I think that bar the attack on the audience, Farage has been doing okay with his target audience. If I were him, I'd not use *immigration* as a phrase so often.
His point about primary school places was perfectly reasonable and he termed it *population rise* and us not being in a position to cope with it. More of that tone wouldn't sound so prickly.
I'm a right-winger who believes strongly in immigration (I grew up in a foreign country) and would be OK with increasing rather than cutting it.
But even I'm shocked at how one-sided the audience is. Very left-wing economically and clearly pro-immigration. I'm pro-immigration but expect to be drowned out normally by opponents, why is this audience so pro it?
I wonder whether this audience was selected as a balanced representation of the five parties involved, rather than a balanced representation of the country?
It's a BBC audience. res Ipsa Loquitur. Mr Farage knew that so he has pandered to them forcing them 9and the BBC) to admit that they are biased by their reactions.
Wow. No claps at all for Farage on restricting immigration, but loud applause for Wood arguing against him. This is clearly a completely unbalanced audience.
It's absolutely stupid. Immigration is at the top of the concern list with pretty much all pollsters. Pro-immigration stances should not be getting applause from the audience if it was politically balanced.
I don't think it's at all appropriate in a debate to have audience applause/laughter etc - it makes the at home audience affected by the views of the people not standing rather than what's being discussed.
The debate should be had in stony silence with only those on stage talking. The audience shouldn't be an issue.
I don't think it's at all appropriate in a debate to have audience applause/laughter etc - it makes the at home audience affected by the views of the people not standing rather than what's being discussed.
The debate should be had in stony silence with only those on stage talking. The audience shouldn't be an issue.
Wow. No claps at all for Farage on restricting immigration, but loud applause for Wood arguing against him. This is clearly a completely unbalanced audience.
The Kippers in the audience blew their cover in the first few minutes with unholy whoops on Farage's opening statement. They were probably ejected for that. Stupid Kippers blow it again.
I don't think it's at all appropriate in a debate to have audience applause/laughter etc - it makes the at home audience affected by the views of the people not standing rather than what's being discussed.
The debate should be had in stony silence with only those on stage talking. The audience shouldn't be an issue.
From memory so too were the Australian debates when I grew up there. It's not hard to be professional about this.
Wow. No claps at all for Farage on restricting immigration, but loud applause for Wood arguing against him. This is clearly a completely unbalanced audience.
The Kippers in the audience blew their cover in the first few minutes with unholy whoops on Farage's opening statement. They were probably ejected for that. Stupid Kippers blow it again.
They need to take lessons on planting from Scottish Labour sounds like
The Welsh woman won't say the reason fewer Indian doctors are coming in is because we're part of the EU. Being part of the EU forces us to have a discriminatory immigration system.
Wow. No claps at all for Farage on restricting immigration, but loud applause for Wood arguing against him. This is clearly a completely unbalanced audience.
The Kippers in the audience blew their cover in the first few minutes with unholy whoops on Farage's opening statement. They were probably ejected for that. Stupid Kippers blow it again.
It's not just Kippers. The majority of Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters support restricting immigration. To have absolute stony silence for the restrained immigration position is clearly an audience that does not come close to representing the general public. This is a big failure on behalf of the BBC in my opinion.
In every single constituency a plurality of voters got an MP they voted for.
Plus local representatives represent all constituents for their casework not just party supporters. I know people who've had casework dealt with by an MP of a party the oppose but we're greatful still that their issue was dealt with. If you break the constituency link then who deals with that casework?
Quite, and a plurality is non necessarily a majority. So my statement is fact.
I'm not suggesting completely-breaking the constituency link. It's not as if there's no alternative to single-member seats, the mere imaginative creations of the Boundary Commissioners. In Northern Ireland, something like 90% of voters elect someone to the Assembly.
Your statement is a fact but a red herring. Each and every constituency has the most popular (by plurality) local representatives. Your reforms would destroy that link so stop throwing away red herrings. Or are you claiming everyone would have a majority selected local individual who represents them under PR?
On the contrary, yours is the red herring. What use is a mere plurality for anyone, when the majority elect no-one? What is the purpose of an election, other than to elect? If a significant minority (never mind an actual majority, as presently) elect no-one, the system fails its own most basic test.
No wonder only 20% can name their MP. Why should they be able to? The majority elected no-one!
Such disengagement can not be looked upon with equanimity, surely?
Wow. No claps at all for Farage on restricting immigration, but loud applause for Wood arguing against him. This is clearly a completely unbalanced audience.
The Kippers in the audience blew their cover in the first few minutes with unholy whoops on Farage's opening statement. They were probably ejected for that. Stupid Kippers blow it again.
They need to take lessons on planting from Scottish Labour sounds like
Well Scottish Labour have the advantage of actually running BBC Scotland. Makes it a lot easier for them to load the audience as they did in Aberdeen.
40% of NHS staff are foreign born? So now they are resorting to just plain lies.
Racist lefties thinking that non whites are foreigners
40% of British registered doctors trained overseas. I do not know the figure for nurses but probably not far different.
I think Bennett is right on this.
The point that Farage should make is to agree w Sturgeon and say yes we need immigration that suits our needs, and if we are short od NHS staff no problem to get immigrants
Watching the antics and the baying audience haven't we just watched question time the only difference being the panel are stood up.
Possibly. Why do the 'contestants' have to stand up anyway. Maybe we should have Bruce Forsyth as the quizmaster and cards with deficit numbers. 'Higher higher...' Who is spinning the wheel of misfortune in this pathetic example of political discourse?
40% of NHS staff are foreign born? So now they are resorting to just plain lies.
Racist lefties thinking that non whites are foreigners
40% of British registered doctors trained overseas. I do not know the figure for nurses but probably not far different.
I think Bennett is right on this.
But presumably you think it's appalling that we have to rely on asset stripping the developing world?
I do. I would much rather train British school leavers by expanding UK medical and nursing schools, but it is not an instant solution. This country has relied on immigrants to run the NHS for about 70 years.
In every single constituency a plurality of voters got an MP they voted for.
Plus local representatives represent all constituents for their casework not just party supporters. I know people who've had casework dealt with by an MP of a party the oppose but we're greatful still that their issue was dealt with. If you break the constituency link then who deals with that casework?
Quite, and a plurality is non necessarily a majority. So my statement is fact.
I'm not suggesting completely-breaking the constituency link. It's not as if there's no alternative to single-member seats, the mere imaginative creations of the Boundary Commissioners. In Northern Ireland, something like 90% of voters elect someone to the Assembly.
Your statement is a fact but a red herring. Each and every constituency has the most popular (by plurality) local representatives. Your reforms would destroy that link so stop throwing away red herrings. Or are you claiming everyone would have a majority selected local individual who represents them under PR?
On the contrary, yours is the red herring. What use is a mere plurality for anyone, when the majority elect no-one? What is the purpose of an election, other than to elect? If a significant minority (never mind an actual majority, as presently) elect no-one, the system fails its own most basic test.
No wonder only 20% can name their MP. Why should they be able to? The majority elected no-one!
Such disengagement can not be looked upon with equanimity, surely?
Name a single democratic single-constituency system where a majority elect their first choice representative? Your claim is a red herring as it doesn't exist. No system ever has done that, so its redundant. When no system allows a majority, then the plurality is democratic.
I used to really like him, but he's lost the plot over the last decade and isn't in control tonight. Julia Thingy on ITV was infinitely better, even if she dressed like a dental hygienist.
I don't think it's at all appropriate in a debate to have audience applause/laughter etc - it makes the at home audience affected by the views of the people not standing rather than what's being discussed.
The debate should be had in stony silence with only those on stage talking. The audience shouldn't be an issue.
From memory so too were the Australian debates when I grew up there. It's not hard to be professional about this.
I think the ship pretty much sailed on professionalism when the Prime Minister of the day wriggled and squirmed to avoid the debates and left us with this slightly bizarre mishmash of amateur events. Ironically, on the orders of an Australian.
People are sufficiently self aware to realise that they may have some views which make them look like a git in the eyes of others. So a lot of people who are anti-immigration won't applaud it. I think Farage has made an error in treating the audience like a UKIP rally which would lap that sort of thing up because there aren't contrary voices around and people sitting next to fans who may think ill of them.
That said, the audience should have been told to shut the F up from the start. It doesn't add atmosphere, it's just annoying. The real winner of this debate is ITV - theirs was simply much better done. Dimbleby has seen better decades too, to be fair.
Wow. No claps at all for Farage on restricting immigration, but loud applause for Wood arguing against him. This is clearly a completely unbalanced audience.
The Kippers in the audience blew their cover in the first few minutes with unholy whoops on Farage's opening statement. They were probably ejected for that. Stupid Kippers blow it again.
It's not just Kippers. The majority of Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters support restricting immigration. To have absolute stony silence for the restrained immigration position is clearly an audience that does not come close to representing the general public. This is a big failure on behalf of the BBC in my opinion.
Exactly. The BBC farm it out to a Guardianista type of organisation and then do a Pontius Pilate and say "oh look it was not us " that picked a large public sector and welfare sucking bunch that hate capitalism...
I don't think it's at all appropriate in a debate to have audience applause/laughter etc - it makes the at home audience affected by the views of the people not standing rather than what's being discussed.
The debate should be had in stony silence with only those on stage talking. The audience shouldn't be an issue.
From memory so too were the Australian debates when I grew up there. It's not hard to be professional about this.
I think the ship pretty much sailed on professionalism when the Prime Minister of the day wriggled and squirmed to avoid the debates and left us with this slightly bizarre mishmash of amateur events. Ironically, on the orders of an Australian.
Whether an individual is here or not has nothing to do with the professionality of hosting a program. The BBC clearly haven't given the audience an instruction to stay silent and Dimbleby hasn't once said they should, this is totally unprofessional.
These debates show what Britain actually thinks. Not what the rightwing press shrieks that it should think.
eg immigration.
No. The polls show what Britain actually thinks about immigration. These debates show nothing. Of course you won't accept that because your view is - according to the polls - very much in the minority.
Comments
His point about primary school places was perfectly reasonable and he termed it *population rise* and us not being in a position to cope with it. More of that tone wouldn't sound so prickly.
The debate should be had in stony silence with only those on stage talking. The audience shouldn't be an issue.
Slipping into malc mode
I'm hoping they start talking about drug legalisation, so they can cheer for that too. Then I'll be happy.
I
V
Perhaps for CCHQ, this was never about Ed.
I think Bennett is right on this.
No wonder only 20% can name their MP. Why should they be able to? The majority elected no-one!
Such disengagement can not be looked upon with equanimity, surely?
Just not open borders
American and Australian etc debates are held in silence. Even ITV's debate was (mostly) silent. This is poor from the BBC
And I'm not a Kipper, I despise UKIP (and Labour and every other party on stage).
Why do the 'contestants' have to stand up anyway. Maybe we should have Bruce Forsyth as the quizmaster and cards with deficit numbers. 'Higher higher...'
Who is spinning the wheel of misfortune in this pathetic example of political discourse?
That said, the audience should have been told to shut the F up from the start. It doesn't add atmosphere, it's just annoying. The real winner of this debate is ITV - theirs was simply much better done. Dimbleby has seen better decades too, to be fair.
Big change since the first 15 minutes.
eg immigration.
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
Its fair to say my wife, I and my older children do not always agree, especially on politics- but by god we all think Ed is just awful.
The Greenies will work with EdM. Ms PC already said she'd work with anyone.