英国大选最后一场电视辩论
英国议会制辩论基本知识

英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题,应该对移民实行更严格的限制。
尊敬的评委、各位辩友们,今天我们要就“应该对移民实行更严格的限制”这一议题展开辩论。
首先,我们认为对移民实行更严格的限制是必要的。
随着全球化的发展,移民人数不断增加,这给接纳国家的社会、经济和文化带来了巨大的挑战。
严格限制移民可以有效控制人口流动,减少社会资源的压力,保护本国劳动力市场,确保国内就业机会。
其次,严格限制移民可以减少犯罪率。
一些移民可能会带来不良影响,包括犯罪行为。
通过限制移民,可以减少犯罪率,保障公民的安全和社会的稳定。
此外,严格限制移民也有利于维护国家的文化和传统。
移民的大量涌入可能会对本国的文化和传统构成威胁,导致社会价值观的混乱和文化冲突。
因此,通过限制移民,可以保护和传承本国的文化遗产。
然而,我们也要看到限制移民可能会带来的负面影响。
一些移民可能是为了逃避战争、迫害和贫困而来到接纳国家,对他们实行严格限制可能会剥夺他们的生存权利。
此外,一些移民也可能为接纳国家的经济和社会发展做出贡献,过于严格的限制可能会影响国家的发展和创新能力。
综上所述,我们认为对移民实行更严格的限制是必要的,但也需要考虑到对移民的人道主义关怀和对国家发展的积极影响。
希望各位评委和辩友们在辩论中能够充分思考,就这一议题做出理性和客观的判断。
谢谢!。
(完整版)英国议会制辩论规则

世界大专辩论赛(WUDC)的规则(英国议会制辩论赛)“辩题”,即辩论所围绕展开的议题。
辩题将辩手分为正反两方,且双方均有合理辩论的余地。
通常,辩题于各轮比赛开始前十五或三十分钟公布;每轮辩题均不相同。
有时,辩题范围(如“环境问题”,“国际关系”等)甚至辩题本身也会在大赛开始前公布。
辩题将在一个中央地点向所有辩手公布。
准备时间为十五至三十分钟,由大赛主办方规定。
通常,辩手在准备时间内可以与自己的搭档讨论。
某些情况下,主办方也允许辩手与教练或带队老师讨论。
此间,辩手可以参阅任何纸质资料。
世界大专辩论赛允许辩手在辩论过程中使用任何纸质材料;而其他比赛仅允许辩手在准备时间内使用事前准备好的资料。
准备期间,通常可以使用电子词典,但禁止使用其它一切电子设备。
辩论模式每场辩论由四队参加:正方两队,反方两队。
各队独立准备。
每队两名辩手,每位辩手按如下顺序陈词,不超过7分钟。
辩论模式简要辩手辩手名称时间正方一队,一辩首相"Prime Minister" 7 分钟反方一队,一辩反对党领袖"Leader of the Opposition" 7 分钟正方一队,二辩副首相"Deputy Prime Minister" 7 分钟反方一队,二辩反对党副领袖"Deputy Leader of the Opposition"7 分钟正方二队,一辩内阁成员"Member for the Government" 7 分钟反方二队,一辩反对党成员"Member for the Opposition" 7 分钟正方二队,二辩内阁党鞭陈词"Government Whip" 7 分钟反方二队,二辩反对党党鞭陈词"Opposition Whip" 7 分钟议会制辩论质询在所有陈词中,除第一分钟及最后一分钟外,辩手都可以口头示意或直接起立提出质询。
英国议会制辩论基本知识

英国议会制辩论基本知识
辩题,应该取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度。
尊敬的评委、各位观众,我是今天的辩手,我将就“应该取消
英国议会上议院的贵族制度”这一辩题进行辩论。
首先,我将从历史、民主和效率等方面进行论证。
首先,贵族制度在英国议会上议院的历史根深蒂固,但随着时
代的变迁,这一制度已经不再适应现代社会的发展。
贵族制度的存
在是对平等和民主的一种隐性歧视,它将权力集中在少数特权阶层
手中,而忽视了广大民众的利益和声音。
取消贵族制度可以使议会
更加民主化,让更多普通人有机会参与政治决策,实现真正的民主。
其次,贵族制度在英国议会上议院中可能会影响决策的效率。
贵族议员通常是因为家族地位或遗传而获得议员职位,而非凭借实
际能力和才华。
这样一来,议会的决策可能会受到贵族议员的个人
利益和偏见的影响,而偏离了公共利益。
取消贵族制度可以使议会
更加专业化和高效,让真正具备能力和经验的人才参与政治决策,
为国家的发展和民众的利益服务。
综上所述,取消英国议会上议院的贵族制度是符合时代潮流和
民主发展的需要的,它有利于提高议会的民主化程度和决策的效率,为国家的长远发展和民众的利益谋福祉。
因此,我强烈主张取消英
国议会上议院的贵族制度。
谢谢!。
英国三大政党教育政见之论析:政党政治视角

英国三大政党教育政见之论析:政党政治视角 何伟强1,2 (1.浙江大学教育学院,浙江杭州 310028;2.浙江外国语学院教育学院,浙江杭州 310012)摘 要:文章以2010年英国大选为主要背景,择取了三大政党竞选纲领与电视辩论文本中的教育议题作为研究对象,从政党政治的视角,对各自的教育政见进行了论析。
研究指出:三大政党在意识形态上呈现趋同态势,其相应的教育政见也呈现出大同小异的特征;注重各个社会群体之间的利益平衡,兼顾公平与效率,将成为新一届政府教育政策的可能价值选择。
关键词:政党政治;教育政见;竞选纲领;教育政策 英国是一个议会民主制国家,政党政治一直伴随其议会历史的发展而发展。
英国政党从最早的托利党和辉格党两党对峙,发展到今天工党、保守党和自由民主党三足鼎立的格局。
从2010年4月12日布朗首相解散议会开始,英国正式拉开了大选序幕,三大政党相继推出了各自政党的竞选纲领(Manifesto)。
政党竞选纲领一般规定了政党在未来一定历史时期的奋斗目标以及实现这些目标的行动路线,它是政党关于内政、外交等诸多方面政见的官方阐述[1]。
一般来说,在大选之前各个政党会依据面临的社会形势和本党所持的意识形态提出各自的竞选纲领,获胜执政后适当调整竞选纲领,并据此颁布与贯彻本党的施政纲领。
“教育问题”是英国三大政党都重点关注的议题之一,它们在各自的竞选纲领中都花了重要篇幅来阐述各自的教育政见。
这些教育政见是各大政党在大选期间针对英国的社会形势与教育状况,所提出的关于未来执政时期将据以推动的教育政策蓝本(如图1所示)。
图1 英国政党教育政见与教育政策转化示意图 本文拟以2010年英国大选三大政党竞选纲领中的教育政见作为主要研究对象,并结合大选中三大政党关于教育议题的电视辩论,运用政策分析的方法,旨在从政党政治视角解析三大政党教育政见的特征,以期把握英国教育政策的可能价值选择。
一、英国大选面临的社会形势与教育状况 (一)社会形势作者简介:何伟强(1980-),男,浙江天台人,浙江大学教育学院比较教育学专业2008级博士研究生,浙江外国语学院教育学院讲师。
英国大选和新政府面临的挑战

、
在这次被舆论认为 “ 创造历史”的竞选中,三大
政党采用多种媒体进行宣传和竞争
英 国大选第一 次 引入 电视 辩论这 种政 治营 销方式 。保 守党领袖 卡梅 伦极力 主张采 取 美国式 的竞选 电视 辩论 ,要 ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ
经过激烈角逐 ,英 国选 民选 出了新 一届 议会下院的 60 5 名议 员 。如同选前许多专 家所预料 的 ,在此次大 选中没有
一
借助 电视辩论来稳 固保守党在公众中的形象 ,争取更多选
民的支持 。工党领 袖布 朗希望 借此 机会改 善工 党 民调落后 的处 境 ,改 变在角 逐 中的劣势 。 自民党领 袖克 莱格 愿意与
个政党 在议会 下 院中 获得多 数席位 。工党 的支 持率 大幅
下 降 ,仅获得 2. 的选 票 ,是 18 年 以来最 低 的,共 获 9% 1 93
得报 刊的支持 。工 党 和保守党 在大 选前 进行 “ 签名 大战 ” , 借助专 家和 “ 外部 人士 ”来支 持 自己的论点 。各政党 还纷 纷 利 用媒 体 打 出 “ 人牌 ”和 “ 夫 家庭 牌 ” 。布 朗 的夫人 莎 拉 策划 了布朗 的电视 采访 节 目,布 朗在谈 到爱子早 逝 时潸
然 泪下 的场面感 动 了不少 观众 。卡梅 伦在 网上推 出其夫 人 莎 曼莎年轻 时 的时 尚照 片 ,并且把 莎曼 莎怀 孕时 的生活 片
下滑 的趋 势 ,寻求连 续 四度 胜 出 ; 守党携 近年来 民凋上 保
升的优 势 ,打 出 “ 变革 ”旗号 ,一 举 夺 回 19 失 去 的 9 7年
1 4
得 28个席 位 ,比上届减 少 9 个席 位 ,成 为议会第二大 党 。 5 1 但 工 党 的落败 不 足 以让 民调一 直领 先 的反对 党保 守 党获 得 多数帘位 。保守党获得 3. 的选票 ,获得 36 61 % 0 个席位 ,比
肯尼迪与尼克松电视辩论及公共广播电视法案

第十一小组组员:安嫩 何显丽 汪全艳 林晓伟
• 一、首次电视辩论的背景 • 二、政客利用电视,推动了电视的普及和 推广 • 三、美国大选中电视媒体的宣传功能
一、首次电视辩论的背景
• 1960年9月26日,在芝加哥、哥伦比亚广播公司的一个电 视直播间里,总统候选人尼克松和肯尼迪站在摄像机和聚 光灯前,进行了美国总统竞选历史上第一次电视辩论。
1961年1月20日正式宣誓肯尼迪就任美国第三十五任总统
• 肯尼迪、尼克松开辟了电视辩论的时代 • 电视作为总统竞选政治活动中的决定性媒介立刻脱颖而出。
二、政客利用电视,推动电视的普及和推广
• 肯尼迪总统是第一位充分认识到电视的传播潜力, 并充分发挥电视功能的政治家,正如罗斯福总统 是第一位深谙广播魔力的领导人一样。 • 大约从20世纪50 年代中期开始电视新闻在美国开 始受人青睐,尤其在政治领域,比如总统竞选, 电视新闻的作用日趋显著。 • 1963年,在美国依靠电视了解新闻的人第一次超 过依靠报纸了解新闻的人,这是一个历史性转变, 标志电视新闻时代的到来。
容是放宽《1990年广播电视法案》中有关媒体所 有权的限制,以及建立英国数字地面广播的管理 机构。
1996年广播电视法案主要涉及内容:
• 第一部分涉及电视,第二部分涉及广播。
• 第三部分授权独立电视委员会确保某些体育赛事能够免费
报道和播出。
• 第四部分关于英国广播公司的传输网络资产、权利和债务
转移的有关规定。 • 第五部分涉及版税及相关事宜。 • 第六部分是综合部分,包括传输系统的新标准,有关有无 资格拥有执照的新规定,以及有关媒体所有权的新限制性 规定。
三、 美国大选中电视媒体的宣传功能
•
英国会议制度辩论稿模板
尊敬的主持人、各位评委、尊敬的同学们:大家好!今天,我有幸站在这里,与大家一同探讨英国议会制度的优缺点。
首先,请允许我对英国议会制度的基本情况做一个简要介绍。
英国议会制度源于13世纪的《大宪章》,至今已有近800年的历史。
英国议会是英国政治的中心舞台,是英国的最高立法机关。
英国国会为两院制,由上议院和下议院组成。
上议院又称贵族院,主要由王室后裔、世袭贵族、新封贵族、上诉法院法官和教会的重要人物组成。
上议院议员不由选举产生,部分是世袭贵族。
上议院是英国最高司法机关,议长由大法官兼任。
和下议院相比,上议院的权力相对有限,保留着历史上遗留下来的司法权,有权审查下议院通过的法案,并通过必要的修正案,还可以要求推迟它不赞成的立法,最长可达一年。
下议院又称平民院或众议院,其议员由直接选举产生,任期5年。
下院的主要职权是立法、监督财政和政府。
英国全国被划分为多个选民人数基本相同的选区(选区的划分由一个独立的委员会决定),每个选区选举一名下议院议员。
大多数选区议员是一个政党的成员,但是没有政党背景的人士也可以参加选举。
通常情况下,英国下议院总有一个拥有绝对多数的政党,该党领袖被国王任命为首相。
下议院第二大党的领袖则成为反对党领袖。
接下来,我将从以下几个方面分析英国议会制度的优缺点。
一、英国议会制度的优点1. 分权制衡:英国议会制度实现了立法、行政、司法三权分立,有效地避免了权力的过度集中,保证了政治的稳定和民主。
2. 民主参与:英国议会制度通过直接选举的方式,使广大民众有机会参与政治,行使自己的民主权利。
3. 政策连续性:英国议会制度允许政府在保持多数支持的情况下,连续执掌政权,保证政策的稳定性和连续性。
4. 灵活性:英国议会制度下,法案需要经过两院审议,有利于充分讨论和修改,使立法更加完善。
二、英国议会制度的缺点1. 效率问题:英国议会制度中,法案需要经过两院审议,有时可能导致立法过程变得繁琐,影响政策的实施效率。
2010英国大选最终电视辩论全文
DAVID DIMBLEBY:Thank you,Mr Clegg.Gordon Brown.
GORDON BROWN:There's a lot to this job,and as you saw yesterday,I don't get all of it right,but I do know how to run the economy in good times and in bad.When the banks collapsed,I took immediate action to stop crisis becoming calamity and to stop a recession becoming a depression.As a result of that,Britain is now on the road to recovery.But as we meet tonight,economies in Europe are in peril,and there is a risk of dragging us into recession.So I'm determined that nothing will happen in Britain that will put us back in that position,and I want to set out my plan,and why this year is so important.Support the economy now,and you will ensure that there are jobs and a recovery,and ensure that we can have the resources for deficit reduction.Shrink the economy now,as the Conservatives would do,and they risk your jobs, living standards and tax credits.So it's not my future that matters,it's your future that's on the ballot paper next Thursday.And I'm the one to fight for your future.
2008年总统竞选第三次电视辩论稿(英文)
October 15, 2008The Third McCain-Obama Presidential DebateSENS. MCCAIN AND OBAMA PARTICIPATE IN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBA TE, HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY, HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORKSPEAKERS:U.S. SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN (AZ)REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEU. S. SENATOR BARACK OBAMA (IL)DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEEBOB SCHIEFFER, MODERATOR[*] SCHIEFFER: Good evening. And welcome to the third and last presidential debate of 2008, sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates. I'm Bob Schieffer of CBS News.The rules tonight are simple. The subject is domestic policy. I will divide the next hour-and-a-half into nine-minute segments.I will ask a question at the beginning of each segment. Each candidate will then have two minutes to respond, and then we'll have a discussion.I'll encourage them to ask follow-up questions of each other. If they do not, I will.The audience behind me has promised to be quiet, except at this moment, when we welcome Barack Obama and John McCain.(APPLAUSE)Gentlemen, welcome.By now, we've heard all the talking points, so let's try to tell the people tonight some things that they -- they haven't heard. Let's get to it.Another very bad day on Wall Street, as both of you know. Both of you proposed new plans this week to address the economic crisis.Senator McCain, you proposed a $52 billion plan that includes new tax cuts on capital gains, tax breaks for seniors, write-offs for stock losses, among other things.Senator Obama, you proposed $60 billion in tax cuts for middle- income and lower-income people, more tax breaks to create jobs, new spending for public works projects to create jobs.I will ask both of you: Why is your plan better than his?Senator McCain, you go first.MCCAIN: Well, let -- let me say, Bob, thank you.And thanks to Hofstra.And, by the way, our beloved Nancy Reagan is in the hospital tonight, so our thoughts and prayers are going with you.It's good to see you again, Senator Obama.Americans are hurting right now, and they're angry. They're hurting, and they're angry. They're innocent victims of greed and excess on Wall Street and as well as Washington, D.C. And they're angry, and they have every reason to be angry.And they want this country to go in a new direction. And there are elements of my proposal thatyou just outlined which I won't repeat.But we also have to have a short-term fix, in my view, and long- term fixes.Let me just talk to you about one of the short-term fixes.The catalyst for this housing crisis was the Fannie and Freddie Mae that caused subprime lending situation that now caused the housing market in America to collapse.I am convinced that, until we reverse this continued decline in home ownership and put a floor under it, and so that people have not only the hope and belief they can stay in their homes and realize the American dream, but that value will come up.Now, we have allocated $750 billion. Let's take 300 of that billion and go in and buy those home loan mortgages and negotiate with those people in their homes, 11 million homes or more, so that they can afford to pay the mortgage, stay in their home.Now, I know the criticism of this.MCCAIN: Well, what about the citizen that stayed in their homes? That paid their mortgage payments? It doesn't help that person in their home if the next door neighbor's house is abandoned. And so we've got to reverse this. We ought to put the homeowners first. And I am disappointed that Secretary Paulson and others have not made that their first priority.SCHIEFFER: All right. Senator Obama?OBAMA: Well, first of all, I want to thank Hofstra University and the people of New York for hosting us tonight and it's wonderful to join Senator McCain again, and thank you, Bob.I think everybody understands at this point that we are experiencing the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. And the financial rescue plan that Senator McCain and I supported is an important first step. And I pushed for some core principles: making sure that taxpayer can get their money back if they're putting money up. Making sure that CEOs are not enriching themselves through this process.And I think that it's going to take some time to work itself out. But what we haven't yet seen is a rescue package for the middle class. Because the fundamentals of the economy were weak even before this latest crisis. So I've proposed four specific things that I think can help.Number one, let's focus on jobs. I want to end the tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and provide a tax credit for every company that's creating a job right here in America. Number two, let's help families right away by providing them a tax cut -- a middle-class tax cut for people making less than $200,000, and let's allow them to access their IRA accounts without penalty if they're experiencing a crisis.Now Senator McCain and I agree with your idea that we've got to help homeowners. That's why we included in the financial package a proposal to get homeowners in a position where they can renegotiate their mortgages.I disagree with Senator McCain in how to do it, because the way Senator McCain has designed his plan, it could be a giveaway to banks if we're buying full price for mortgages that now are worth a lot less. And we don't want to waste taxpayer money. And we've got to get the financial package working much quicker than it has been working.Last point I want to make, though. We've got some long-term challenges in this economy that have to be dealt with. We've got to fix our energy policy that's giving our wealth away. We've got to fix our health care system and we've got to invest in our education system for every young person to be able to learn.SCHIEFFER: All right. Would you like to ask him a question?MCCAIN: No. I would like to mention that a couple days ago Senator Obama was out in Ohio and he had an encounter with a guy who's a plumber, his name is Joe Wurzelbacher.Joe wants to buy the business that he has been in for all of these years, worked 10, 12 hours a day. And he wanted to buy the business but he looked at your tax plan and he saw that he was going to pay much higher taxes.You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream.Now Senator Obama talks about the very, very rich. Joe, I want to tell you, I'll not only help you buy that business that you worked your whole life for and be able -- and I'll keep your taxes low and I'll provide available and affordable health care for you and your employees.And I will not have -- I will not stand for a tax increase on small business income. Fifty percent of small business income taxes are paid by small businesses. That's 16 million jobs in America. And what you want to do to Joe the plumber and millions more like him is have their taxes increased and not be able to realize the American dream of owning their own business.SCHIEFFER: Is that what you want to do?MCCAIN: That's what Joe believes.OBAMA: He has been watching ads of Senator McCain's. Let me tell you what I'm actually going to do. I think tax policy is a major difference between Senator McCain and myself. And we both want to cut taxes, the difference is who we want to cut taxes for.Now, Senator McCain, the centerpiece of his economic proposal is to provide $200 billion in additional tax breaks to some of the wealthiest corporations in America. Exxon Mobil, and other oil companies, for example, would get an additional $4 billion in tax breaks.What I've said is I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent. If you make more -- if you make less than a quarter million dollars a year, then you will not see your income tax go up, your capital gains tax go up, your payroll tax. Not one dime. And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut. In fact, independent studies have looked at our respective plans and have concluded that I provide three times the amount of tax relief to middle-class families than Senator McCain does.OBAMA: Now, the conversation I had with Joe the plumber, what I essentially said to him was, "Five years ago, when you were in a position to buy your business, you needed a tax cut then." And what I want to do is to make sure that the plumber, the nurse, the firefighter, the teacher, the young entrepreneur who doesn't yet have money, I want to give them a tax break now. And that requires us to make some important choices.The last point I'll make about small businesses. Not only do 98 percent of small businesses make less than $250,000, but I also want to give them additional tax breaks, because they are the drivers of the economy. They produce the most jobs.MCCAIN: You know, when Senator Obama ended up his conversation with Joe the plumber -- we need to spread the wealth around. In other words, we're going to take Joe's money, give it to Senator Obama, and let him spread the wealth around.I want Joe the plumber to spread that wealth around. You told him you wanted to spread the wealth around.The whole premise behind Senator Obama's plans are class warfare, let's spread the wealth around.I want small businesses -- and by the way, the small businesses that we're talking about wouldreceive an increase in their taxes right now.Who -- why would you want to increase anybody's taxes right now? Why would you want to do that, anyone, anyone in America, when we have such a tough time, when these small business people, like Joe the plumber, are going to create jobs, unless you take that money from him and spread the wealth around.I'm not going to...OBAMA: OK. Can I...MCCAIN: We're not going to do that in my administration.OBAMA: If I can answer the question. Number one, I want to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans. Now, it is true that my friend and supporter, Warren Buffett, for example, could afford to pay a little more in taxes in order...MCCAIN: We're talking about Joe the plumber. OBAMA: ... in order to give -- in order to give additional tax cuts to Joe the plumber before he was at the point where he could make $250,000. Then Exxon Mobil, which made $12 billion, record profits, over the last several quarters, they can afford to pay a little more so that ordinary families who are hurting out there -- they're trying to figure out how they're going to afford food, how they're going to save for their kids' college education, they need a break.So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it.MCCAIN: Nobody likes taxes. Let's not raise anybody's taxes. OK?OBAMA: Well, I don't mind paying a little more.MCCAIN: The fact is that businesses in America today are paying the second highest tax rate of anywhere in the world. Our tax rate for business in America is 35 percent. Ireland, it's 11 percent. Where are companies going to go where they can create jobs and where they can do best in business?We need to cut the business tax rate in America. We need to encourage business.Now, of all times in America, we need to cut people's taxes. We need to encourage business, create jobs, not spread the wealth around.SCHIEFFER: All right. Let's go to another topic. It's related. So if you have other things you want to say, you can get back to that.This question goes to you first, Senator Obama.We found out yesterday that this year's deficit will reach an astounding record high $455 billion. Some experts say it could go to $1 trillion next year.Both of you have said you want to reduce the deficit, but the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget ran the numbers on both of your proposals and they say the cost of your proposals, even with the savings you claim can be made, each will add more than $200 billion to the deficit.Aren't you both ignoring reality? Won't some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated?Give us some specifics on what you're going to cut back.Senator Obama?OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important for the American public to understand that the $750 billion rescue package, if it's structured properly, and, as president, I will make sure it'sstructured properly, means that ultimately taxpayers get their money back, and that's important to understand.But there is no doubt that we've been living beyond our means and we're going to have to make some adjustments.Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut. I haven't made a promise about...SCHIEFFER: But you're going to have to cut some of these programs, certainly.OBAMA: Absolutely. So let me get to that. What I want to emphasize, though, is that I have been a strong proponent of pay-as- you-go. Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut so that it matches.OBAMA: And some of the cuts, just to give you an example, we spend $15 billion a year on subsidies to insurance companies. It doesn't -- under the Medicare plan -- it doesn't help seniors get any better. It's not improving our health care system. It's just a giveaway.We need to eliminate a whole host of programs that don't work. And I want to go through the federal budget line by line, page by page, programs that don't work, we should cut. Programs that we need, we should make them work better.Now, what is true is that Senator McCain and I have a difference in terms of the need to invest in America and the American people. I mentioned health care earlier.If we make investments now so that people have coverage, that we are preventing diseases, that will save on Medicare and Medicaid in the future.If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we're borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia.If we invest now in our young people and their ability to go to college, that will allow them to drive this economy into the 21st century.But what is absolutely true is that, once we get through this economic crisis and some of the specific proposals to get us out of this slump, that we're not going to be able to go back to our profligate ways.And we're going to have to embrace a culture and an ethic of responsibility, all of us, corporations, the federal government, and individuals out there who may be living beyond their means. SCHIEFFER: Time's up.Senator?MCCAIN: Well, thank you, Bob. I just want to get back to this home ownership. During the Depression era, we had a thing called the home ownership loan corporation.And they went out and bought up these mortgages. And people were able to stay in their homes, and eventually the values of those homes went up, and they actually made money. And, by the way, this was a proposal made by Senator Clinton not too long ago.So, obviously, if we can start increasing home values, then there will be creation of wealth. SCHIEFFER: But what...MCCAIN: But -- OK. All right.SCHIEFFER: The question was, what are you going to cut?MCCAIN: Energy -- well, first -- second of all, energy independence. We have to have nuclear power. We have to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. It's wind, tide, solar, natural gas, nuclear, off-shore drilling, which Senator Obama has opposed.And the point is that we become energy independent and we will create millions of jobs --millions of jobs in America.OK, what -- what would I cut? I would have, first of all, across-the-board spending freeze, OK? Some people say that's a hatchet. That's a hatchet, and then I would get out a scalpel, OK? Because we've got -- we have presided over the largest increase -- we've got to have a new direction for this country. We have presided over the largest increase in government since the Great Society.Government spending has gone completely out of control; $10 trillion dollar debt we're giving to our kids, a half-a-trillion dollars we owe China.I know how to save billions of dollars in defense spending. I know how to eliminate programs. SCHIEFFER: Which ones?MCCAIN: I have fought against -- well, one of them would be the marketing assistance program. Another one would be a number of subsidies for ethanol.I oppose subsidies for ethanol because I thought it distorted the market and created inflation; Senator Obama supported those subsidies.I would eliminate the tariff on imported sugarcane-based ethanol from Brazil.I know how to save billions. I saved the taxpayer $6.8 billion by fighting a deal for a couple of years, as you might recall, that was a sweetheart deal between an aircraft manufacturer, DOD, and people ended up in jail.But I would fight for a line-item veto, and I would certainly veto every earmark pork-barrel bill. Senator Obama has asked for nearly $1 billion in pork-barrel earmark projects... SCHIEFFER: Time's up.MCCAIN: ... including $3 million for an overhead projector in a planetarium in his hometown. That's not the way we cut -- we'll cut out all the pork.SCHIEFFER: Time's up.OBAMA: Well, look, I think that we do have a disagreement about an across-the-board spending freeze. It sounds good. It's proposed periodically. It doesn't happen.And, in fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need a scalpel, because there are some programs that don't work at all. There are some programs that are underfunded. And I want to make sure that we are focused on those programs that work.Now, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. That's one of the centerpieces of his campaign. Earmarks account for 0.5 percent of the total federal budget. There's no doubt that the system needs reform and there are a lot of screwy things that we end up spending money on, and they need to be eliminated. But it's not going to solve the problem.Now, the last thing I think we have to focus on is a little bit of history, just so that we understand what we're doing going forward.When President Bush came into office, we had a budget surplus and the national debt was a little over $5 trillion. It has doubled over the last eight years.OBAMA: And we are now looking at a deficit of well over half a trillion dollars.So one of the things that I think we have to recognize is pursuing the same kinds of policies that we pursued over the last eight years is not going to bring down the deficit. And, frankly, Senator McCain voted for four out of five of President Bush's budgets.We've got to take this in a new direction, that's what I propose as president.SCHIEFFER: Do either of you think you can balance the budget in four years? You have said previously you thought you could, Senator McCain.MCCAIN: Sure I do. And let me tell you...SCHIEFFER: You can still do that?MCCAIN: Yes. Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I'm going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.Senator Obama talks about voting for budgets. He voted twice for a budget resolution that increases the taxes on individuals making $42,000 a year. Of course, we can take a hatchet and a scalpel to this budget. It's completely out of control.The mayor of New York, Mayor Bloomberg, just imposed an across- the-board spending freeze on New York City. They're doing it all over America because they have to. Because they have to balance their budgets. I will balance our budgets and I will get them and I will... SCHIEFFER: In four years?MCCAIN: ... reduce this -- I can -- we can do it with this kind of job creation of energy independence.Now, look, Americans are hurting tonight and they're angry and I understand that, and they want a new direction. I can bring them in that direction by eliminating spending.Senator Obama talks about the budgets I voted for. He voted for the last two budgets that had that $24 billion more in spending than the budget that the Bush administration proposed. He voted for the energy bill that was full of goodies for the oil companies that I opposed. So the fact is, let's look at our records, Senator Obama. Let's look at it as graded by the National Taxpayers Union and the Citizens Against Government Waste and the other watchdog organizations.I have fought against spending. I have fought against special interests. I have fought for reform. You have to tell me one time when you have stood up with the leaders of your party on one single major issue.SCHIEFFER: Barack.OBAMA: Well, there's a lot of stuff that was put out there, so let me try to address it. First of all, in terms of standing up to the leaders of my party, the first major bill that I voted on in the Senate was in support of tort reform, which wasn't very popular with trial lawyers, a major constituency in the Democratic Party. I support...MCCAIN: An overwhelming vote.OBAMA: I support charter schools and pay for performance for teachers. Doesn't make me popular with the teachers union. I support clean coal technology. Doesn't make me popular with environmentalists. So I've got a history of reaching across the aisle.Now with respect to a couple of things Senator McCain said, the notion that I voted for a tax increase for people making $42,000 a year has been disputed by everybody who has looked at this claim that Senator McCain keeps on making.Even FOX News disputes it, and that doesn't happen very often when it comes to accusations about me. So the fact of the matter is that if I occasionally have mistaken your policies for George Bush's policies, it's because on the core economic issues that matter to the American people, on tax policy, on energy policy, on spending priorities, you have been a vigorous supporter of President Bush.Now, you've shown independence -- commendable independence, on some key issues like torture, for example, and I give you enormous credit for that. But when it comes to economic policies, essentially what you're proposing is eight more years of the same thing. And it hasn't worked.And I think the American people understand it hasn't worked. We need to move in a new direction. SCHIEFFER: All right...MCCAIN: Let me just say, Bob.SCHIEFFER: OK. About 30 seconds.MCCAIN: OK. But it's very clear that I have disagreed with the Bush administration. I have disagreed with leaders of my own party. I've got the scars to prove it.Whether it be bringing climate change to the floor of the Senate for the first time. Whether it be opposition to spending and earmarks, whether it be the issue of torture, whether it be the conduct of the war in Iraq, which I vigorously opposed. Whether it be on fighting the pharmaceutical companies on Medicare prescription drugs, importation. Whether it be fighting for an HMO patient's bill of rights. Whether it be the establishment of the 9/11 Commission.I have a long record of reform and fighting through on the floor of the United States Senate. SCHIEFFER: All right.MCCAIN: Senator Obama, your argument for standing up to the leadership of your party isn't very convincing.SCHIEFFER: All right. We're going to move to another question and the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign yet it has turned very nasty. SCHIEFFER: Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like "erratic," "out of touch," "lie," "angry," "losing his bearings" to describe Senator McCain.Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like "disrespectful," "dangerous," "dishonorable," "he lied." Your running mate said he "palled around with terrorists."Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say to each other's face what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?And, Senator McCain, you're first.MCCAIN: Well, this has been a tough campaign. It's been a very tough campaign. And I know from my experience in many campaigns that, if Senator Obama had asked -- responded to my urgent request to sit down, and do town hall meetings, and come before the American people, we could have done at least 10 of them by now.When Senator Obama was first asked, he said, "Any place, any time," the way Barry Goldwater and Jack Kennedy agreed to do, before the intervention of the tragedy at Dallas. So I think the tone of this campaign could have been very different.And the fact is, it's gotten pretty tough. And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful.And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.So I want to tell you, we will run a truthful campaign. This is a tough campaign. And it's a matter of fact that Senator Obama has spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history. And I can prove it. And, Senator Obama, when he said -- and he signed a piece of paperthat said he would take public financing for his campaign if I did -- that was back when he was a long-shot candidate -- you didn't keep your word.And when you looked into the camera in a debate with Senator Clinton and said, "I will sit down and negotiate with John McCain about public financing before I make a decision," you didn't tell the American people the truth because you didn't.And that's -- that's -- that's an unfortunate part. Now we have the highest spending by Senator Obama's campaign than any time since Watergate.SCHIEFFER: Time's up. All right.OBAMA: Well, look, you know, I think that we expect presidential campaigns to be tough. I think that, if you look at the record and the impressions of the American people -- Bob, your network just did a poll, showing that two-thirds of the American people think that Senator McCain is running a negative campaign versus one-third of mine.And 100 percent, John, of your ads -- 100 percent of them have been negative.MCCAIN: It's not true.OBAMA: It absolutely is true. And, now, I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply.And there is nothing wrong with us having a vigorous debate like we're having tonight about health care, about energy policy, about tax policy. That's the stuff that campaigns should be made of.The notion, though, that because we're not doing town hall meetings that justifies some of the ads that have been going up, not just from your own campaign directly, John, but 527s and other organizations that make some pretty tough accusations, well, I don't mind being attacked for the next three weeks.What the American people can't afford, though, is four more years of failed economic policies. And what they deserve over the next four weeks is that we talk about what's most pressing to them: the economic crisis.Senator McCain's own campaign said publicly last week that, if we keep on talking about the economic crisis, we lose, so we need to change the subject.And I would love to see the next three weeks devoted to talking about the economy, devoted to talking about health care, devoted to talking about energy, and figuring out how the American people can send their kids to college. And that is something that I would welcome. But it requires, I think, a recognition that politics as usual, as been practiced over the last several years, is not solving the big problems here in America.MCCAIN: Well, if you'll turn on the television, as I -- I watched the Arizona Cardinals defeat the Dallas Cowboys on Sunday.OBAMA: Congratulations.MCCAIN: Every other ad -- ever other ad was an attack ad on my health care plan. And any objective observer has said it's not true. You're running ads right now that say that I oppose federal funding for stem cell research. I don't.You're running ads that misportray completely my position on immigration. So the fact is that Senator Obama is spending unprecedented -- unprecedented in the history of American politics, going back to the beginning, amounts of money in negative attack ads on me.And of course, I've been talking about the economy. Of course, I've talked to people like Joe the。
英国议会制辩论 简介
英国议会制辩论简介
辩题,是否应该对英国议会制度进行改革?
尊敬的评委、各位观众,今天我们将就英国议会制度是否需要
进行改革展开激烈的辩论。
英国议会制度作为英国政治体系的核心,一直备受争议。
一方面,支持者认为英国议会制度具有悠久的历史
和传统,是英国民主制度的基石,不需要进行改革。
另一方面,反
对者则认为英国议会制度存在着一些不足之处,需要进行改革以适
应当代社会的发展。
支持者认为,英国议会制度作为世界上最古老的议会制度之一,具有悠久的历史和传统,是英国政治体系的重要组成部分。
议会制
度的稳定性和成熟性为英国政治提供了可靠的基础,不需要进行大
规模的改革。
此外,议会制度的分权和制衡机制能够有效地保障各
方利益,确保民主决策的合理性和公正性。
因此,支持者认为英国
议会制度不需要进行改革,应该保持现状。
然而,反对者则指出,英国议会制度存在着一些不足之处,需
要进行改革以适应当代社会的发展。
首先,议会制度的精英主义和
权力集中现象较为严重,导致决策过程缺乏透明度和公正性。
其次,
议会制度的代议制度存在着严重的民主赤字,不能充分代表民众的利益和诉求。
因此,反对者呼吁对议会制度进行改革,以建立更加开放、透明和民主的议会制度。
在这场激烈的辩论中,我们将就英国议会制度是否需要进行改革展开充分的讨论和辩论。
我们希望通过这场辩论,能够更加深入地了解英国议会制度的优劣势,找到最合适的改革方案,为英国政治体系的发展提供有益的建议和借鉴。
谢谢!。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。
The leaders of Britain's three main parties drilled home their central economic messages and attacked tense final televised debate on Thursday,周四举行的最后一场激烈的电视辩论中,英国三大主要党派的领袖阐述了各自的核心经济政策,并严厉抨击了对手。
目前距离5月6日的英国大选还有一周的时间。
With the election a tight three-horse race, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said 'economies in Europe are in peril and there is a risk of dragging us back into recession.'眼下竞选成了一场势均力敌的三人角逐赛,而英国现任首相布朗(Gordon Brown)则说,欧洲经济处于危难之中,我们有被拖回到衰退中的危险。
Mr. Brown repeatedly attacked the opposition Conservative Party's plan to start reducing spending this year and said the Conservatives' promise to raise the inheritance tax threshold while cutting child tax credits was 'unfair and immoral.'布朗一再驳斥反对党保守党提出的今年开始削减支出的计划。
他说,保守党承诺上调遗产税起征点、而同时降低儿童抵税额,这是“不公平、不道德的”。
'Support the economy now and you will ensure that there are jobs and there is recovery,' he said.他说,如果你现在支撑经济,就能确保会创造就业岗位,会出现复苏。
Conservative leader David Cameron said the British economy is 'stuck in a rut犁沟 and we need change to get it moving.'保守党领袖卡梅隆(David Cameron)则说,英国经济“陷入了僵化的格局,我们需要变革来推动经济发展”。
He said the U.K. government must start finding public sector savings straight after the election to avoid a payrolls tax Mr. Brown's government plans to impose in April 2011.他说,在大选结束后,英国政府必须立即开始找出公共领域的存款,以避免实施布朗政府计划于2011年4月份开始征收的工资税。
Mr. Cameron repeatedly criticized Mr. Brown's economic record saying 'this prime minister and this government have left our economy in...a complete mess.'卡梅隆一再批评布朗在经济上的不良业绩,他说,这位首相和这届政府让我们的经济陷入了彻底的混乱。
He attacked Mr. Brown for getting his facts wrong and said the prime minister's characterization刻画描述 of Conservative policies aims to 'frighten people.'他反驳布朗曲解了自己所说的事实,他说,布朗对保守党政策的描述是为了“吓唬公众”。
'What you're hearing is very desperate stuff from someone who's in a very desperate state,' Mr. Cameron said.卡梅隆说,你们所听到的是一个处于非常绝望状态的人的绝望之词。
Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg said his party was the , detailing the kind of spending cuts that are needed to repair the public finances.自由民主党领袖克莱格(Nick Clegg)说,他的党是诚实的中间人,他详细阐述了恢复公共财务状况所需的支出削减的具体情况。
'We need to be frank about the cuts that will be needed so we can protect things like schools and hospitals,' he said.他说,我们需要坦言必需的支出削减,这样我们才能保护学校和医院等机构。
He reiterated his party's promise to stop taxing the first GBP10,000 of people's income and promised to 'break up our banking system so that irresponsible bankers can never again put your savings and your businesses at risk.'他重申了自由民主党提出的对收入在一万英镑以下者不予征税的承诺,他承诺要打破银行体系,让不负责任的银行家们永远不能再把公众的存款和企业置于风险之中。
With the U.K. economy emerging from the deepest recession in decades in the final would secure the recovery while paring down the U.K.'s huge budget deficit.随着2009年最后三个月英国经济逐渐走出几十年来最严重的衰退,英国竞选辩论的主要论题一直是各党派将如何确保复苏,同时降低英国庞大的预算赤字。
All three parties have been criticized by independent think tanks for not offering more detail of how they would pare down the deficit, with the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies warning this week they will need to find as much as £60 billion in spending cuts over the next five years.由于没有提供减少赤字的更多具体内容,三个党派都受到了独立智库的批评。
声望很高的英国财政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)本周警告说,他们将需要在未来五年中削减至多600亿英镑的支出。
Mr. Brown also used the early stages of the debate to try and puncture刺穿削弱the focus on a major campaign gaffe出丑 on Wednesday, when he was caught on a live microphone 65-year-old voter Gillian Duffy a bigoted心胸狭窄的顽固的him on government policies.布朗还利用辩论开始的时候来试图转移人们对他在周三选战活动中的一个重大失误的关注。
周三,人们从一个意外打开的麦克风中听到布朗称65岁的选民达菲(Gillian Duffy)是个“顽固的女人”;此前,她曾质问布朗的政府政策问题。
'There's a lot to this job and as you saw yesterday I don't get all of it right,' he said. 'But I do know how to run the economy in the good times and bad.'布朗说,这份工作涉及方方面面,正如你们昨天看到的,我并不是事事都做得对。
不过,我确实知道如何搞经济,无论是在好时候还是困难时期。
The leaders' debate s, a historic first in Britain, have transformed the race, propelling推动 the smaller opposition Liberal Democrats into a major player and therefore making more likely a hung parliament, where no party has a majority.这是英国有史以来首次举行大选电视辩论。
辩论改变了竞选的格局,把较小的反对党自由民主党推到了主要竞选人的地位,从而增大了“悬浮议会”(hung parliament)的可能性。
“悬浮议会”指的是任何一个党派都不在议会中占多数席位。
A YouGov poll民意调查结果 released late Thursday, showed the Conservatives with 34%, the Liberal Democrats at 28% and Labour at 27%.网络调查公司YouGov周四晚间公布的一项调查显示,保守党支持率为34%,自由民主党为28%,工党为27%。
While not out the race, Labour is facing what could be its worst electoral showing in decades, at least as measured by the nationwide popular vote.尽管工党还没有彻底失败,却可能面临几十年来最糟糕的竞选结果,至少从全国支持率来看是这样。