Thursday, May 6, 2010

promises vs. dire predictions

Election in England -- today, or tomorrow, the 7th??
Maybe tomorrow here, but today there.
Or other way around, with Time Difference.

Three candidates:
Gordon Brown, Labour Party
David Cameron, Conservative Party
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat Party

Last Friday, arrived home at night after work -- on C-Span was feature about political advertising: unlike here in U.S., in England they don't allow paid advertising for political campaigns on television. Instead some air time is given, set aside, for each candidate and they can say their message in that time.

It's to prevent money from being too big a factor in elections.

C-Span ran some of the program of each candidate. Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron used same technique: their ad (or, "program") consisted of a sarcastic satire of what conditions would be like in their country if the other guy won. Brown's program painted a dark picture of how terrible things would be if Cameron wins; Cameron's program predicted drastic problems if Brown were to win.

I was walking around my house, doing things, and listening to this.
(Pajamas and socks on; cat food and fresh water for the furry-man; ice water; dishes; put things away; face-wash, moisturizer...)
And was just thinking, "I wish they would say, in a positive manner, what they themselves are going to DO, instead of predicting disaster from the other one," when --
Nick Clegg came on and did that.

He didn't talk about the other two; he was filmed walking toward the camera -- like, "moving forward," and talking about the good things his administration would accomplish for the people, if he is elected. (There were a bunch of pieces of paper strewn around him and behind him, on the grass -- think that was to represent broken promises under other administrations, not sure....).

The sad fact -- Nick Clegg is, I'm guessing, the candidate who can't win. The fact that the other two engaged in almost identical tearing-down of one another and seemed to ignore Clegg -- that probably means they are the two with the best chance to win, so they slip down immediately into the ubiquitous and obnoxious "negative campaigning."

Ergh.

-30-

No comments:

Post a Comment