As Nick Clegg found out a fortnight ago, the debates can indeed change everything - and David Cameron's masterful, statesmanlike, passionate and dominant performance last night has put a spring in the step of Tory activists and voters - and a real reason for undecided voetrs to lend us their votes. My feeling is that Cameron's performance was so strong because he both talked in terms of values (We are on the side of people who do the right thing) and then in specific policies (we will remove benefits from those who can work but who do not). Clegg looked and sounded nervous, and it showed. He was battered on the Euro and immigration; and for benefit of LibDems out there, "old politics" is when you have a promise in your manifesto that you dump live on TV when you realise its unpopular and unworkable. However Clegg did better on domestic policies, such as education. Brown was again better, but he started from a low base; he needs to lose the stats rolling off like a soviet propaganda film and shouldn't ever smile when it isn't appropriate to do so! My favourite bit was actually Cameron's credo about education - the central role of the child and the importance of choice, standards, discipline and funding. That was, according to Mrs Little (who is a teacher herself), the moment he may just have won the election.
This morning we have been bombarded with calls and visits at the Campaign HQ from pleased Tories and also voters coming across to us for the first time. I have just got back from a session with out Mancroft team and the peopel I met whilst leafleting were very positive. The news from the other groups around the seat is very similar.
Mr Cameron - you have given us what we wanted. For the sake of our country we need to win this election. The Hung Parliament is Mr Brown's lifeline, with Mr Clegg throwing the lifejacket to him, so we must get an overall Tory majority. Conservatives, we've got 5 days to make this a reality - let's get to it!
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label debate. Show all posts
Friday, April 30, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Campaign Diary - Day Fourteen
And today it was back to work ... well, for half the day. We had training in the morning about Safeguarding Procedures and then coursework moderation. After all the campaigning it was an odd - but subtly pleasure - to do some schoolwork.
In the afternoon we headed to Thorpe Hamlet where we discovered a surprising number of people in to talk to. My favourite was a lady who is now voting Conservative because she was pleased to have a candidate who shared her thoughts on educational inclusion practices. There was a lot of movement amongst the left-wing candidates (including former LibDems voting Labour) but a steady and growing number of Conservatives. Other issues raised were transport and road layout in the City!
Then after I joined the other Norwich South Candidates (except the BNP) at a Trade Union meeting. It was enjoyable - the audience was, of course, challenging. The only applause of the night went to the Revolutionary Workers Candidate. I felt a little like groundog day - the RWP candidate said every issue was a symptom of capitalism whilst the UKIP candidate blamed everything (and, I mean, everything) on the EU. The LibDems were challenged about their policies on Trident and tax cuts, the Conservatives about homophobia in the party and Labour about Clarke's external work above being an MP. He stunned us all when he said he took on extra jobs to make up the salary he lost when he quit the cabinet - amazing! As always, the Greens had little or no scrutiny.
And home, to lesson planning, marking, blogging and a film called "Adam" about a couple where one of them has Aspergers. Fascinating film that really highlights the issue.
In the afternoon we headed to Thorpe Hamlet where we discovered a surprising number of people in to talk to. My favourite was a lady who is now voting Conservative because she was pleased to have a candidate who shared her thoughts on educational inclusion practices. There was a lot of movement amongst the left-wing candidates (including former LibDems voting Labour) but a steady and growing number of Conservatives. Other issues raised were transport and road layout in the City!
Then after I joined the other Norwich South Candidates (except the BNP) at a Trade Union meeting. It was enjoyable - the audience was, of course, challenging. The only applause of the night went to the Revolutionary Workers Candidate. I felt a little like groundog day - the RWP candidate said every issue was a symptom of capitalism whilst the UKIP candidate blamed everything (and, I mean, everything) on the EU. The LibDems were challenged about their policies on Trident and tax cuts, the Conservatives about homophobia in the party and Labour about Clarke's external work above being an MP. He stunned us all when he said he took on extra jobs to make up the salary he lost when he quit the cabinet - amazing! As always, the Greens had little or no scrutiny.
And home, to lesson planning, marking, blogging and a film called "Adam" about a couple where one of them has Aspergers. Fascinating film that really highlights the issue.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Post Debate Thoughts
I am sure I am the last person in the world to reflect on last night but I thought I would have my two pennies worth.
Firstly some randon thoughts in no particular order - well done to ITV - and indeed all the broadcasters and parties for making it happen. I never thought it would. The rules didn't seem to inhibit proper debate, although I felt the moderator stepped in at some of the best moment. The set was awful. It was good to see the programme without commercial breaks. And I thought it was a little bit strange to see the party leaders - whom we usually only see interact in the House of Commons - caling each other Nick, David & Gordon.
Were there any killer blows - no. Knock out punches? No. Great one-liners? Zilch.
In fact, despite the better format I am not sure that anybody really learnt anything about politics. The left (and I mean, the combined left - LibDems, Labour & Greens) united to pour bile on Cameron, the Conservatives thought he did well. 80% of people thought the Prime Minister did badly. So, basically - your man won (whoever your man is). But - I would like next time for the debate to be slower and more thoughtful. I felt the speed of responses was fast and the pace of the debate was frenetic.
And finally a word about each of them. Clegg was thought to be the winner on the night,no doubt aided by being "introduced" to people and distancing himself from the other two parties. I thought presentationally he did well butwas weaker when challenged on his own policies. He tried to referee stance (used well by Vince Cable) but it didn't work because Cameron challenged him 4 times over Libdem policies. This was much more the media star we were promised when he became leader. He was clearly very well briefed. However - my big criticism would be that he was unable to adapt. For example, when Cameron used the stat about 4,000 educational diktats per year, Clegg still "revealed" the same stat in his answer. He should have acknowledged it from Cameron.
Brown looked the odd one out and sounded the most robotic. Some people said they saw the real Gordon and passion in him; I must have missed it. My view is that his answers were still too formula driven and laden with stats. His insistance that things were not as the general public saw them (defence, crime, immigration) did not go down well and he ought to be have addressed Cameron's repeated point of being in government for 13 years. As one LibDem said, he had low expectations and failed to meet them - I think this is a little harsh but clearly this format is not good for the PM, but he may yet learn. In addition he came armed with a lot of little "one liners" but Labour know you can only use them once!
True Cameron was by far the most polished - I think his experiences at umpteen Cameron Direct town hall meetings will have helped - and some people believe this was his biggest fault. I felt Cameron had the strongest begining (going on expenses straight way was the right thing to do) and ending (positive, up beat). But he did confound my expecations - very few jokes, no yah-boo stuff and little rising to the jibes of the others. He had the most policy to lay out but in that he attracted most criticism and at times became a little bogged down. However, as I said, I felt he did the best (as expected!)
So we now look forward to the second debate with great interest - my rolling scores are Cameron 8, Clegg 7, Brown 4
Firstly some randon thoughts in no particular order - well done to ITV - and indeed all the broadcasters and parties for making it happen. I never thought it would. The rules didn't seem to inhibit proper debate, although I felt the moderator stepped in at some of the best moment. The set was awful. It was good to see the programme without commercial breaks. And I thought it was a little bit strange to see the party leaders - whom we usually only see interact in the House of Commons - caling each other Nick, David & Gordon.
Were there any killer blows - no. Knock out punches? No. Great one-liners? Zilch.
In fact, despite the better format I am not sure that anybody really learnt anything about politics. The left (and I mean, the combined left - LibDems, Labour & Greens) united to pour bile on Cameron, the Conservatives thought he did well. 80% of people thought the Prime Minister did badly. So, basically - your man won (whoever your man is). But - I would like next time for the debate to be slower and more thoughtful. I felt the speed of responses was fast and the pace of the debate was frenetic.
And finally a word about each of them. Clegg was thought to be the winner on the night,no doubt aided by being "introduced" to people and distancing himself from the other two parties. I thought presentationally he did well butwas weaker when challenged on his own policies. He tried to referee stance (used well by Vince Cable) but it didn't work because Cameron challenged him 4 times over Libdem policies. This was much more the media star we were promised when he became leader. He was clearly very well briefed. However - my big criticism would be that he was unable to adapt. For example, when Cameron used the stat about 4,000 educational diktats per year, Clegg still "revealed" the same stat in his answer. He should have acknowledged it from Cameron.
Brown looked the odd one out and sounded the most robotic. Some people said they saw the real Gordon and passion in him; I must have missed it. My view is that his answers were still too formula driven and laden with stats. His insistance that things were not as the general public saw them (defence, crime, immigration) did not go down well and he ought to be have addressed Cameron's repeated point of being in government for 13 years. As one LibDem said, he had low expectations and failed to meet them - I think this is a little harsh but clearly this format is not good for the PM, but he may yet learn. In addition he came armed with a lot of little "one liners" but Labour know you can only use them once!
True Cameron was by far the most polished - I think his experiences at umpteen Cameron Direct town hall meetings will have helped - and some people believe this was his biggest fault. I felt Cameron had the strongest begining (going on expenses straight way was the right thing to do) and ending (positive, up beat). But he did confound my expecations - very few jokes, no yah-boo stuff and little rising to the jibes of the others. He had the most policy to lay out but in that he attracted most criticism and at times became a little bogged down. However, as I said, I felt he did the best (as expected!)
So we now look forward to the second debate with great interest - my rolling scores are Cameron 8, Clegg 7, Brown 4
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Ask the Climate Questions
Tonight, despite my raging hayfever, was spent in the company of the RSPB at a public meeting about Climate Change, although it soon widened out to other issues too. It was, I think, the first time that Charles Clarke, Adrian Ramsay, Simon Wright and I have shared a platform and is the first of a number of pressure group meetings due to take place.
I thought the topic may lead to some lively debate but there was plenty of consensus on the panel and the audience were clearly converts to the cause. There were a number of people there - maybe 50 - but many were Green members and I doubt if anything of what was said really changed any minds. The questions were varied and detailed though.
However the quiet and thoughful questions and answers would certainly confound those who believe politics is yah-boo and punch'n'judy.
Thank you to those who organised and attended.
I thought the topic may lead to some lively debate but there was plenty of consensus on the panel and the audience were clearly converts to the cause. There were a number of people there - maybe 50 - but many were Green members and I doubt if anything of what was said really changed any minds. The questions were varied and detailed though.
However the quiet and thoughful questions and answers would certainly confound those who believe politics is yah-boo and punch'n'judy.
Thank you to those who organised and attended.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Next General Election in 30 Minutes
After a discussion about getting more people interested in the work of the council, we then had a debate which one member of the public who did turn up to watch the council meeting described as a "disgrace". It was interesting and I cannot deny I love the cut and thrust of what we do, especially when the council is being political-with-a-capital-P, but this person said the debate was "messy, generally thoughtless and the kind of thing that puts us [ the voter, I assume ] off." I think that was a bit far - after all the debate gave us a very clear insight into the next election.
The motion was one that highlighted positive statements about Sure Start from national politicans (even the Green Party) and suggested that we ought to back the service and refrain from unfair political attacks - such as those parties who might suggest another party wishes to scrap Sure Start because this worries people unncessarily. I don't think anyone expected what came next ...
Cllr Andrew Wiltshire moved a very good speech about the work that Sure Start did. I have to say that I was left bewildered by the response of Labour's Cllr Sue Sands who reeled off a list of clubs that her Sure Start ran citing this as the reason it ought to continue. Great idea; let's share good practice from around the City. Unfortunately Cllr Sands doesn't seem to appreciate the work of Health Visitors quite so much and doesn't see the next to expand their work or to have a multi-agency approach to what Sure Start does. Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, gave a good speech in favour of the motion - then LibDem Cllr Lubbock (and quite why she was chosen to respond was beyond me) descided to take the motion apart line by line. She didn't appreciate me correcting her every error - including when she criticised the stated aim of Sure Start (as taken from their website). A bizarre moment of my life that one. Lesson 101 of the Council; Whenever you want to oppose a motion but can't work out a decent reason you always say it is "badly written". I'd say her speech was badly written alright. Council Leader Cllr Steve Morphew wanted to know what the Conservatives would change about Sure Start and it was laid out some specifics about changing the role of the Health Visitors, the link to early years education and the role/direction of local services. Not good enough for Cllr Morphew who demands to know more. He is given more. He doesn't like the response so screams that he wasn't given an answer. He was given an answer, he just didn't like it or agree with it. So Cllr Morphew has the words of David Cameron stricken from the motion; quite why is beyond me but never mind. The motion is still passed - yes, the Conservatives still voted for it - and I assume Labour will continue to frighten some very young and very vulnerable voters with this come election time.
I remember letters written by Steve Morphew to the people of Bowthorpe saying that if they didn't vote Labour they wouldn't get new windows in their council homes. They didn't vote Labour but they still got new windows. Maybe we can't believe everything our Council Leader says?
So why do I say that this is a marker for the next General Election? Labour say everything is fine, keep spending chaps and smile for the cameras; the Conservatives want to change and reform our services so they better serve out communities; the LibDems look bewildered; and the Greens had very little indeed to say about the issue.
So could I convince the member of the public of this? No, but they thought none of us came out well. They were annoyed that what should have been a fairly bland political moment was hijacked by Labour. Get used to it, there's plenty of months before the election and I suspect all issues will be subject to this kind of game playing.
Let the political debate begin (we just might want to warn the public first!)
The motion was one that highlighted positive statements about Sure Start from national politicans (even the Green Party) and suggested that we ought to back the service and refrain from unfair political attacks - such as those parties who might suggest another party wishes to scrap Sure Start because this worries people unncessarily. I don't think anyone expected what came next ...
Cllr Andrew Wiltshire moved a very good speech about the work that Sure Start did. I have to say that I was left bewildered by the response of Labour's Cllr Sue Sands who reeled off a list of clubs that her Sure Start ran citing this as the reason it ought to continue. Great idea; let's share good practice from around the City. Unfortunately Cllr Sands doesn't seem to appreciate the work of Health Visitors quite so much and doesn't see the next to expand their work or to have a multi-agency approach to what Sure Start does. Cllr Ramsay, Green Leader, gave a good speech in favour of the motion - then LibDem Cllr Lubbock (and quite why she was chosen to respond was beyond me) descided to take the motion apart line by line. She didn't appreciate me correcting her every error - including when she criticised the stated aim of Sure Start (as taken from their website). A bizarre moment of my life that one. Lesson 101 of the Council; Whenever you want to oppose a motion but can't work out a decent reason you always say it is "badly written". I'd say her speech was badly written alright. Council Leader Cllr Steve Morphew wanted to know what the Conservatives would change about Sure Start and it was laid out some specifics about changing the role of the Health Visitors, the link to early years education and the role/direction of local services. Not good enough for Cllr Morphew who demands to know more. He is given more. He doesn't like the response so screams that he wasn't given an answer. He was given an answer, he just didn't like it or agree with it. So Cllr Morphew has the words of David Cameron stricken from the motion; quite why is beyond me but never mind. The motion is still passed - yes, the Conservatives still voted for it - and I assume Labour will continue to frighten some very young and very vulnerable voters with this come election time.
I remember letters written by Steve Morphew to the people of Bowthorpe saying that if they didn't vote Labour they wouldn't get new windows in their council homes. They didn't vote Labour but they still got new windows. Maybe we can't believe everything our Council Leader says?
So why do I say that this is a marker for the next General Election? Labour say everything is fine, keep spending chaps and smile for the cameras; the Conservatives want to change and reform our services so they better serve out communities; the LibDems look bewildered; and the Greens had very little indeed to say about the issue.
So could I convince the member of the public of this? No, but they thought none of us came out well. They were annoyed that what should have been a fairly bland political moment was hijacked by Labour. Get used to it, there's plenty of months before the election and I suspect all issues will be subject to this kind of game playing.
Let the political debate begin (we just might want to warn the public first!)
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Presidential Debate: I give it to McCain
I am currently watching the highlights of the US Presidential Debate which happened last night. I have to say that most of the mainstream media and the US polls have given victory to Barack Obama; even some die-hard Tories had too. I therefore watched with great interested - and as an Obama supporter (but only just) I have been greatly disappointed.
Obama is a great mass platform speaker; he did well in Germany but his style is not fit for the townhall style meeting. McCain was quiet, dignified and connected well with the audience. His hand-shaking with the former Navy officer and claiming that everything he learnt about leadership came from a Petty Officer was well judged. Obama seemed unable to do "quiet" diplomacy and his frequent slips in language allowed McCain to come back at him.
Similarly Obama's call for comebacks on some of the points made him look like he was playing catch-up; a little bit desperate if you ask me. McCain is well suited to this kind of format but I was surprised that Obama didn't change his outlook to suit this.
As predicted McCain did much better on Foreign Affairs and it was pretty much a draw on the economy.
Obama's best moment was in reply to the tricky last question about what he didn't know. His reply was that Michelle, his wife, could give a much longer answer. However the answer then went downhill after that. McCain's response was much better - in a debating sense - in saying that he didn't know what was coming next on the economy and foreign affairs. McCain's last blast about belief in America, his service and their future was very good indeed.
As I say this debate really shocked me because I took a different view from that which I expected to take. On policy Obama didn't set me on fire (but neither did McCain) but badly let me down on style. However the bar was higher for McCain than it was for Obama; they both cleared the bar but McCain had to jump higher to do so.
Obama is a great mass platform speaker; he did well in Germany but his style is not fit for the townhall style meeting. McCain was quiet, dignified and connected well with the audience. His hand-shaking with the former Navy officer and claiming that everything he learnt about leadership came from a Petty Officer was well judged. Obama seemed unable to do "quiet" diplomacy and his frequent slips in language allowed McCain to come back at him.
Similarly Obama's call for comebacks on some of the points made him look like he was playing catch-up; a little bit desperate if you ask me. McCain is well suited to this kind of format but I was surprised that Obama didn't change his outlook to suit this.
As predicted McCain did much better on Foreign Affairs and it was pretty much a draw on the economy.
Obama's best moment was in reply to the tricky last question about what he didn't know. His reply was that Michelle, his wife, could give a much longer answer. However the answer then went downhill after that. McCain's response was much better - in a debating sense - in saying that he didn't know what was coming next on the economy and foreign affairs. McCain's last blast about belief in America, his service and their future was very good indeed.
As I say this debate really shocked me because I took a different view from that which I expected to take. On policy Obama didn't set me on fire (but neither did McCain) but badly let me down on style. However the bar was higher for McCain than it was for Obama; they both cleared the bar but McCain had to jump higher to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)