Thought that overall a good effort for Miliband. Ok for Bennett and Sturgeon. Farage went for a core vote strategy. As before, losers were those who weren't there.
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
We hear rather a lot from the public in election campaigns. It's non-stop "let's see what Mrs Miggins of Cirencester reckons" and then the public gets the last word in the form of a huge game of noughts and crosses (mainly crosses).
But I'm a member of the public and tune in to a leaders' debate to hear from the leaders. The tedious, constant clap-o-meter nonsense is just distracting. It isn't about gagging anyone - it's creating watchable TV
I'm in two minds. It did feel pretty unbalanced this evening, but the total silence of 5 years ago was a bit weird. The ITV one seemed pretty even, not too many oohs and aahs from the crowd, that sort of thing.
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
Warning - since I took the boring trouble of noting how I felt about each section of the debate, I will be regurgitating that as concisely as I can on here, which should surprise no one.
Biggest idiot of the night on now. Cameron now decides what the LibDems do and don't do. I am like the little girl who Dave tried to explain Tory education policy to. Bang, bang, bang
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
What is your evidence that the audience "was in no way Representative of the electorate as a whole." ?
Biggest idiot of the night on now. Cameron now decides what the LibDems do and don't do. I am like the little girl who Dave tried to explain Tory education policy to. Bang, bang, bang
Indeed. Alexander just said no "civilised" person would agree with Farage. Not going for working class votes, then, the Libs...
I'm in two minds. It did feel pretty unbalanced this evening, but the total silence of 5 years ago was a bit weird. The ITV one seemed pretty even, not too many oohs and aahs from the crowd, that sort of thing.
Personally, I think an advantage of silence is it makes the experience a little more like the leader speaking to you or to a small group, and the leaders themselves respond to it.
In that sort of atmosphere, you don't get semi-spontaneous rounds of applause or boos. People either warm to you or not, so you try to be warm, to connect, to project your personality and explain yourself. In the noisy audience scenario, you get people playing it for cheap reactions, and I don't find that as revealing or easy to connect with sat on my sofa.
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
What is your evidence that the audience "was in no way Representative of the electorate as a whole." ?
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.
That's right, their newsreaders greet and whine "what are we going to do?" live on air whenever there is a SNP victory - makes life easy seeing where their allegiances lie.
Judging by that huge applause and whooping for Sturgeon on voting SNP, this audience doesn't just seem left-wing, it seems highly Scottish nationalist. Has there been an infiltration?
I think after Sturgeon's performance- she is mighty- Englanders will not really mind if she has a say in England. She is so much better than the rest- give her a go.
I think that's very much the point - the media have been suppressing and traducing the SNP as crazed nationalists without letting people see that their within-UK policies might actually be quite popular.
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
What is your evidence that the audience "was in no way Representative of the electorate as a whole." ?
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
What is your evidence that the audience "was in no way Representative of the electorate as a whole." ?
See Tim Montgomerie
Absolutely risible.
I was thinking how biased the audience were a minute before he said it. Seemed a disproportionate amount of Scottish and Welsh Bats.
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
What is your evidence that the audience "was in no way Representative of the electorate as a whole." ?
See Tim Montgomerie
Absolutely risible.
I was thinking how biased the audience were a minute before he said it. Seemed a disproportionate amount of Scottish and Welsh Bats.
Or Bats rather! Though could be argued they're moon bats
For PB Kippers the BBC did not select the audience.
For JackW, many of those on here criticising the audience balance are PB Tories not PB kippers.
Duly noted .... so ....
For PB Kippers and some PB Tories the BBC did not select the audience.
OTOH they selected the selecters. It shows.
Oh my god you mean the audience "selecters" didn't stuff the place with 90% of Kippers ....
The issue has nothing to do with who the place is stuffed with.
American debates are held in audience silence. Australian debates are held in audience silence. ITV's debate was held in relative audience silence. BBC's debate has had the audience vocal all along.
The issue isn't that the audience isn't balanced, the odds of getting a balanced audience on every topic is slim to nil. The issue is that the BBC are allowing them to be vocal at all.
Lets gag the audience in an election debate !!
Well it's a view but a pretty grubby one.
So American debates are grubby? Australian debates are grubby? ITV debate was grubby?
No the purpose of a debate is to have a debate between the people on stage representing the parties up for election, not a tiny group in the audience who will never represent the country accurately.
The decision to gag the electorate is grubby and foreign debates are worse for not having a vibrant audience dynamic.
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
Utter rubbish
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
What is your evidence that the audience "was in no way Representative of the electorate as a whole." ?
See Tim Montgomerie
Absolutely risible.
I was thinking how biased the audience were a minute before he said it. Seemed a disproportionate amount of Scottish and Welsh Bats.
Or Bats rather! Though could be argued they're moon bats
Comments
Having someone who wants the UK to end in the government of the UK is madness. Would the Athenians elect a Persian to lead them?
What are they afraid of ? Elections belong primarily to the electorate who should not be muted for the benefit of politicians and supine broadcasters.
People will have been swayed by the audience which was in no way representative of the electorate as a whole.
Curious reluctance to name the selectors [have rethought the sp. of that], though.
Time to get the kettle on- Danny Alexander is saying something or other....
News flash: Farage won't be holding the balance of power.
1 house every 7 minutes is 8 houses an hour
Which is 192 houses a day
Which is 70,080 houses a year.
There are 300,000 net migrants into the UK in the last year. At 4-5 per house those figures match. (if anything it should be quicker)
Wife not going to vote for him - but that is (votes) Labour -1 UKIP +1 here
In that sort of atmosphere, you don't get semi-spontaneous rounds of applause or boos. People either warm to you or not, so you try to be warm, to connect, to project your personality and explain yourself. In the noisy audience scenario, you get people playing it for cheap reactions, and I don't find that as revealing or easy to connect with sat on my sofa.
Pity DUP aren't standing in the mainland.
"Ed isn't crap tonight. He's hardly Martin Luther, but he's actually not too bad."
He's got to stop sounding like a Dalek.....Hard Working Families....OUR country....but as you say not TOO bad