Elections - should they be based on personality.

[Roxsie]

The most recent Labour advertisement shows David Cameron as a chameleon changing his colours but still remaining true blue deep down.
http://www.davethechameleon.com/

When Labour we first elected the adverts were "New Labour, New danger" with pictures of Tony Blair as a devil or with red eyes.
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2001/03/09/PAdemoneyes.gif

However should parties be allowed to use such personal attacks on leaders to try and convince the electorate?

Should we be allowing them to create negative and demonic images of their opposition? e.g Michael Howard as a vampire

Are we allowing our political system to move closer to that of the U.S?

[Darkscull]

i did a thread similar to this a while ago, can be found here: http://www.weebls-stuff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42688&highlight=british+politics

it's not quite the same, and there are new things to consider, but people may want to have a quick look over that before posting.

[Evil Sperm]

well it's all freedom of speech, isn't it

if you have a democracy there's gonna be propaganda everywhere

people SHOULD focus on policies and the logical side of things when electing governments, but it's not the way humans work

governments can exploit our emotions to control us

but the public can counter propaganda with propaganda

so if you take away the government's right to manipulate you through posters/news/speeches/etc. you take away your right to have a say..

when a party uses propaganda, aren't they trying to get us to agree with something we logically shouldn't be? or is it just a quick/exploitative way to get us to agree with stuff? depends on the context, really.
the day we have a sincere government who want to keep everyone safe, clothed, fed and inspired, we won't need politics..

for that to happen, though, we couldn't be mortal.
bugger.

[Meadow]

Strictly speaking, as the individual has no impact on whether Brown, Cameron, Campbell or dare I say it Griffin is PM in 2009, surely the focus should be on the personality of the local MP?

Personally I see nothing wrong with discrediting Nick Griffin as a fascist bastard who is fat, bumbling and incompetent. Such things are necessary, and if I have to put up Blair being depicted as evil, then that's ok. Intelligent people, ie those who will vote Labour anyway, will not be swayed by it in the same way far-right voters would.

[titanic]

it shouldnt be a factor, elections should be about who is best suited to run the counry, which unforyunatly has not happend for a while now,

politics have changed, its no longer "who is the best for representing my views and has me in there best interests" but now its "who is going to screw me over the least"

and yes the parties slur each other but i dont think it has much effect in the end as people dont remember that in the polling booth, they remember how much they have been burned in the past and thats what decides were there X goes

[Scribe]

Personally, I dont care either way. If a party A calls party B "evil" or something like that, fair play to them, because its either going to go one of two ways. The public will either be swayed towards party A's view (which is what political propaganda is all about), or the public will think that what party A is doing is childish, idiotic, etc, and put their support behind party B instead. Its a big risk to make personal attacks, and if the party in question wants to take that risk, then so be it. Its their fault if it backfires.

-Scribe

[renatzu]

Are we allowing our political system to move closer to that of the U.S?
I hate to burst your fantasy bubble, but you're already there. That image is just as antagonistic as a standard American political ad, maybe even more. Sure people here may call the other candidate a demonic baby strangler, but they'll do it with a little subtlety. That's just over the top "BLAIR IS SATAN!"

Now back on topic- you can not stop a party from saying anything. As long as they manage to avoid outright slander, it's free speech and you can't stop that. There are always going to be the idiots who think more about which candidate has the nicer smile than which candidate will help them, but you can't stop that. It's just an unfortunate part of politics. Not because anyone set it up that way, but because of the way human nature is, personality is always going to become an issue.

[original sunrise]

No it should not be based on personnality, i know plenty of peopel with no personallity and they have excellent ideals and views.

they might bore you while they tell you, or bite your head off while they tell you but they still might have what it takes to turn this place around more so tahn what we have on offer today.

Does it matter how they do teh job as once the number 10 doors closed they get on with it anyway ( or not as it seems)

[metalchris]

As a country where free speech is (supposed to be) held dear, the concept of personalities and personality attacks in Politics are always going to be around.

I personally believe that Politics should be centred around the policies of the political party and whether those policies are fit to run the country. However, personalities of candidates are a focus for people - for example, people in society with a lack of knowledge (not neccesarily intelligence, just the required education) regarding the effects of policies and a lack of interest in the associated debate will possibly fall back onto the concept of "Well, he seems like a nice man on the television." It therefore stands to reason that some political messages are going to directed towards making these voters believe that Candidate A is nice and Candidate B is evil.

To be honest, when Politics resorts to the point of mudslinging at personalities, it says something about the Parties and their level of sophistication in the political realm.

[original sunrise]

I hate to burst your fantasy bubble, but you're already there. That image is just as antagonistic as a standard American political ad, maybe even more. Sure people here may call the other candidate a demonic baby strangler, but they'll do it with a little subtlety. That's just over the top "BLAIR IS SATAN!"

Now back on topic- you can not stop a party from saying anything. As long as they manage to avoid outright slander, it's free speech and you can't stop that. There are always going to be the idiots who think more about which candidate has the nicer smile than which candidate will help them, but you can't stop that. It's just an unfortunate part of politics. Not because anyone set it up that way, but because of the way human nature is, personality is always going to become an issue.


Its not right but its true and if all candidates stood behind canvase the whole time, there would come into play there views and promises but its the nicest voice that explains them that would replace the nicest smile.

[flamelitface]

Well, Charles Kennedy was removed from being the leader of Liberal Democrats because he had a drinking problem, even though he defeated it. People seem to want a leader who simply has nothing wrong in their life, which is silly, because it means they have no experience in solving problems. If anything, I'd say I respect Charles Kennedy more so for overcoming a problem like that.

[Darkscull]

Well, Charles Kennedy was removed from being the leader of Liberal Democrats because he had a drinking problem, even though he defeated it.

that was just the excuse. everyone knew he had a drinking problem long before that, it just wasn't 'official'.
they wanted to get a new leader in to compete with the 'fresh new image' of the conservatives.
ie. the tories have a pwetty leader and the lib dems want to play along too. (although they ended up getting someone just as old as charles kennedy).
labour would do the same, but tony blair is now deaf, dumb, and blind, and is just clinging onto the PMship like a baby sloth on a branch.

[Roxsie]

Actually they were fine with him when he had the drinking problem. It was when he stopped that they got rid of him.

[Smokey]

The enitre political system in most democracies is flawed. Voters are generally massively ineducated on what the candidates will do if elected and will just vote for the candidate they feel they should based on their class and what the papers have been saying. This is partly due to parties not wanting to commit themselves to promises they can't keep.

Imagine if the Lib Dems came out in the next election and said they would raise takes to invest extra in the NHS. They would lose votes due to the tax raise when the same people who didn't vote for them will later complain about underinvestment in the NHS. It always someone else who should pay and fix things.

Politics is fucked up good and proper into a glorified popularity contest. If I could I'd vote Looney, it makes sense.

Check out the website if only for a laugh. (http://www.omrlp.com/)

[SpunkyBackpack]

I think the wider problem of politcal parties in the UK at the moment is that none of them seem to know what they stand for. The idea behind democracy is that parties set out what they believe and what they plan to do should they get elected and the people then vote for the ideologes closest to their hearts. Fantastic in theory, but...

What has happened recently is that these parties now care less about upholding what they are supposed to stand for and more about 'getting into power'. It's little wonder that political parties sound more and more similar these days as all they tend to do is to tell the people what they want to hear. An example of this is the recent 'transformation' of the Conservative party, a clear attempt to 'get into power' at any cost, even at the cost or their core values, the values that their mebers and supporters hold dear.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for listening to the people etc. However it seems to me that politcal parties are there to give people an option and if they don't agree with you then at least you had your say and got your point across.

Instead they act like the Frech Revolutionaries. 'I need to know where that crowd is going so that I may lead them'.

NO!!!!

Say what you think, what you believe in and let your electrate decide.