Comments on: General Election 2010 Television Debate: Move it onto Facebook

By: DM

DM — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:28:55 +0000

Maybe Facebook should be involved, but it should definitely NOT be in the hands of SKY.
The way the Lib-Dems are sinking Clegg’s presence will be a considerable concession by the PM.
I well recall the old pro Enoch Powell’s pretences that he was unaware of his opponents, let alone their names.
Brown Will remember that he IS in the driving seat, and we already know that his single mindedness is tendentiously misinterpreted by tory hacks & trolls blether 4 Chameleon that when he decides when he will say and what he will say he is dithering and obdurate.
I guess he will offer a debate to Chameleon. It would be more appropriate if he offered one to Ashcroft imho.

By: John Cooper

John Cooper — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:08:29 +0000

Good suggestion. What would we have to do to make it happen?

With Regards

john

By: Mil

Mil — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:58:43 +0000

Great idea – though not today, mind. Not if you’re actually trying to use the blessed beast anyway.

By: Quietzapple

Quietzapple — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:52:22 +0000

Maybe Facebook should be involved, but it should definitely NOT be in the hands of SKY.

The way the Lib-Dems are sinking Clegg’s presence will be a considerable concession by the PM.

I well recall the old pro Enoch Powell’s pretences that he was unaware of his opponents, let alone their names.

Brown Will remember that he IS in the driving seat, and we already know that his single mindedness is tendentiously misinterpreted by tory hacks & trolls blether 4 Chameleon that when he decides when he will say and what he will say he is dithering and obdurate.

I guess he will offer a debate to Chameleon. It would be more appropriate if he offered one to Ashcroft imho.

By: RobT

RobT — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:39:45 +0000

Americans protest both for and against Health care reforms; Italian football supporters protest when changes are proposed which threaten the culture of their game; Ireland votes ‘No’ to Europe and they have to vote again (presumably until they get the answer ‘right’);

In England politicians say “we need to have the debate” when they’ve no intention of changing their minds; the state finds ever new ways to interfere in peoples private lives (from child-minding to id cards); people are pushed over and killed in the street, or shot in the head on the tube by the police.

The electorate choose to do nothing. Not because we don’t care but because it makes no difference any more.

Moving a four-yearly vote to the internet doesn’t in itself mean people will be more engaged in the political process. The spin-machine will still interfere in the process, and the victorious party will march on.

And that’s really sad.

By: Chris Gerhard

Chris Gerhard — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 14:57:58 +0000

“If you want to give greater ownership of the next election to the people who matter, the concerned civic minded citizens who care about the world around them” then give them a voting system where their votes count, then move the debate on line.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:21:07 +0000

I like the idea, in principle, but would it actually do much beyond making people *feel* more engaged (not that that’s a bad thing in itself)? As you say, in the US equivalent, “4000 people per minute commented on the live feed” – no one can be reading all those comments, or even a reasonable sample of them. It becomes, effectively, broadcast-only, simply as a matter of scale.

By: Philip John

Philip John — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:14:53 +0000

I can see why Krishnan didn’t welcome the idea with open arms but if we’re going to incorporate social media into mainstream media (as Channel 4 are doing) we might as well get on with experiments like this.

By: Labour Matters

Labour Matters — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:48:51 +0000

Excellent idea Tom.