politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is whether and how the debate impacts on voting in the Euros and GE2015
The experience of US presidential debates and, of course, the British GE2010 is that “winning” the debate is not necessarily a good pointer to its impact on voting.
"...his comment on Ukraine and the EU suggesting that he prefers Mr. Putin to Brussels"
I don't recall Mr Farage suggesting that.
If he did say it it will reflect badly but overall I'm unonvinced that any votes will be changed by these debates. Remember the polling following the first GE debate for Clegg.
Further thought on the YouGov 20/77 Farage/Clegg for *existing* LD voters:
Cleggie might tap into the larger 'phile vote pool in May14, get a few temporary points and save some MEPs.
But, with less than a yr to go before the GE campaign, 2months of very high profile EUphilia isn't going to just dissipate in some minds. Just how many Ex-LD voters is this creating in , say, west country seats where the incumbent LD has strongly identified with EU scepticism?
Running a core seat GE campaign isn't likely to fit well with p'ing off core voters.
Perhaps he doesn't care - if the balance of power is say 15 MPs in May15, 16LD MPs is what it takes for DPM Clegg. If not, he's proved himself to Brussels for the consolation BigJob.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Further thought on the YouGov 20/77 Farage/Clegg for *existing* LD voters:
Cleggie might tap into the larger 'phile vote pool in May14, get a few temporary points and save some MEPs.
But, with less than a yr to go before the GE campaign, 2months of very high profile EUphilia isn't going to just dissipate in some minds. Just how many Ex-LD voters is this creating in , say, west country seats where the incumbent LD has strongly identified with EU scepticism?
Running a core seat GE campaign isn't likely to fit well with p'ing off core voters.
Perhaps he doesn't care - if the balance of power is say 15 MPs in May15, 16LD MPs is what it takes for DPM Clegg. If not, he's proved himself to Brussels for the consolation BigJob.
Apres moi etc.
It's hardly unknown in the West Country or elsewhere that the LibDems are pro Eu but the EU is low in the priorities of voters at general elections.
Clegg's strategy is cute. He and the LibDems very visibly become the standard bearer for the EU just as Farage is the head honcho for out and knowing full well that Dave and Ed will not engage with Farage and Ukip. Clegg steps in to fill the vacuum.
Clegg also wants to frame the argument in terms of the economic recovery, present and future jobs and subsidiary issues such as the European Arrest Warrant.
Both Clegg and Farage will be pleased with last night. The wider question is whether both debates will nudge the polls anything more than at the margin for the Euro elections or more long term remind voters of the qualities and/or weaknesses of both men and the parties they lead.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Ditto - dont understand his running down Britain routine ..
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
Are Best PM stats meaningful? My understanding is that the Mori leader ratings are the only ones worth bothering with
That's true , but Ed is crap with them too but not quite so crap. I expect he will have taken a knock when the nextMori ratings come out so don't hold your breath.
What excuses are you going to use if and when crossover happens?> its quite possible it will happen soon.
The British government has actually gee-ed up the European Union to pursue effectively an imperialist, expansionist [policy] ... and even Mr. Barroso, the Commission President once himself said that we are building an empire. We have given a false series of hopes to a group of people in the Western Ukraine and so gee-ed up were they that they toppled their own elected leader. That provoked Mr. Putin and I think the European Union frankly does have blood on its hands in the Ukraine. And I don't want an European army, navy or air force or a European foreign policy. It has not been a thing for good in the Ukraine.
The Guardian has a video clip of the answers by both Clegg and Farage to the Ukraine question here: http://bit.ly/OWQsEX
Farage's answer, however truthful a view it may be, is not going to endear either himself or UKIP to the White House. And it won't be appreciated in No 10 or Brussels either.
A brave statement for which Farage will gain wide public agreement, but also foolish, unnecessary and a risk to UKIP's more immediate political goals.
Farage has given his opponents an easy target but they will need to exploit the opportunity carefully. Too much media attention to the comment may end up being to Farage's favour.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Ditto - dont understand his running down Britain routine ..
You need to remind yourself that Ukip and Farage is more virulently anti EU than they are pro UK. Witness Farage stating bluntly last night that he opposes and votes against any EU measure regardless of whether it benefits UK or not.
If an issue is EU sponsored in any degree Farage and Ukip regard it as irredeemably tainted and accordingly they completely reject it.
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
Are Best PM stats meaningful? My understanding is that the Mori leader ratings are the only ones worth bothering with
You don't get it, do you? The purpose of this site is to ensure the return of a Conservative majority government, preferably one committed to exempting Sean Thomas - and a few others whose names I can't currently be *rsed to mention - from the criminal law.
At least that's what they themselves think. It's why I stopped posting before, and why my GP thinks I should probably stop again.
I'm not surprised by those numbers. There has always been a sceptic streak among their voters if certainly not among the activists or MP's. Again we need to recall Europe is down the list of voters concerns despite this two debate spike.
The ovrerall 57/36 win for Farage also is on the money. The overwhelming Eurosceptic Conservative inclined voters broke for Farage with Labour split down the middle and with Cleggs personal rating in the toilet a 36% score was respectable.
From my point of view both Clegg and Farage had good points to make - we wouldn't vote to join the EU as it is now but equally we don't have much to gain by pulling up the drawbridge and isolating ourselves. Which brings us nicely to the position of the Tories...
It's nice to see Financier's YouGov's breakdowns back. They seemed to go away for a while.
Farage's Euro-obsessiveness will do him no harm among those who are EU-obsessed, not sure it will help him with anyone else though. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former. To basically admit voting against the interests of UK citizens is a pretty big thing to do. He might want to revisit that in the next debate and come up with a better line if he is serious about taking UKIP into the mainstream.
A propos of not much other than idle anecdote, while listening to the parliamentary bit on the radio over breakfast thia morning (R4), my not particularly political missus ( a bit residual studenty anti-tory but not generally that iinterested) spontaneously offered the following
"My main reservation about the UKIP leader’s performance last night was his comment on Ukraine and the EU suggesting that he prefers Mr. Putin to Brussels." Mike Smithson
Utter rot Mike. Farage did not say that he prefers Putin, or even agree with him. He did say that EU interference and expansionism in the Ukraine has caused the EU to have blood on its hands. A totally different thing.
From my point of view both Clegg and Farage had good points to make - we wouldn't vote to join the EU as it is now but equally we don't have much to gain by pulling up the drawbridge and isolating ourselves. Which brings us nicely to the position of the Tories...
The problem is it's the various positions of the Tories that essentially falls into three groupings.
Firstly the diminishing Ken Clarke wing that you couldn't distinguish too much from the LibDems. Secondly the mainstream Eurosceptic Cameron wing -the majority and finally the high octane Ukip-lite wing of Redwood, Bone and around 70 MP allies who frame most issues within the EU context.
The PM knows he has the juggle party discipline, Eurosceptic instinct and ensuring the EU doesn't engulf the party in internecine warfare that detracts from other more important messages to the voters who are not obsessed with the EU and who are vital to the party at the general election.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Looking at the data tables from last night's Yougov , Labour were over 6% ahead before weighting adjustments so your last sentence is completely false .
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Farage's answer, however truthful a view it may be
It's what he does - tell the truth. You might not always like it, you might not always agree with it (In this case I know you do) but the truth is a powerful weapon for a politician and seldom used.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Lol. He talks about abusive comments and then mentions Frankie Boyle.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Looking at the data tables from last night's Yougov , Labour were over 6% ahead before weighting adjustments so your last sentence is completely false .
Easterross has a great many qualities but data analysis isn't one of them
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
He does not know what the word "disinterest" means.
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
Are Best PM stats meaningful? My understanding is that the Mori leader ratings are the only ones worth bothering with
You don't get it, do you? The purpose of this site is to ensure the return of a Conservative majority government, preferably one committed to exempting Sean Thomas - and a few others whose names I can't currently be *rsed to mention - from the criminal law.
At least that's what they themselves think. It's why I stopped posting before, and why my GP thinks I should probably stop again.
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
Are Best PM stats meaningful? My understanding is that the Mori leader ratings are the only ones worth bothering with
That's true , but Ed is crap with them too but not quite so crap. I expect he will have taken a knock when the nextMori ratings come out so don't hold your breath.
What excuses are you going to use if and when crossover happens?> its quite possible it will happen soon.
Well yes it is indeed quite possible. It has been quite possible for a while. We have been subject to crossover forecasts for about a year or more now so, for the record, when do you expect crossover to occur?
P.S. I'm not making excuses, merely pointing out that Best PM metrics are pointless as they always massively favour the, erm, PM.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Lol. He talks about abusive comments and then mentions Frankie Boyle.
There is also no definition of what is meant by "anti" and "pro". Both words are, of course, entirely subjective and depend on the person watching/listening making a judgement. Maybe there is more to the research than this very poorly put together article, but you can't help feeling that, once again, it boils down to this: "The news is not being covered in the way I would like it to be covered."
I'll check again nearer the time, but the forecast for qualifying is a 70% chance of a thunderstorm. Bad news for Williams (may be worth laying one or both to reach Q3, contingent on odds). High heat/humidity could also mean we see a significant number of retirements.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Ditto - dont understand his running down Britain routine ..
It makes sense in the UKIP world view where everything modern is rubbish. If you have a party which seems to mainly exist to be a self-help group for grumpy old men of course everything about the country has been ruined by the EU/Con/Lab/Gay Marriage/PC/immigration.
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
Are Best PM stats meaningful? My understanding is that the Mori leader ratings are the only ones worth bothering with
That's true , but Ed is crap with them too but not quite so crap. I expect he will have taken a knock when the nextMori ratings come out so don't hold your breath.
What excuses are you going to use if and when crossover happens?> its quite possible it will happen soon.
Well yes it is indeed quite possible. It has been quite possible for a while. We have been subject to crossover forecasts for about a year or more now so, for the record, when do you expect crossover to occur?
P.S. I'm not making excuses, merely pointing out that Best PM metrics are pointless as they always massively favour the, erm, PM.
If crossover happens , it will certainly knock the overconfidence of the left leaning posters on here. If for only that reason, crossover cannot come soon enough.
It's nice to see Financier's YouGov's breakdowns back. They seemed to go away for a while.
Farage's Euro-obsessiveness will do him no harm among those who are EU-obsessed, not sure it will help him with anyone else though. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former. To basically admit voting against the interests of UK citizens is a pretty big thing to do. He might want to revisit that in the next debate and come up with a better line if he is serious about taking UKIP into the mainstream.
SO, thank you.
It all depends on where I am in the world, and at home as I live in a rural area, my broadband can be very flaky at times.
The main thing is that the EU debate has been aired publicly for the first time since the last referendum. The second debate should further stir the pot.
Certainly both participants will need to up their game. The chairing of the debate needs to be firmer to prevent the frequent over-talking which makes people switch off, mentally if not physically.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Professor Robertson of Pseudoscience is clearly undecided on the great question.
From my point of view both Clegg and Farage had good points to make - we wouldn't vote to join the EU as it is now but equally we don't have much to gain by pulling up the drawbridge and isolating ourselves. Which brings us nicely to the position of the Tories...
That might be the official Tory position, but it's not the position of a significant number of their MPs,
It's nice to see Financier's YouGov's breakdowns back. They seemed to go away for a while.
Farage's Euro-obsessiveness will do him no harm among those who are EU-obsessed, not sure it will help him with anyone else though. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former. To basically admit voting against the interests of UK citizens is a pretty big thing to do. He might want to revisit that in the next debate and come up with a better line if he is serious about taking UKIP into the mainstream.
On May 22nd, though, those who turn out will disproportionately those who care about the EU. Farage has certainly given us a boost for those elections.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Professor Robertson of Pseudoscience is clearly undecided on the great question.
There has to be more to it than that article surely. What on earth does this mean?
"The emphasis on the importance of economic evidence over other forms relating to justice, welfare and the constitution persists across all four programmes despite evidence from a survey by the Church of Scotland and in more anecdotal evidence from journalists and audience participation debates."
The British government has actually gee-ed up the European Union to pursue effectively an imperialist, expansionist [policy] ... and even Mr. Barroso, the Commission President once himself said that we are building an empire. We have given a false series of hopes to a group of people in the Western Ukraine and so gee-ed up were they that they toppled their own elected leader. That provoked Mr. Putin and I think the European Union frankly does have blood on its hands in the Ukraine. And I don't want an European army, navy or air force or a European foreign policy. It has not been a thing for good in the Ukraine.
The Guardian has a video clip of the answers by both Clegg and Farage to the Ukraine question here: http://bit.ly/OWQsEX
Farage's answer, however truthful a view it may be, is not going to endear either himself or UKIP to the White House. And it won't be appreciated in No 10 or Brussels either.
A brave statement for which Farage will gain wide public agreement, but also foolish, unnecessary and a risk to UKIP's more immediate political goals.
Farage has given his opponents an easy target but they will need to exploit the opportunity carefully. Too much media attention to the comment may end up being to Farage's favour.
I doubt if Farage is terribly concerned about the views of the White House, Brussels, or No. 10.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Farage's opinions are of course, shared by many, if not most, Conservative members.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Easterross, given the blatant way you misrepresented what had been said by Farage in the immediate aftermath of the debate last night I am afraid you have no credibility on this issue at all.
Even though Clegg lost the debate, he will not emerge without credit. People will look at him and LD-CON seats perhaps he can retain Labour votes.
The fundamental problem for the centre-right/right is that there has never been two viable parties there. And when its a new paradigm nothing close to tactical voting occurs.
This could well be 83 in reverse - UKIP will not gain as many votes as the alliance (And at most 1 or 2 seats) but the split could be almost as damaging to the Conservatives as it was to Labour. Farage has got the big mo from last night.
It's nice to see Financier's YouGov's breakdowns back. They seemed to go away for a while.
Farage's Euro-obsessiveness will do him no harm among those who are EU-obsessed, not sure it will help him with anyone else though. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former. To basically admit voting against the interests of UK citizens is a pretty big thing to do. He might want to revisit that in the next debate and come up with a better line if he is serious about taking UKIP into the mainstream.
On May 22nd, though, those who turn out will disproportionately those who care about the EU. Farage has certainly given us a boost for those elections.
I agree completely. But those elections are not really that important in the great scheme of things. The one in May 2015 matters a lot more. I am not sure Farage did himself or UKIP much good on that front; except to the extent that he was able to make a pitch for the anti-EU vote to people who really care about the EU. In other words, it might - perhaps - keep a few right wing Tories voting UKIP who otherwise would have returned to the fold. It definitely showed that the Tories can never out-UKIP UKIP.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Lol. He talks about abusive comments and then mentions Frankie Boyle.
There is also no definition of what is meant by "anti" and "pro". Both words are, of course, entirely subjective and depend on the person watching/listening making a judgement. Maybe there is more to the research than this very poorly put together article, but you can't help feeling that, once again, it boils down to this: "The news is not being covered in the way I would like it to be covered."
It's interesting trying to think of a way to do this as accurately and unbiased as possible. Perhaps something like the following may be overkill.
1) Select a pool of fifty people. Survey them to show biases for/against. Ensure you have a good spread of initial views.
2) For each piece to be studied, give it to seven people at random. Get them to rate it from 0 to 10 on two scales: pro independence or pro union. The same figure on both scales shows balance. This should be done with no interaction between the subjects.
3) Once each individual has rated their pieces, compare each of their results with the other six people who studied each piece. If they are consistently out one way or the other, their results are downstated.
4) After they have finished, give them the same survey in 1) to see how their opinions have changed.
Would this give a (relatively) unbiased judgement?
The most interesting thing about the debates was how amateurish both men were. Sure, they had rehearsed their arguements, and both were fluent enough.
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know that makes him look shifty?
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Farage's opinions are of course, shared by many, if not most, Conservative members.
Farage mistaking Poland for Turkey was quite funny. His comment on Ukraine was mystifying.
Clegg rolled out some of the same old tired clichés about the disadvantages of leaving the EU that annoy me.
Can the UKIPers on here tell me if UKIP want to remain in the EEA / EFTA?
EFTA is quite acceptable to UKIP. :^)
Does being in EFTA cost anything?
Its slightly complicated. Being a member of EFTA does not incur any significant costs but also does not gain the benefits that most people woudl want from EFTA membership which is access to the EEA. Switzerland for example is a member of EFTA but not the EEA.
Membership of the EEA - which is what gives access to free movement of goods, people and services - does incur some costs paid to the EU which can be seen here:
The most interesting thing about the debates was how amateurish both men were. Sure, they had rehearsed their arguements, and both were fluent enough.
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know it makes him look shifty?
I think Farage works up an honest sweat like a sportsman or Gordon Ramsay whereas Nixon's was that of a cornered criminal under interrogation.
Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
Thanks for that. I pretty much agree, although I found his mistaking Turkey and Poland quite funny as well.
Farage's tendency to shout annoyed me, but I'm not sure that it will do him any harm. Clegg is DPM and in government; he has to appear in control. At times last night he did not. Farage can afford to seem passionate. However Farage seemed (in my view at least) to try to speak over Clegg, although as I was only able to listen, not watch, I might be mistaken.
IMHO Farage's best argument was: "if we weren't already in, would we really consider joining?"
Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
The most interesting thing about the debates was how amateurish both men were. Sure, they had rehearsed their arguements, and both were fluent enough.
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know it makes him look shifty?
I think Farage works up an honest sweat like a sportsman or Gordon Ramsay whereas Nixon's was that of a cornered criminal under interrogation.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
Lol. He talks about abusive comments and then mentions Frankie Boyle.
There is also no definition of what is meant by "anti" and "pro". Both words are, of course, entirely subjective and depend on the person watching/listening making a judgement. Maybe there is more to the research than this very poorly put together article, but you can't help feeling that, once again, it boils down to this: "The news is not being covered in the way I would like it to be covered."
It's interesting trying to think of a way to do this as accurately and unbiased as possible. Perhaps something like the following may be overkill.
1) Select a pool of fifty people. Survey them to show biases for/against. Ensure you have a good spread of initial views.
2) For each piece to be studied, give it to seven people at random. Get them to rate it from 0 to 10 on two scales: pro independence or pro union. The same figure on both scales shows balance. This should be done with no interaction between the subjects.
3) Once each individual has rated their pieces, compare each of their results with the other six people who studied each piece. If they are consistently out one way or the other, their results are downstated.
4) After they have finished, give them the same survey in 1) to see how their opinions have changed.
Would this give a (relatively) unbiased judgement?
There would certainly need to be some form of jury selection to ensure a balance of views. You would also need to have very specific definitions of notions such as "pro", "anti" and "abusive"; on top of which you'd need to set criteria by which to decide whether a report is on economics, welfare, ethics, the constitution etc. And you would also have to make the entire process completely transparent - so it could be monitored as it was taking place.
So the energy companies who were not ripping us off have been referred to Ofgem amid fears that they might be ripping us off after all.
One for the PB Conservatives who assured us that Ed was wrong and all was rosy in the garden to consider on this sunny spring morn.
You're naïve, Mr Fett. They've been referred not on the merits or otherwise of the case, but to draw the political potency from the issue.
You are also misremembering (charitably) the position of the right-wing voters on there. In the main the acknowledged the issue Ed had identified but were heavily critical of his proposed solution
There would certainly need to be some form of jury selection to ensure a balance of views. You would also need to have very specific definitions of notions such as "pro", "anti" and "abusive"; on top of which you'd need to set criteria by which to decide whether a report is on economics, welfare, ethics, the constitution etc. And you would also have to make the entire process completely transparent - so it could be monitored as it was taking place.
exactly- completely transparent, so the methodology could be replicated independently.
I haven't followed this closely, so i don't know who the professor is. But Whenever I delve into the murky world of social science I often find poorly designed surveys. I don't see why social science should be less rigorous, but apprently those in the field don't all agree..
The most interesting thing about the debates was how amateurish both men were. Sure, they had rehearsed their arguements, and both were fluent enough.
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know that makes him look shifty?
I think the Clegg quick exit was for security reasons. The detail wouldn't have wanted Clegg in the open at a highly publicised event. Note also the armoured limo and blacked out windows. We simply don't know what the threat assessment was and they will take no chances.
Also I think you're being a tad hard on Farage. At the start he was a bit stiff and yes the sweating thing is bad but his body language was passionate, engaged and authentic whatever you thought of the content.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Farage's opinions are of course, shared by many, if not most, Conservative members.
Has there been a survey, or is this opinion?
Yougov surveyed Conservative members last July. They split 60/24% against gay marriage, 67/18% against protecting the overseas aid budget.
Quite interesting. I wonder if in the next few years they'll try and increase the element of electric power in F1 even more.
Thanks for that link, it's very interesting. They were talking of making the pitlane electric-only. I can see that coming in over the next few years.
One thing that's annoyed me over the years is how little F1 technology trickles down to you and me. In fact, the biggest potential change to our cars in the next thirty years - driverless cars - has nothing to do with motorsport.
But the energy-saving tech could well trickle down. They're doing some very advanced stuff in F1 and sportscars that we could all easily see in our daily runabouts. The FIA needs congratulating for going down this route, as they do for their road safety schemes.
The test surely is if the Tory polling position slips from its current mid thirties position to Kipper Or if the Lib Dems can claw back some points at the expense of the Two Eds party I suspect neither will occur long term, maybe the former short term. We are into the election race.
Quite interesting. I wonder if in the next few years they'll try and increase the element of electric power in F1 even more.
The long term objective is to increase the use of electric power in dual-fuel road transport, with electric only cars for 100m radius usage. However, the electric charging infrastructure in not yet in place, commercially or domestically.
Mr. Jessop, in F1's defence one of the reasons so little tech trickles down to me is that I don't have a car
Some clever chap made the same pitlane point in the comments. They'll need to address the issue of silent cars moving at around 60mph, though, otherwise running people over will become quite possible.
The thing I was left feeling after last night's debate is that Nigel Farage really only rates white English people and anyone else is suspect. Definitely the Alf Garnett wing of the political spectrum. He didn't pretend to view Britain as being anything more than England. His insult to British food and workers, his pro Putin comments and his clearly anti-SSM views will come back to haunt him.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Farage's opinions are of course, shared by many, if not most, Conservative members.
Has there been a survey, or is this opinion?
Yougov surveyed Conservative members last July. They split 60/24% against gay marriage, 67/18% against protecting the overseas aid budget.
Sean, IIRC the figure for Conservative voters on SSM was pretty even. Do you have the exact numbers to hand ?
I think Farage is vulnerable to the law of diminishing returns.
He is great in the pub giving an acute soundbite; who wouldn't agree with that earthy tell-it-like-it-is-ness of him.
But constant exposure undoes him. He doesn't actually have a user-friendly demeanour or speaking style and can appear shifty and untrustworthy (IMO, natch).
I think Clegg, meanwhile was so understated that he aimed low and missed by a mile. He needs to be punchier.
If you gene-splice Clegg and Farage do you get Cameron??!!
Mr. Jessop, in F1's defence one of the reasons so little tech trickles down to me is that I don't have a car
Some clever chap made the same pitlane point in the comments. They'll need to address the issue of silent cars moving at around 60mph, though, otherwise running people over will become quite possible.
Our company uses the Prius and we have had many near misses with students who are "plugged in" with their earphones.
However as you do not have a car, am sure there is a Red Flag position waiting for you.
I didn't bother watching the debates. The split afterwards suggests either that Farage was better or that more Kippers than LDs watched.
But what was fascinating is how the committed infer what was meant rather than repeat what was said. And we wonder why we get anodyne answers to any question.
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,"
Farage possibly suffers most because Clegg is slightly more measured in his comments - probably from experience.
So answering the question will always be a hostage to fortune. Better to fudge and concentrate on looking the part.
Let's look at the conclusions from the faithful ... Farage is a bigot who hates the UK, and Clegg is a career politician (the worst insult of all) who adores the gravy train of the EU.
Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
The most interesting thing about the debates was how amateurish both men were. Sure, they had rehearsed their arguements, and both were fluent enough.
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know that makes him look shifty?
I think the Clegg quick exit was for security reasons. The detail wouldn't have wanted Clegg in the open at a highly publicised event. Note also the armoured limo and blacked out windows. We simply don't know what the threat assessment was and they will take no chances.
Also I think you're being a tad hard on Farage. At the start he was a bit stiff and yes the sweating thing is bad but his body language was passionate, engaged and authentic whatever you thought of the content.
Jack, the TV people black out windows so that they can have complete control of light levels using artificial sources. And as DPM the armoured car is standard for publicised events; if there was any increased risk he wouldn't have been allowed to appear. I'd be surprised if the audience weren't searched too, as they entered the venue.
By the way, has an enormous alien spaceship been sighted, or was the astronomers' embargoed news story just the anticipated "we've found a new big distant rock"?
I've only seen the 5-minute highlights on the Guardian page. Based on those, I felt that the EU membership cause (which I favour) wasn't very well served by Clegg - he had IMO good arguments but just seemed underpowered. Farage seemed objectively quite good, foreceful but not hectoring - in the extracts he doesn't shout or interrupt, though maybe he did elsewhere.
Mr. Jessop, in F1's defence one of the reasons so little tech trickles down to me is that I don't have a car
Some clever chap made the same pitlane point in the comments. They'll need to address the issue of silent cars moving at around 60mph, though, otherwise running people over will become quite possible.
My Honda Jazz actually does have some motorsport tech in the form of a flappy-paddle semiauto gearbox. Which I never use as I always drive in auto mode. It impresses people, though. ;-)
As for electric car noise (or lack thereof): people are working on the right sorts of sounds to warn people. Basically the sounds are broadcast from the car.
The most interesting thing about the debates was how amateurish both men were. Sure, they had rehearsed their arguements, and both were fluent enough.
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know that makes him look shifty?
I think the Clegg quick exit was for security reasons. The detail wouldn't have wanted Clegg in the open at a highly publicised event. Note also the armoured limo and blacked out windows. We simply don't know what the threat assessment was and they will take no chances.
Also I think you're being a tad hard on Farage. At the start he was a bit stiff and yes the sweating thing is bad but his body language was passionate, engaged and authentic whatever you thought of the content.
Come on Jack, the TV people black out windows so that they can have complete control over light levels using artificial sources. And as DPM the armoured car is standard for publicised events; the audience would all have been searched too. Clegg should have lingered at the end.
You misunderstood. The windows of the armoured limo were blacked out.
Clegg did linger at the end in the safety of the auditorium but not outside where a target is far more at risk.
On topic, re Farage / Putin - that silly little provincial hick Putin just has noooooo idea what'd really going down on the ground in Scotland, has he?
By the way, has an enormous alien spaceship been sighted, or was the astronomers' embargoed news story just the anticipated "we've found a new big distant rock"?
rings around some distant asteroid. Not many hurt.
Ultimately, the Kippers will get a huge boost for the Euros, no one really cares and it's a chance to register a protest. That in itself says everything you need to know about project democracy out. When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference. Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
I've only seen the 5-minute highlights on the Guardian page. Based on those, I felt that the EU membership cause (which I favour) wasn't very well served by Clegg - he had IMO good arguments but just seemed underpowered. Farage seemed objectively quite good, foreceful but not hectoring - in the extracts he doesn't shout or interrupt, though maybe he did elsewhere.
I note that Labour voters split 50:50 between Farage and Clegg. What do you make of that ?
Since this seems to be predictably breaking down along party lines, it might be worth asking the following questions:
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
For Farage, his comments on SSM. Even without the Easteross's lies and misrepresentations, Farage's basic position on SSM this is unsupportable.
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
There has been confusion on Ukip's position on SSM but unless I misheard last night Farage stated unequivocally that he opposed SSM whilst the ECHR had a potential say over whether or not some churches should be able to reject SSM.
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
But since Farage has always made clear his opposition to the ECHR this would seem to be far more about that organisation and its ability to over-rule current SSM legislation than about SSM per se which I get the impression he doesn't have any hugely strong feelings about.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Didn't Farage articulate UKIPs view on SSM last week as taking the legal version of marriage away from churches, so everyone had equal rights to marriage under the law of the land, and allowing churches to conduct ceremonies for people who wanted a religiously blessed marriage?
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.
I've only seen the 5-minute highlights on the Guardian page. Based on those, I felt that the EU membership cause (which I favour) wasn't very well served by Clegg - he had IMO good arguments but just seemed underpowered. Farage seemed objectively quite good, foreceful but not hectoring - in the extracts he doesn't shout or interrupt, though maybe he did elsewhere.
The EU membership cause was certainly badly served and "underpowered" by the absence of Ed Miliband.
Just cheered myself up with a vision of Farage and Clegg as schoolchildren having a mock election. 'Isnt it marvellous? They are almost like real politicians'
Comments
I don't recall Mr Farage suggesting that.
App: -16
Best PM (compared to one week ago)
Dave:37(+3)
Ed: 22 (-3)
Just 55% of LAB VI support Ed, whilsl 94% of CON VI and 6% of LAB VI support Dave
"I don't recall Mr Farage suggesting that."
Nor me.
But if one is 100% LD, maybe seeing existing LD voters breaking 20/77 for Farage/Clegg would cause some mental disequilibrium..
To Lib Dem / Clegg supporters: how did Clegg perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
To UKIP / Farage supporters: how did Farage perform poorly last night? How would you improve or change his message for next week's debate?
Did we all have a Faraleggasm last night during the first debate ?
Winners - Farage, Clegg and LBC
Losers - Dave and Ed
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357021/The-hate-sheikh-Home-Counties-Firebrand-cleric-fuelling-global-conflict-Muslims-sets-HQ-idyllic-village.html
Cleggie might tap into the larger 'phile vote pool in May14, get a few temporary points and save some MEPs.
But, with less than a yr to go before the GE campaign, 2months of very high profile EUphilia isn't going to just dissipate in some minds. Just how many Ex-LD voters is this creating in , say, west country seats where the incumbent LD has strongly identified with EU scepticism?
Running a core seat GE campaign isn't likely to fit well with p'ing off core voters.
Perhaps he doesn't care - if the balance of power is say 15 MPs in May15, 16LD MPs is what it takes for DPM Clegg. If not, he's proved himself to Brussels for the consolation BigJob.
Apres moi etc.
I look forward to Populus's polling later to see how many other people noticed.
Separately are we now at the stage that only past voting weighting is keeping Labour slightly ahead with YouGov?
Clegg's strategy is cute. He and the LibDems very visibly become the standard bearer for the EU just as Farage is the head honcho for out and knowing full well that Dave and Ed will not engage with Farage and Ukip. Clegg steps in to fill the vacuum.
Clegg also wants to frame the argument in terms of the economic recovery, present and future jobs and subsidiary issues such as the European Arrest Warrant.
Both Clegg and Farage will be pleased with last night. The wider question is whether both debates will nudge the polls anything more than at the margin for the Euro elections or more long term remind voters of the qualities and/or weaknesses of both men and the parties they lead.
"Clegg's strategy is cute. "
With 20/77, it looks like a cunning plan.
What excuses are you going to use if and when crossover happens?> its quite possible it will happen soon.
The British government has actually gee-ed up the European Union to pursue effectively an imperialist, expansionist [policy] ... and even Mr. Barroso, the Commission President once himself said that we are building an empire. We have given a false series of hopes to a group of people in the Western Ukraine and so gee-ed up were they that they toppled their own elected leader. That provoked Mr. Putin and I think the European Union frankly does have blood on its hands in the Ukraine. And I don't want an European army, navy or air force or a European foreign policy. It has not been a thing for good in the Ukraine.
The Guardian has a video clip of the answers by both Clegg and Farage to the Ukraine question here: http://bit.ly/OWQsEX
Farage's answer, however truthful a view it may be, is not going to endear either himself or UKIP to the White House. And it won't be appreciated in No 10 or Brussels either.
A brave statement for which Farage will gain wide public agreement, but also foolish, unnecessary and a risk to UKIP's more immediate political goals.
Farage has given his opponents an easy target but they will need to exploit the opportunity carefully. Too much media attention to the comment may end up being to Farage's favour.
If an issue is EU sponsored in any degree Farage and Ukip regard it as irredeemably tainted and accordingly they completely reject it.
Clegg rolled out some of the same old tired clichés about the disadvantages of leaving the EU that annoy me.
Can the UKIPers on here tell me if UKIP want to remain in the EEA / EFTA?
At least that's what they themselves think. It's why I stopped posting before, and why my GP thinks I should probably stop again.
The ovrerall 57/36 win for Farage also is on the money. The overwhelming Eurosceptic Conservative inclined voters broke for Farage with Labour split down the middle and with Cleggs personal rating in the toilet a 36% score was respectable.
Farage's Euro-obsessiveness will do him no harm among those who are EU-obsessed, not sure it will help him with anyone else though. And there are a lot more of the latter than the former. To basically admit voting against the interests of UK citizens is a pretty big thing to do. He might want to revisit that in the next debate and come up with a better line if he is serious about taking UKIP into the mainstream.
"Ed Balls. What a tit."
Interested me.
Utter rot Mike. Farage did not say that he prefers Putin, or even agree with him. He did say that EU interference and expansionism in the Ukraine has caused the EU to have blood on its hands. A totally different thing.
Firstly the diminishing Ken Clarke wing that you couldn't distinguish too much from the LibDems. Secondly the mainstream Eurosceptic Cameron wing -the majority and finally the high octane Ukip-lite wing of Redwood, Bone and around 70 MP allies who frame most issues within the EU context.
The PM knows he has the juggle party discipline, Eurosceptic instinct and ensuring the EU doesn't engulf the party in internecine warfare that detracts from other more important messages to the voters who are not obsessed with the EU and who are vital to the party at the general election.
O/T but for those interested in the Scottish referendum (ignore if not) the latest piece by Professor Robertson on media bias in the BBC in particular. Some particularly striking figures on personalization of the debate and on abusive comment about individuals.
It's what he does - tell the truth. You might not always like it, you might not always agree with it (In this case I know you do) but the truth is a powerful weapon for a politician and seldom used.
P.S. I'm not making excuses, merely pointing out that Best PM metrics are pointless as they always massively favour the, erm, PM.
One for the PB Conservatives who assured us that Ed was wrong and all was rosy in the garden to consider on this sunny spring morn.
I'll check again nearer the time, but the forecast for qualifying is a 70% chance of a thunderstorm. Bad news for Williams (may be worth laying one or both to reach Q3, contingent on odds). High heat/humidity could also mean we see a significant number of retirements.
If crossover happens , it will certainly knock the overconfidence of the left leaning posters on here. If for only that reason, crossover cannot come soon enough.
It all depends on where I am in the world, and at home as I live in a rural area, my broadband can be very flaky at times.
The main thing is that the EU debate has been aired publicly for the first time since the last referendum. The second debate should further stir the pot.
Certainly both participants will need to up their game. The chairing of the debate needs to be firmer to prevent the frequent over-talking which makes people switch off, mentally if not physically.
"The emphasis on the importance of economic evidence over other forms relating to justice, welfare and the constitution persists across all four programmes despite evidence from a survey by the Church of Scotland and in more anecdotal evidence from journalists and audience participation debates."
He also really really needs to learn to stop shouting.
The fundamental problem for the centre-right/right is that there has never been two viable parties there. And when its a new paradigm nothing close to tactical voting occurs.
This could well be 83 in reverse - UKIP will not gain as many votes as the alliance (And at most 1 or 2 seats) but the split could be almost as damaging to the Conservatives as it was to Labour. Farage has got the big mo from last night.
Absolutely bloody marvellous.
1) Select a pool of fifty people. Survey them to show biases for/against. Ensure you have a good spread of initial views.
2) For each piece to be studied, give it to seven people at random. Get them to rate it from 0 to 10 on two scales: pro independence or pro union. The same figure on both scales shows balance. This should be done with no interaction between the subjects.
3) Once each individual has rated their pieces, compare each of their results with the other six people who studied each piece. If they are consistently out one way or the other, their results are downstated.
4) After they have finished, give them the same survey in 1) to see how their opinions have changed.
Would this give a (relatively) unbiased judgement?
But the body language. Farage always sweats too much, which is a huge turn-off for any audience, especially on TV. He still has not got that sorted. He must know. Doesn't he care?
And Clegg racing straight off at the end, instead of staying for a chat---what was he thinking? And he avoided Farage's eye---doesn't he know that makes him look shifty?
http://thewptformula.com/2014/03/26/analysis-a-brief-study-of-the-kinetic-energy-recovery-system-mgu-k/
Quite interesting. I wonder if in the next few years they'll try and increase the element of electric power in F1 even more.
Its slightly complicated. Being a member of EFTA does not incur any significant costs but also does not gain the benefits that most people woudl want from EFTA membership which is access to the EEA. Switzerland for example is a member of EFTA but not the EEA.
Membership of the EEA - which is what gives access to free movement of goods, people and services - does incur some costs paid to the EU which can be seen here:
http://www.efta.int/eea/eu-programmes/application-finances/eea-efta-budget
Next, you'll be telling us that his actions and policies as a minister forced up bills with extra 'green' costs.
Farage's tendency to shout annoyed me, but I'm not sure that it will do him any harm. Clegg is DPM and in government; he has to appear in control. At times last night he did not. Farage can afford to seem passionate. However Farage seemed (in my view at least) to try to speak over Clegg, although as I was only able to listen, not watch, I might be mistaken.
IMHO Farage's best argument was: "if we weren't already in, would we really consider joining?"
So effectively unless the UK withdraws from ECHR this would bar SSM completely.
Arf - well put and oh so true...!
http://www.twotempleplace.org/exhibitions/current-exhibition/
You are also misremembering (charitably) the position of the right-wing voters on there. In the main the acknowledged the issue Ed had identified but were heavily critical of his proposed solution
I haven't followed this closely, so i don't know who the professor is. But Whenever I delve into the murky world of social science I often find poorly designed surveys. I don't see why social science should be less rigorous, but apprently those in the field don't all agree..
Also I think you're being a tad hard on Farage. At the start he was a bit stiff and yes the sweating thing is bad but his body language was passionate, engaged and authentic whatever you thought of the content.
One thing that's annoyed me over the years is how little F1 technology trickles down to you and me. In fact, the biggest potential change to our cars in the next thirty years - driverless cars - has nothing to do with motorsport.
But the energy-saving tech could well trickle down. They're doing some very advanced stuff in F1 and sportscars that we could all easily see in our daily runabouts. The FIA needs congratulating for going down this route, as they do for their road safety schemes.
Or if the Lib Dems can claw back some points at the expense of the Two Eds party
I suspect neither will occur long term, maybe the former short term.
We are into the election race.
I can strongly recommend the brownies in the cafe though...
Some clever chap made the same pitlane point in the comments. They'll need to address the issue of silent cars moving at around 60mph, though, otherwise running people over will become quite possible.
He is great in the pub giving an acute soundbite; who wouldn't agree with that earthy tell-it-like-it-is-ness of him.
But constant exposure undoes him. He doesn't actually have a user-friendly demeanour or speaking style and can appear shifty and untrustworthy (IMO, natch).
I think Clegg, meanwhile was so understated that he aimed low and missed by a mile. He needs to be punchier.
If you gene-splice Clegg and Farage do you get Cameron??!!
However as you do not have a car, am sure there is a Red Flag position waiting for you.
But what was fascinating is how the committed infer what was meant rather than repeat what was said. And we wonder why we get anodyne answers to any question.
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,"
Farage possibly suffers most because Clegg is slightly more measured in his comments - probably from experience.
So answering the question will always be a hostage to fortune. Better to fudge and concentrate on looking the part.
Let's look at the conclusions from the faithful ... Farage is a bigot who hates the UK, and Clegg is a career politician (the worst insult of all) who adores the gravy train of the EU.
We hear what we want to hear.
That said I still disagree with the basic UKIP position on SSM.
Clegg should have lingered at the end.
There are some lovely comments on your piece including: "Without Scotland Labour would just be the Immigrants Party."
As for electric car noise (or lack thereof): people are working on the right sorts of sounds to warn people. Basically the sounds are broadcast from the car.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds
Clegg did linger at the end in the safety of the auditorium but not outside where a target is far more at risk.
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1410/
bummer.
On topic, re Farage / Putin - that silly little provincial hick Putin just has noooooo idea what'd really going down on the ground in Scotland, has he?
eso.org/public/announcements/ann14022/
When it comes to the GE, UKIP will have increased coverage and exposure and will need to bring forward some of its others as spokesmen. I expect some or many of its '11%' to recoil and reassess. Look at its leader before Farage. Straight out of The Tory 1986 conference.
Angry old buffers party (no offence). Not for government. They will win Gt Yarmouth though
Mr. Jessop, I'd heard about the noise suggestions. Horse's hooves could be good (and vary according to speed).
So it's not just me.
Then churches could choose (or discriminate against) who they were prepared to marry, without states sanctions, and it wouldn't matter which sex was marrying which under the law.
'Isnt it marvellous? They are almost like real politicians'