. Yeah, negative campaigning. Bleah. Unfortunately, our candidates seem to think that attacking the other candidate's position is safer than stating a position themselves. :rolleyes:

Sigh. Yeah, negative campaigning. Bleah. Unfortunately, our candidates seem to think that attacking the other candidate's position is safer than stating a position themselves. :rolleyes:

Well, is it better to be the bullet or the target.....;)

spending on election campaigns in the UK is strictly limited, see

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03413.pdf

for details, but essentially any candidate standing for election to the House of Commons can only spend up to £11,000 - about $19,000.

Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..

So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations.

Paul

Now you're making me jealous.

Your campaigns are probably not so influenced by "soft money" and fundraising prowess either, I expect.

Oh, nuts... now McCain-Palin ads are appearing on this page. I'm unsubscribing, as of now.

I'm still getting the National Geographic fix-big-broken-things ad. :shrug:

Unfortunately at this stage of the process, we have devolved to the "My opponent is Satan on a cracker" stage of electioneering. The votes open for persuasion are very narrow in scope and it is felt that the best way to sway those votes is to scare the bejeezuz out of them. It makes for very tedious weeks of attack ads for the next month. I'd love to have a parliamentary form of government at times like this.

Yes, the final weeks of a presidential campaign are always abonimable and pathetic.

You are quite right about the candidates now are only speaking to the few who have yet to decide.

To answer the question that started the thread, for one to find out what the policies/beliefs of a candidate are likely to be, one should watch the acceptance speeches at the conventions. The debates are more about getting to see the candidates side by side and how they perform under pressure (sort of.)

No matter who wins in November the cold will come this winter and the rains in the spring. The grass will grow and we will mow it (if the price of gas [petro to you Harry] is not too high.) Real life goes on despite the best efforts of the government.

That is always a contentious topic. I could argue either side of the issue with equal passion. However I decided long ago that since I can never be pregnant, I should not have a vote. I'm sure that others who also could never be would not agree with such a restriction.

That makes it a really good topic to not go into here, don't you think? :shrug:

I didn't bring it up to actually debate the topic. It's not a topic that I would care to debate because I think it's a very personal choice and something that should never be the subject of governmental, religious or even personal intrusion.

That said ... having heard her position on the matter, that is simply why I am not bothering with the debates. I have made my decision based on that and other policies, and have no need whatsoever to spend additional time listening to debates.

Of course, I also don't waste time watching American Idol, or Deal or no Deal ... so I suppose that puts me in the minority. :D

Oh, nuts... now XxXxxx-Xxxxx ads are appearing on this page. I'm unsubscribing, as of now.Ach. That all by itself is an excellent reason not to mention any candidate by name here! :rofl:

I didn't bring it up to actually debate the topic.I didn't think you had, actually, I was hoping to head off anyone who might wander by and decide they were going to do so anyway. :rolleyes:

Politics are a pretty hot button for a lot of folks, so we tend to tread lightly when discussing them here. But this isn't really a discussion of politics, per se, but rather a quite interesting discussion of how various political systems work ... or how they're supposed to work anyway. :smile:

It's a mark of the sophistication, intelligence, maturity (etc., etc.), of this community that it can occur at all, let alone refrain from descent into chaos.

Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..

So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations.

Paul

Thanks for that information, Paul - as I said in an earlier post, I knew that they were discussing bringing in limits on campaign spending following the "cash for honours" thing, but I didn't know that it had actually been implemented. I'm happy to hear that it has been.

Having the limit is good. It still seems a bit high to me - effectively three times the constituency limit.

Perhaps a more sensible (& easily defined) limit would be to say that the party limit should be the same as the sum of the constituency limits for the constituencies the party is contesting. That would put the party national limit at around £6.5 million.

One can hope. I was rather surprised the party limit happened at all.

Paul

Thanks for that information, Paul - as I said in an earlier post, I knew that they were discussing bringing in limits on campaign spending following the "cash for honours" thing, but I didn't know that it had actually been implemented. I'm happy to hear that it has been.

Ach. That all by itself is an excellent reason not to mention any candidate by name here! :rofl:

As I understand it, the ads mean money is taken out of their account and put into the cofers that keep MR running. At least something good can come out of this...

I guess, like HarryT, what intrigues me is that the debates and interviews in US elections seem so gentlemanly, yet the adverts (or the few I've seen picked up over here) seem the opposite.

But then the language of adverts in the UK is very different from the US. Until recently it was very rare to see and add say something like "Buy X, because our competitor Y is awful." So perhaps that is why.

spending on election campaigns in the UK is strictly limited, see

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-03413.pdf

for details, but essentially any candidate standing for election to the House of Commons can only spend up to £11,000 - about $19,000.

Recently limits have also been imposed on spending nationally by parties on election campaigning. This is currently around £30,000 per constituency being contested, or around £19 million if all seats are being contested, as with the major parties..

So there's still a bit of scope for large donors the have undue influence, although that is now mitigated by compulsory declaration of large donations.


I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).

But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.

As I understand it, the ads mean money is taken out of their account and put into the cofers that keep MR running. At least something good can come out of this...

I guess, like HarryT, what intrigues me is that the debates and interviews in US elections seem so gentlemanly, yet the adverts (or the few I've seen picked up over here) seem the opposite.

But then the language of adverts in the UK is very different from the US. Until recently it was very rare to see and add say something like "Buy X, because our competitor Y is awful." So perhaps that is why.



I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).

But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.

I can remember when that was "just not done" here either. Back in the days when the ads always compared their product to "Brand X".

But then someone out there decided it was perfectly alright to do ... and ads have never been the same since.

Of course, I don't watch most of the ads for the same reason I don't watch the debates. I make my decisions based on other forms of research. What they attempt to "feed" to me via the television is mine to (1) mute, (2) mute and walk away from (very important for bathroom breaks) or (3) turn off the set and do something else entirely.

In fact, I honestly cannot think of a single TV ad that actually made me go out and purchase the product. Even the Apple vs. PC ads (from either side) aren't going to make me decide I don't like my PC, or like it more.

Probably 80 percent of everything I purchase is based on actually wandering around a physical store and looking at stuff. The other 20 percent is based on wandering around the interwebs and reading reviews about stuff I can't find in a physical store (or where the physical store is too far away).

Nope ... ads, for products, political campaigns, for anything really, are a complete waste of money on someone like me. Even when they are super cute and funny .... most of the time I can remember the joke ... but not which company paid for the ad, or why I would want to buy it in the first place.

Having the limits is a lot better than having no limits - it means that trying to work around the limits can be caught. Rather like the Labour Party was caught trying to work around the rules on party funding disclosur. (The ones that they introduced!)

I completely agree that state funding of political parties is unacceptable. I also detest the European election "Party Lists". Bah.

but I think this is straying off-topic. :-)

Paul


I think these are good, but probably pointless as the rich will probably find ways round these (I thinking of things like special interest groups who claim no political allegiance).

But what worries me is the debate about state funding. I still don't believe that this can be made watertight.

I also detest the European election "Party Lists". Bah.


That's the fundamental difference between our current "first past the post" system, and PR. In our system, you vote for the person; in PR you vote for the party.

Eg, where I live, we used to have an absolutely excellent MP who was superb in supporting local issues. I always used to vote for him, because I respected him as a person even though I strongly disagreed with the policies of the party that he represented. Now he's retired, though, I've changed my vote, because his replacement is just a party "yes man" without a mind of his own.

Eg, where I live, we used to have an absolutely excellent MP who was superb in supporting local issues. I always used to vote for him, because I respected him as a person even though I strongly disagreed with the policies of the party that he represented. Now he's retired, though, I've changed my vote, because his replacement is just a party "yes man" without a mind of his own.

Sadly, I think that makes you fairly unique, both in the UK and US -- you thought about who to vote for on the basis of how well they would (in your opinion) do the job. It seems most people vote on a "tribal" basis most of the time. This gives the parties the ability to ignore, or marginalise, their views and opinions. All of a sudden the swing minorities are the only ones voting. I'd love to know how to solve that one.

I had rather a sleepless night last night, and in desperation I finally turned my bedroom TV on about 3am and saw the final portion of the live broadcast of the debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.

Although I realise that different countries do things in different ways, I was very surprised to see the approach taken by both gentlemen: whenever they were asked by a member of the audience something like "can you tell me how X is going to affect me", rather than explaining their own policy (ie answering the question that had been asked) they'd typically say something like "that's a very good question, and let me tell you why the other candidate's approach to X is going to be bad for you).

Politicians in the UK don't do that - they spend the very limited TV time they have in, generally speaking at least, laying out their own policies and tell people why they should vote for them, rather than denigrating the "opposition".

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were. All that I seemed to have learned is why each was going to do bad things.

It doesn't seem a terribly constructive way of doing things to me but, there again, I was watching as an outside observer.

I would love to share with you my opinions of absolute disgust and outrage over the Presidential Campaign from both parties and our current sitting President, but for decency's sake I will not go there.

I'm also in the middle of eating my breakfast. :)

Don

Sadly, I think that makes you fairly unique, both in the UK and US -- you thought about who to vote for on the basis of how well they would (in your opinion) do the job. It seems most people vote on a "tribal" basis most of the time. This gives the parties the ability to ignore, or marginalise, their views and opinions. All of a sudden the swing minorities are the only ones voting. I'd love to know how to solve that one.

Unfortunately, where I live, if they put a turnip up as the candidate for the party that holds the seat, it would still win by a landslide. Actually the typical turnip probably has more independence of thought than our current MP :).

....and therein lies the dilemma (and perhaps a new joke for this year):

"What is the difference between a turnip and a Presidential Candidate?"

And no, I don't mean that one is edible.

Don

Disclaimer: These are my thoughts. You may not share my opinions. So be it. These are my thoughts.

Unfortunately, where I live, if they put a turnip up as the candidate for the party that holds the seat, it would still win by a landslide. Actually the typical turnip probably has more independence of thought than our current MP :).

Given the way Crash Gordon has been mismanaging Britain some of those rock solid Labour heartland seats could fall.

If i were a Labour MP that had less than a 40k majority i'd make sure i campaign heavily; knocking on lots of doors, kissing babies and making sure everyone knows what you're doing for them.

Unfortunately, where I live, if they put a turnip up as the candidate for the party that holds the seat, it would still win by a landslide. Actually the typical turnip probably has more independence of thought than our current MP :).

This concept has been around in Texas so long that we have a term for it - "Yellow Dog" Democrats ("Blue Dog" for Republicans), which mean that those people would vote for a "Yellow (Blue) Dog" for an office if the party nominated it.

The one and only good thing about politics here is the entertainment value it brings. If you can keep from getting angry or sick (a very difficult task), it carries a great deal of humor with it, providing the late night television comedians a great deal to work with. The skits on Saturday Night Live have been particularly hilarious this year (you can see many of them at http://www.snl.com) and the Jib-Jab video this year is modestly funny, too: http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

After watching the debate I was left wondering what either gentleman's policies actually were.

I believe it is a common trend in politics. If you can talk for 1 hour explaining your policies and fail not to explain them then you cannot be a politician, can you?

The one and only good thing about politics here is the entertainment value it brings. If you can keep from getting angry or sick (a very difficult task), it carries a great deal of humor with it, providing the late night television comedians a great deal to work with. The skits on Saturday Night Live have been particularly hilarious this year (you can see many of them at http://www.snl.com) and the Jib-Jab video this year is modestly funny, too: http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm
Not to mention John Stewart and the Daily Show. :D

I don't even watch TV, but if someone else in the family has him on when I'm passing through the living room, I'll stop and watch.