Notes from watching Question Time for party leaders
Charles Kennedy easily came across best. He was relaxed and the most comfortable with the audience. Perhaps it's easier when you are not going to win the election and more so when you are not continually being attacked. Although I don't agree with most of his policies, he was able to present them in clear fashion and at least allow me to see his point. [Score +1, Certainly won over some new support, Only politician to genuine laugh]
Michael Howard came across as worst. He was in inarticulate, vague and managed to successfully reinforce everything bad said about him. At least Ian Duncan Smith was personable. I was no clearer about his policies or how he was going to implement them or what they really were about by the end of it. [Score -1, Lost support, Only politician to to be called evil]
Tony Blair handled and aggressive demanding audience as well as can be expected, although not much more than that. The audience wasted the opportunity presented by mostly attacking Blair and not questioning him on the issues presented in the next election. Being the incumbent he had the hardest job as he is the only one who can make mistakes and hence naturally on the defensive. Looked to be trying hard to come across well, and appeared to struggle at times. Did managed to show he was a man in the belief of his convictions and would stand by them. [Score 0, Came out even, Only politician to be called George Blair]
The Audience appeared to be half intelligent and half a bunch of idiots, as usual. I know it's tough under pressure, but if you can't ask a useful question don't. If you are just going to attack the person on stage you are wasting a valuable opportunity.
Notes for the audience
- Continually asking the same question will continue getting you the same answer. You are not going to get them to change their mind by repeating the question.
- Realise that a politician, especially the leader of a political party can't say certain things. No matter how much you try get Blair to say "I lied about Iraq, it all was a dreadful mistake, I'm sorry" he wont. Not only does he believe it was the right thing to do, but it's just simply something that he could never say 7 days before and election. Trying to goad him into saying it is pointless. Ask something of value.
- On top up fees, try listen to the answer. if you ask why Labour is introducing top up fees when they said they wouldn't and the answer is "We are not introducing top up fees we are changing the system. University education needs funds and this is the system we think will resolve those issues. We are not introducing a concept know as top up fees but an entirely different concept". Either accept this to be the case or not. Yes it will still cost you money. it would still cost you money if it was taken from taxation. it will still cost you money one way or the another. This doesn't make it top up fees. If you think it is still the concept of top up fees vote for someone else but reasking the question doesn't make the answer different
- If you honestly think the sole reason Blair made the decision to go to war was to appease George Bush, then you're detached from reality
- Debates go much better when you don't use weighted emotional language like evil and liar.
- There is a difference between asking a question and making a political statement. The show is not called "Political-statement Time"
- Presenter David Dimbleby was exceedingly good. Listen to how he phrases questions.
1. Chris
The other point in favour of Charles Kennedy is that he’s clearly a man who knows his malt whisky. And that gets my vote.
(ooh, nifty live comment preview thing. Smart, I like that :)
2. Nuge
Yay politics!
Agree with your review of the three leaders entirely and was looking for Michael Howard to win my vote. Sadly he came up short on this appearance which is a shame since his party has some very impressive policies. In particular, raising the threshold for stamp duty to £250k would be welcomed by first time buyers, particularly in London (like me!).
Before you make your mark in the box, check out this site on the BBC: Election 2005 | Issues
3. Adrian
I’m not sure Howards parties policies impress me much.
I’m not sure I agree with raising stamp duty either. This seems purely a vote getter and not a policy that’s been thought out well. I would rather see stamp duty flattened so everyone pays an the exact same percentage. I don’t like the way it’s scaled at the moment.
The fact that property is substantial more expensive in the South East does show a problem, and whatever stamp duty is, buys in areas like London will be affected more. I’m not sure their is a solution, except that, you pay more in London.
4. Chris
The other issue with raising stamp duty is that it’ll open the way for existing home owners to buy cheap second homes elsewhere and push the prices up further. Eliminate it entirely for first time buyers would be my choice.
5. Fer
I love the way people think that by reducing the stamp duty on a £250k property from £2500 will suddenly make it affordable. If you can afford £250k then chances are the £2500 isn’t impossible to get added to the mortgage.
Eliminating duty for first time buyers would be far too messy to implement without leaving unfairness or loopholes - how do you define a first time buyer?
E.g. what about a couple buying together where one used to own a home but the other didn’t.
Or a divorced person buying for the first time after having jointly owned a property (but whose ex-spouse had always been the breadwinner).
Or someone who owned/owns a home abroad (bearing in mind it’s difficult to prove this).
Or someone who’s never owned a property and agrees to put his name on the deeds but on the understanding that his rich mate/relative (who has paid for it) “really” owns it.
6. nat
reaction to point 4 (on the blog not the comments) is that you seem to have rather changed your tune.
7. Adrian
Nope, I never once said that Blair went to war to appease Bush. I did say that I thought Blair did think letting Bush go to war unchecked was a bad idea, and it was a situation that was easier to control by being involved than not being involved.
Either way, there is no way Blair went to war solely because it was a buddy thing with Bush. The perception that Blair is merely Bush’s lapdog makes it nice for the media, but I simply can’t see this as any sort of reality.
8. nat
so that whole argument where you were protesting that the media had all the info and there were no secrets blah blah blah and I was saying that there was no way the media know the whole story and that there were bound to be ‘some’ well founded reasons for which we went into Iraq - what was that about?!?
9. Adrian
I think you are confusing two distinct and separate arguments here.
The point I was making above was towards those people on Question Time, who kept attacking Blair with the statement that he went to war merely because he was trying to buddy up to Bush is ludicrous and detached from reality.
A separate discussion with you I made the point that evidence had since come out (since the war) that the well founded reasons seemed to be a bit iffy, that the reasons given to the public for going to war seemed to be a bit thin. I still support the war, just not necessarily for the reasons it was sold on.
These are separate and distinctly different points.