Indeed it looks like the Tories and PB Tories are running scared of the debates. Looking for any excuse.
What's particularly amusing is the way they are all trying the "oh the debates won't happen" line, in the hope that it will reduce the newsworthiness of Cameron squashing them.
Married UKIP MEP Roger Helmer – who claimed gay people “undermine” marriage – has appealed for “privacy” after a tabloid newspaper published a report claiming he visited a ‘sleazy’ massage parlour.
With a much smaller election budget than the other parties, it is strongly in the Lib Dems interest for the debates to go ahead. I think they're just posturing at the moment.
Married UKIP MEP Roger Helmer – who claimed gay people “undermine” marriage – has appealed for “privacy” after a tabloid newspaper published a report claiming he visited a ‘sleazy’ massage parlour.
I posted it yesterday. Remember that when people say I don't criticise UKIP
'Mr Helmer said: “MEPs are entitled to a private life. I work extremely hard and when I do occasionally have time off I enjoy a massage. I hope my constituents will agree people are entitled to enjoy their leisure time as they please.'
Arf.
I see Mrs Helmer is on the payroll too - in spite of Farage's claims to the contrary, UKIP looks and behaves remarkably like the good old Westminster Establishment, except more of the former have gone to jail.
Why don't they lock them in a Big Brother type house for 48 hours, where they take part in different tasks. That would be far more interesting than three debates and would be watched by more people.
You can just imagine Dave and Nige having a beer together chatting about Europe.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Indeed it looks like the Tories and PB Tories are running scared of the debates. Looking for any excuse.
Based on what?
So far the Tories have not objected to the debates, neither has Labour, and Farage has (reasonably in my view) said 'if things continue as they are I'd expect to be in 2 debates'....Only the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens have objected.
And I'm impressed you think Ed 'not an asset on the doorstep' will help Labour.....
I agree with Kellner (possibly for the first time) that this is quite a sensible and clever proposal by the broadcasters. If it is backed up with the threat of empty chairs the politicians may well find that they have lost control of the process, as rather happened the last time.
That said to have the introduction and summing up by Kay Burley and having the actual debate chaired by Paxo shows a rather malicious sense of humour.
As LIAMT has already pointed out the SNP court challenge got absolutely nowhere the last time and I don't think any similar challenge will again. I think these debates will happen and that no one will be brave enough to say "I'm not coming". Politicians have a lot less power over this process than some seem to think.
As antifrank wisely opined, if everybody's unhappy the media's probably got it about right. The key for me is determining what these debates are meant to be - the 2010 debates were NOT Prime Ministerial debates - they were Party Leaders' debates.
IF we are going to have a Prime Minister's debate, that would be new ground in my view and possibly not catered for under the current arrangements so it could happen outside the election campaign but not inside.
The Party Leaders' debates rules are fairly clear - the question here is where do you draw the line - UKIP, Respect and the Greens have one MP each (currently) so arguably what applies to one should apply to them all. Here again, what happens before the campaign may be more flexible than what happens inside it.
I've no issue with Farage being involved in some form of debate but there are other options - extended interview, questioning from an audience and that applies to all the leaders. I have long suspected we will have debates before the campaign but none during.
I should also say that I would expect regional debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which will address some of the concerns for a party like the SNP who want to play the outsider card anyway.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it a bit obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
It's a bit like saying Caroline Lucas is strongest on Green issues
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
So Osborne will miss his revenue raising target but keeps on spending.
I would be reasonably confident that he will not miss his revenue target. The risk is much more on the other side of the P&L. Keeping a lid on spending in the year before an election is a huge ask for any politician.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
No justification for the Greens to be included unless there is an 'all of the rest' additional debate. There's no way to make the SNP happy, so no worries there either.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I'm pretty confident he will land blows on immigration, constitutional reform and policing & justice too.
I'm pretty happy with the format proposed, although I'm not clear on the order of the debates (4 / 3 / 2 would make most sense I think but I don't feel strongly).
Lots of bleating about the Greens, who presumably have forgotten 1989 when they were in UKIP's position.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Corporeal, who has read up on this, said, if the debates happened during the campaign, the broadcasters are obligated to give the GB wide parties equal airtime.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Corporeal, who has read up on this, said, if the debates happened during the campaign, the broadcasters are obligated to give the GB wide parties equal airtime.
So empty chairing isn't an option.
They can just give them a separate interview elsewhere to make it up.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Corporeal, who has read up on this, said, if the debates happened during the campaign, the broadcasters are obligated to give the GB wide parties equal airtime.
So empty chairing isn't an option.
So moving them ahead of the campaign would kill two birds with one stone - Cameron's (ostensible) objection and the 'equal airtime' rule.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I'm pretty confident he will land blows on immigration, constitutional reform and policing & justice too.
Very happy with the Dave v Ed format but not with the officiators,both Tories,Kay Burley,from her recent comments, and Jeremy Paxman,from his recent comments.Both are too partial. Better to give the gig to channel4.Cathy Newman and Michael Crick,and the rest of them, would be more straight down the line and would give no-one any favours.
Very happy with the Dave v Ed format but not with the officiators,both Tories,Kay Burley,from her recent comments, and Jeremy Paxman,from his recent comments.Both are too partial. Better to give the gig to channel4.Cathy Newman and Michael Crick,and the rest of them, would be more straight down the line and would give no-one any favours.
Hahaha!!
I don't want two right wingers in charge, so lets make it fair and have two lefties!
That would be my take on it - and have several bruisers muscling for the best Tory combo in the background.
A Taking All Comers approach would get his back against the wall too - and that seems to be the motivation/thrill that ups his game greatly.
I wouldn't expect any of them to be a walkover - but there's no fun in that. And Mr Farage would provide good box-office, as Boris does. If Mr Cameron can't best Mr Farage - then he needs a slap. I have faith he would win more than he lost [the potential elephant trap of Fagasim]
Extraordinary phone in on R5 this morning about the NHS strikes. We had a Union representative who complained about "these poorly paid workers" and then 2 strikers on, one of whom earned £35K a year and one £34K, that is about 50% more than the national average.
I am not saying they are not worth it, I am not saying they don't work hard for their money, I am not even saying they don't deserve more. I am just frustrated that it was not pointed out that these employees who allegedly struggle to pay their bills every month and have to cancel holidays for lack of funds have a lot more money than most.
The program was very one sided but perhaps that is inevitable as those that care most are likely to be supportive. I just wonder if this was a necessary fight for Hunt to pick. He has done well since taking over from Lansley and this seems a step backwards to the confrontation of the Lansley years to me. The Tories do not want to spend the campaign talking about the NHS. They just don't.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Very happy with the Dave v Ed format but not with the officiators,both Tories,Kay Burley,from her recent comments, and Jeremy Paxman,from his recent comments.Both are too partial. Better to give the gig to channel4.Cathy Newman and Michael Crick,and the rest of them, would be more straight down the line and would give no-one any favours.
Michael Crick is the worst left-wing stooge out of the lot.
Extraordinary phone in on R5 this morning about the NHS strikes. We had a Union representative who complained about "these poorly paid workers" and then 2 strikers on, one of whom earned £35K a year and one £34K, that is about 50% more than the national average.
I am not saying they are not worth it, I am not saying they don't work hard for their money, I am not even saying they don't deserve more. I am just frustrated that it was not pointed out that these employees who allegedly struggle to pay their bills every month and have to cancel holidays for lack of funds have a lot more money than most.
The program was very one sided but perhaps that is inevitable as those that care most are likely to be supportive. I just wonder if this was a necessary fight for Hunt to pick. He has done well since taking over from Lansley and this seems a step backwards to the confrontation of the Lansley years to me. The Tories do not want to spend the campaign talking about the NHS. They just don't.
Especially when the PM does not understand the reforms he approved.
Ah, bonkers left-wing ideology from the unions, we haven't see that for a long time:
On the proposed sale of the government stake in Eurostar: A comment from RMT union boss Mick Cash, who says: "This is a gross act of betrayal of the British people by a right wing government hell bent on selling off the family silver regardless of the real cost... This sell off is just a short sighted act of industrial vandalism based on a bankrupt pro-privatisation ideology. RMT will fight this tooth and nail."
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Extraordinary phone in on R5 this morning about the NHS strikes. We had a Union representative who complained about "these poorly paid workers" and then 2 strikers on, one of whom earned £35K a year and one £34K, that is about 50% more than the national average.
I am not saying they are not worth it, I am not saying they don't work hard for their money, I am not even saying they don't deserve more. I am just frustrated that it was not pointed out that these employees who allegedly struggle to pay their bills every month and have to cancel holidays for lack of funds have a lot more money than most.
The program was very one sided but perhaps that is inevitable as those that care most are likely to be supportive. I just wonder if this was a necessary fight for Hunt to pick. He has done well since taking over from Lansley and this seems a step backwards to the confrontation of the Lansley years to me. The Tories do not want to spend the campaign talking about the NHS. They just don't.
Especially when the PM does not understand the reforms he approved.
Whoever is spinning that line needs a brain transplant and lots of new career opportunities. An argument that the reforms have allowed the NHS to reduce the number of managers by over 40,000 (as was claimed on the radio this morning, no idea if it is true) which has allowed front line services to be protected in a time of financial constraint is a perfectly defensible position. It might even be true.
Extraordinary phone in on R5 this morning about the NHS strikes. We had a Union representative who complained about "these poorly paid workers" and then 2 strikers on, one of whom earned £35K a year and one £34K, that is about 50% more than the national average.
I am not saying they are not worth it, I am not saying they don't work hard for their money, I am not even saying they don't deserve more. I am just frustrated that it was not pointed out that these employees who allegedly struggle to pay their bills every month and have to cancel holidays for lack of funds have a lot more money than most.
The program was very one sided but perhaps that is inevitable as those that care most are likely to be supportive. I just wonder if this was a necessary fight for Hunt to pick. He has done well since taking over from Lansley and this seems a step backwards to the confrontation of the Lansley years to me. The Tories do not want to spend the campaign talking about the NHS. They just don't.
Especially when the PM does not understand the reforms he approved.
Whoever is spinning that line needs a brain transplant and lots of new career opportunities. An argument that the reforms have allowed the NHS to reduce the number of managers by over 40,000 (as was claimed on the radio this morning, no idea if it is true) which has allowed front line services to be protected in a time of financial constraint is a perfectly defensible position. It might even be true.
I have no idea why an idiot 'Senior Conservative source' thinks this is 'helping'.......
Should the Greens be included? They only have one MP, so the same as UKIP, but 56 fewer than the LibDems, and fewer than the SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP.
Their national vote share last time was 1.0% (that's combining the 3 Green parties for E&W (0.9%), Scotland (0.1%) and NI (< 0.1%)), compared to the LibDems on 23.0% and UKIP on 3.1%, and also less than the BNP or SNP.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Looking at the last 10 by-elections, the LibDems came higher 7 times, the Greens came higher twice, and neither stood in Mid-Ulster. The Greens' best by-election performance in those 10 contests was only 3.5%. Ignoring Mid-Ulster, the best non-Con/Lab/LD/UKIP performance in those 10 contests was not the Greens but RESPECT, who got 8.3% in Rotherham. (Or you could look at Scottish Parliament by-elections, where the Greens' record is 6th, 6th and didn't stand.)
The Greens' big result was 4th place with 3 MEPs on 6.9% in the Euro-elections, compared to 1 MEP on 6.6% for the LibDems, and 2 MEPs on 2.4% for the SNP. But at the local elections on the same day, the Greens got 38 councillors to 163 UKIP and 427 LD.
So, should we include the Greens (in the context of including LD and UKIP while presumably excluding the SNP, BNP, DUP &c.)?
The 2010 results say no. By-election performance says no. Local election results say no. Euro-elections say yes. Polls say maybe. Predicted MP numbers based on those polls say no.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Extraordinary phone in on R5 this morning about the NHS strikes. We had a Union representative who complained about "these poorly paid workers" and then 2 strikers on, one of whom earned £35K a year and one £34K, that is about 50% more than the national average.
I am not saying they are not worth it, I am not saying they don't work hard for their money, I am not even saying they don't deserve more. I am just frustrated that it was not pointed out that these employees who allegedly struggle to pay their bills every month and have to cancel holidays for lack of funds have a lot more money than most.
The program was very one sided but perhaps that is inevitable as those that care most are likely to be supportive. I just wonder if this was a necessary fight for Hunt to pick. He has done well since taking over from Lansley and this seems a step backwards to the confrontation of the Lansley years to me. The Tories do not want to spend the campaign talking about the NHS. They just don't.
Especially when the PM does not understand the reforms he approved.
Whoever is spinning that line needs a brain transplant and lots of new career opportunities. An argument that the reforms have allowed the NHS to reduce the number of managers by over 40,000 (as was claimed on the radio this morning, no idea if it is true) which has allowed front line services to be protected in a time of financial constraint is a perfectly defensible position. It might even be true.
The Times is as close to the official house paper of the Conservative party as it is possible to be, so you need to work from that basis. My guess is that friends of the Chancellor may have something to do with the story. It certainly suits him to be seen as the brains of the operation who took his eye off the ball, rather than someone who did not understand what was going on in the first place.
No Clacton bounce with Populus. Labour still just 1% ahead.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 35 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (=), Oth 8 (-1).
Populus do however wait UKIP from 345 to 183 in this poll, previous poll is 351 to 181.
Populus had UKIP at around the 300 mark unweighted from what I can remember a few months back so they definitely seem to have made progress since then.
Ashcroft has UKIP weighted from 121 to 118 which would be worth about 240 if it was the same sample size as Populus...
Populus' problem is so far as UKIP is concerned that they genuinely do seem to have too many on a self selection bias basis that accurate weighting is very very difficult for them.
The phone polls will be more accurate I think for the UKIP score - except ICM which unless it has a methodology change that works to (correctly) downweight in general the Labour raw vote, will understate UKIP... I have a bet with @The_Screaming_Eagles to this end.
Just for the record, I predict that the debates will happen in some form simply because of the domino effect.
If invitations go out to four leaders, it'll always appear to be in the interests of at least one to participate, no matter what, because they feel they have nothing to lose. OK, Clegg may have thought that about the Euro-debates and he fared badly but the point was he still threw his hat in the ring.
Once someone accepts and in this case, particularly if two out of four accept, there's a great temptation for a third to do who thinks he can out-perform the fourth. If that fourth one backs out, he both appeared to be running scared and will allow the others to take free hits at him, which is a huge advantage to the rest, while if he doesn't, the third will still be calculating that he'll come off relatively better. But the dynamics will draw the fourth in as well.
As for the rest, they can jump up and down as much as they like but the numbers are against them. The only exception is that some form of local provision for Wales and Scotland does really need to be made and the SNP and Plaid may have a case if it isn't.
I have to say the health workers being interviewed on the picket line today are exemplary in how to come across. They're not angry, they're making solid arguments, and they're showing a willingness to accept a compromise by an independent body.
So Osborne will miss his revenue raising target but keeps on spending.
I would be reasonably confident that he will not miss his revenue target. The risk is much more on the other side of the P&L. Keeping a lid on spending in the year before an election is a huge ask for any politician.
Based on what precisely ? More borrowing ?
Personally I would be more confident he will a lower spending target ( whatever version he's on ) by cancelling spending in March like he has done in the past.
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
@MediaGuido: To be fair to the Greens, and we rarely are, they have as much right to be in at least one of the debates as UKIP.
Nonsense. UKIP are on 25 points on one poll and are around 16/17 in the others. That's an average three times as high as the Greens.
Before the end of the year UKIP will likely have 2 MPs to the Green's single MP. I'd love for the Greens to be involved in the debates but one can draw a distinction between the two in terms of level of support - just as you can between Labour or Tory and the Lib Dems, or Greens and Respect.
The only one that is messy is Lib Dems and UKIP, because it seems almost certain to me that UKIP will win more votes and the Lib Dems more seats.
All this is assuming that you want to select the participants on the basis of pre-judging the result, which seems to be slightly presumptuous.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
No Clacton bounce with Populus. Labour still just 1% ahead.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 35 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (=), Oth 8 (-1).
When was fieldwork?
We should get an ICM this week.Am waiting for a Scottish poll.The Survation poll for the mail has a Scottish sub sample of 78 so a bit unreliable.For what it is worth the Westminster voting intentions are SNP 47%,Labour 26%,Con 9% LD 5%.Running the numbers would give the SNP 55 seats,Labour 9 and the Lib Dems 1,.Major problem for Ed with loss of 38 seats.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
Should the Greens be included? They only have one MP, so the same as UKIP, but 56 fewer than the LibDems, and fewer than the SNP, Plaid, DUP, Sinn Fein or the SDLP.
Their national vote share last time was 1.0% (that's combining the 3 Green parties for E&W (0.9%), Scotland (0.1%) and NI (< 0.1%)), compared to the LibDems on 23.0% and UKIP on 3.1%, and also less than the BNP or SNP.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Looking at the last 10 by-elections, the LibDems came higher 7 times, the Greens came higher twice, and neither stood in Mid-Ulster. The Greens' best by-election performance in those 10 contests was only 3.5%. Ignoring Mid-Ulster, the best non-Con/Lab/LD/UKIP performance in those 10 contests was not the Greens but RESPECT, who got 8.3% in Rotherham. (Or you could look at Scottish Parliament by-elections, where the Greens' record is 6th, 6th and didn't stand.)
The Greens' big result was 4th place with 3 MEPs on 6.9% in the Euro-elections, compared to 1 MEP on 6.6% for the LibDems, and 2 MEPs on 2.4% for the SNP. But at the local elections on the same day, the Greens got 38 councillors to 163 UKIP and 427 LD.
So, should we include the Greens (in the context of including LD and UKIP while presumably excluding the SNP, BNP, DUP &c.)?
The 2010 results say no. By-election performance says no. Local election results say no. Euro-elections say yes. Polls say maybe. Predicted MP numbers based on those polls say no.
@MediaGuido: To be fair to the Greens, and we rarely are, they have as much right to be in at least one of the debates as UKIP.
Nonsense. UKIP are on 25 points on one poll and are around 16/17 in the others. That's an average three times as high as the Greens.
Before the end of the year UKIP will likely have 2 MPs to the Green's single MP. I'd love for the Greens to be involved in the debates but one can draw a distinction between the two in terms of level of support - just as you can between Labour or Tory and the Lib Dems, or Greens and Respect.
The only one that is messy is Lib Dems and UKIP, because it seems almost certain to me that UKIP will win more votes and the Lib Dems more seats.
All this is assuming that you want to select the participants on the basis of pre-judging the result, which seems to be slightly presumptuous.
To me, despite the polling gap, it seems reasonable to class Labour and the Tories together, and UKIP and the Lib Dems together. The Greens are last by any metric. A 4-4-2 system seems fairest.
I have to say the health workers being interviewed on the picket line today are exemplary in how to come across. They're not angry, they're making solid arguments, and they're showing a willingness to accept a compromise by an independent body.
Interesting, Socrates.
I happened to drive past The Roayal Free Hospital this morning and was struck by the cheerfulness and enthusiasm of the pickets - and on an exceptionally grey, wet day too. What's more they were receiving a lot of waves and friendly support from motorists and other passers-by.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, I think they are winning the PR war.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
I disagree. I think the cuts necessary to secure that - combined with the cuts that will be needed to fund the cuts UKIP has promised at the top - will lead to a level of shrinkage in the size of the state that will at best enshrine the inequalities of opportunity that we have currently and at worst will make them far worse.
Watching Farage being interviewed by Andrew Neil yesterday it is clear that any time he veers away from talking about the EU he is on very unsteady ground. As far as I remember, the debates with Clegg were specifically about the EU. The GE ones will not be.
Isn't it blatantly obvious that the EU is going to be his strong point?!
Of course. But the GE debates will not be about the EU.
I know.. but so what? You are saying that Farage wont be as good in these debates because they aren't specifically about the EU.. maybe, although I think he is quite quick on his feet in any debate
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
I think that there is a danger that Farage might find himself slightly exposed, yes. He did not really get a grilling from Neil yesterday. He seemed to struggle with some pretty basic questioning.
Maybe.. I want him to win obviously, and am confident he will be ok... he isn't up against much
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
I disagree. I think the cuts necessary to secure that - combined with the cuts that will be needed to fund the cuts UKIP has promised at the top - will lead to a level of shrinkage in the size of the state that will at best enshrine the inequalities of opportunity that we have currently and at worst will make them far worse.
All I can say to that is, vote elsewhere then! That is democracy
I'd say I was very anti-UKIP in terms of the way its leadership has expressed itself on the size and the role of the state. At the top it looks very like a party that is run by and attracts arch-Thatcherites. I'd certainly be a lot more sympathetic to a party that was socially conservative but also redistributionist. I may not like the first, but I can live with it; I think the latter is absolutely essential.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
I disagree. I think the cuts necessary to secure that - combined with the cuts that will be needed to fund the cuts UKIP has promised at the top - will lead to a level of shrinkage in the size of the state that will at best enshrine the inequalities of opportunity that we have currently and at worst will make them far worse.
All I can say to that is, vote elsewhere!
Well, indeed. But hopefully you understand why I am anti-UKIP now.
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch · 59 mins 59 minutes ago Under no circumstances should Cameron debate with Farage given SNP's standing, present and future MP numbers
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch · 57 mins 57 minutes ago .@Sam_Wylde the SNP have six times more UK MPs than Ukip and on May 15, 30 times more
etc.
Not quite as disturbing as being stroked by Rupert, but still a bit quease making.
Emily Thornberry comes across as incredibly patronising and smug.
Someone must think she's good - she's on often enough.......she appears to think that talking over others is the way to win arguments......
I often thought that Thornberry does come over as patronising and smug. I wonder what the WWC think of her? She probably loses a ton of votes for Labour. Not one to invite round to dinner on many levels.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Emily Thornberry comes across as incredibly patronising and smug.
Someone must think she's good - she's on often enough.......she appears to think that talking over others is the way to win arguments......
I often thought that Thornberry does come over as patronising and smug. I wonder what the WWC think of her? She probably loses a ton of votes for Labour. Not one to invite round to dinner on many levels.
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Who's talking about repatriation?
I wouldn't put my mother or grandmother in a care home in the first place.
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
Corporeal, who has read up on this, said, if the debates happened during the campaign, the broadcasters are obligated to give the GB wide parties equal airtime.
So empty chairing isn't an option.
Empty-chairing may be an option providing that the party being excluded has been given reasonable opportunity and has declined it.
From Ofcom: "6.2 Due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period. Broadcasters must also consider giving appropriate coverage to other parties and independent candidates with significant views and perspectives"
The word 'weight' is significant as this implies that simple membership of the 'major parties' list isn't necessarily enough to guarantee equal coverage, just that they are entitled to appropriately-weighted coverage. To leave the Lib Dems out of one may therefore be justified (and including UKIP in one may also be).
Section 6.9 may also be relevant:
"6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)"
That is in the context of an individual constituency, so the rider may not be applicable. Indeed, the fact that the rider isn't included in the sections dealing with national coverage could imply a deliberate decision that a party's refusal should veto an event. On the other hand, it could be argued that it establishes a principle and that what is applicable at a constituency level ought reasonably to be applicable at a national one. I don't think it's something that we could reach a definitive answer on given what's there.
No Clacton bounce with Populus. Labour still just 1% ahead.
Latest Populus VI: Lab 36 (+1), Con 35 (+1), LD 9 (=), UKIP 13 (=), Oth 8 (-1).
When was fieldwork?
We should get an ICM this week.Am waiting for a Scottish poll.The Survation poll for the mail has a Scottish sub sample of 78 so a bit unreliable.For what it is worth the Westminster voting intentions are SNP 47%,Labour 26%,Con 9% LD 5%.Running the numbers would give the SNP 55 seats,Labour 9 and the Lib Dems 1,.Major problem for Ed with loss of 38 seats.
Scottish politics is normally as volatile as cold porridge but the SNP do seem to be doing very well at the moment. Some Scotland specific full polls are due out soon. 1 subsample isn't worth anything though.
Emily Thornberry comes across as incredibly patronising and smug.
Someone must think she's good - she's on often enough.......she appears to think that talking over others is the way to win arguments......
I often thought that Thornberry does come over as patronising and smug. I wonder what the WWC think of her? She probably loses a ton of votes for Labour. Not one to invite round to dinner on many levels.
How would she score on the Stringer 'Ed Miliband doorstep asset' scale?
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500 (b) less competition for jobs from migrants
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
"So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home ..."
No point reading on after that false assumption. Try again
Emily Thornberry comes across as incredibly patronising and smug.
Someone must think she's good - she's on often enough.......she appears to think that talking over others is the way to win arguments......
I often thought that Thornberry does come over as patronising and smug. I wonder what the WWC think of her? She probably loses a ton of votes for Labour. Not one to invite round to dinner on many levels.
I imagine almost nobody has heard of her.
Typical Labour gobshite. Turn her off whenever I see her, like about five minutes ago. DP is rubbish without Neil.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
It really isn't.
? It isn't ?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
Very happy with the Dave v Ed format but not with the officiators,both Tories,Kay Burley,from her recent comments, and Jeremy Paxman,from his recent comments.Both are too partial. Better to give the gig to channel4.Cathy Newman and Michael Crick,and the rest of them, would be more straight down the line and would give no-one any favours.
Dunno about Paxman, but Burley used to get giddy talking to Blair and Brown. I object about her involvement not because of her politics, but because she's a lightweight.
I think the debates would be better for having a genuine leftwing voice in them (who else will argue for renationalising the railways or radically increasing the minimum wage) but if the broadcasters exclude the Green party then I think a legal challenge would be very difficult to win (and may well be too expensive for the parties to take anyway). And I have some sympathy for those having to make these decisions as well, they cant please everyone.
One issue would be which Green party politician should be included if they got an invite. Hopefully one of the Scottish ones.
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps we should have more children?
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Are you one of those people who doesnt realise that gay people can have children too?
Comments
We are all PB Tories now...
Like, i dunno, every Wednesday perhaps?
Arf.
I see Mrs Helmer is on the payroll too - in spite of Farage's claims to the contrary, UKIP looks and behaves remarkably like the good old Westminster Establishment, except more of the former have gone to jail.
You can just imagine Dave and Nige having a beer together chatting about Europe.
Indeed. A real spectacle this morning. Dear oh dear. L
@iainmartin1: @GPW_Portland Yes, it has that feel. People trying because they have to but not convinced.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/12/tory-pledge-immigration-deception-boris-johnson
Tell us something we don't know, Boris.
Net immigration, May 2010: 252,000
Net immigration, June 2014: 243,000
I will back YES at EVENS
(@Scott_P YES means "YES they will happen" not "NO they won't" and EVENS means a 50/50 chance)
So far the Tories have not objected to the debates, neither has Labour, and Farage has (reasonably in my view) said 'if things continue as they are I'd expect to be in 2 debates'....Only the Lib Dems, SNP and Greens have objected.
And I'm impressed you think Ed 'not an asset on the doorstep' will help Labour.....
Plucking odds out of thin air;
Yes 1/2
No 2/1
That said to have the introduction and summing up by Kay Burley and having the actual debate chaired by Paxo shows a rather malicious sense of humour.
As LIAMT has already pointed out the SNP court challenge got absolutely nowhere the last time and I don't think any similar challenge will again. I think these debates will happen and that no one will be brave enough to say "I'm not coming". Politicians have a lot less power over this process than some seem to think.
As antifrank wisely opined, if everybody's unhappy the media's probably got it about right. The key for me is determining what these debates are meant to be - the 2010 debates were NOT Prime Ministerial debates - they were Party Leaders' debates.
IF we are going to have a Prime Minister's debate, that would be new ground in my view and possibly not catered for under the current arrangements so it could happen outside the election campaign but not inside.
The Party Leaders' debates rules are fairly clear - the question here is where do you draw the line - UKIP, Respect and the Greens have one MP each (currently) so arguably what applies to one should apply to them all. Here again, what happens before the campaign may be more flexible than what happens inside it.
I've no issue with Farage being involved in some form of debate but there are other options - extended interview, questioning from an audience and that applies to all the leaders. I have long suspected we will have debates before the campaign but none during.
It's a bit like saying Caroline Lucas is strongest on Green issues
Nick Clegg’s decision to reject the proposed format may give Cameron some cover. If one leader alone were to reject the proposed format, conceivably they could be “empty chaired” by the broadcasters (although I have not had time to check whether broadcasting law would allow this.). But if two parties boycott the debate, they will be meaningless. Ed Miliband won’t want to debate Nigel Farage on his own.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/13/jeremy-hunts-commons-statement-on-ebola-politics-live-blog#block-543b987be4b0468f1ec5ca46
But he isn't going to be getting grilled by Andrew Neil either
To be fair he usually manages to pull everything back to the EU anyway!
Lots of bleating about the Greens, who presumably have forgotten 1989 when they were in UKIP's position.
So empty chairing isn't an option.
Better to give the gig to channel4.Cathy Newman and Michael Crick,and the rest of them, would be more straight down the line and would give no-one any favours.
I don't want two right wingers in charge, so lets make it fair and have two lefties!
A Taking All Comers approach would get his back against the wall too - and that seems to be the motivation/thrill that ups his game greatly.
I wouldn't expect any of them to be a walkover - but there's no fun in that. And Mr Farage would provide good box-office, as Boris does. If Mr Cameron can't best Mr Farage - then he needs a slap. I have faith he would win more than he lost [the potential elephant trap of Fagasim]
I am not saying they are not worth it, I am not saying they don't work hard for their money, I am not even saying they don't deserve more. I am just frustrated that it was not pointed out that these employees who allegedly struggle to pay their bills every month and have to cancel holidays for lack of funds have a lot more money than most.
The program was very one sided but perhaps that is inevitable as those that care most are likely to be supportive. I just wonder if this was a necessary fight for Hunt to pick. He has done well since taking over from Lansley and this seems a step backwards to the confrontation of the Lansley years to me. The Tories do not want to spend the campaign talking about the NHS. They just don't.
Tories for enlightened self interest fairness!
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/10/why-tories-might-demand-greens-are-included-tv-debates
Its crossed my mind today that the anti UKIP brigade aren't really anti UKIP. They are pro their own feeling of entitlement. Its more about anger at their own loss of power than dislike of UKIP after rational thoght, and they would be the same if it were any insurgent new party. They just instinctively strike out like a defensive animal would
Very David Brent vs Neil Godwin in The Office
Hmm. If the other pollsters get the same Nil Bounce even after all the press talk...
@DPJHodges: If David Cameron agrees to debate Nigel Farage he should be sectioned.
Many of us thought they wouldn't happen - and then they did. Cleggasm MkII is now a known factor, is it a killer argument - I don't think so.
Their national vote share last time was 1.0% (that's combining the 3 Green parties for E&W (0.9%), Scotland (0.1%) and NI (< 0.1%)), compared to the LibDems on 23.0% and UKIP on 3.1%, and also less than the BNP or SNP.
OK, they're doing much better in the polls these days, but claims they are doing as well as the LibDems are not quite supported by the evidence. Wikipedia's detailed poll results don't cover the last week so far, but looking at the 9 polls conducted in October listed there, the LibDems have a 2.9% lead over the Greens on average, and the SNP are less than that behind the Greens.
Looking at the last 10 by-elections, the LibDems came higher 7 times, the Greens came higher twice, and neither stood in Mid-Ulster. The Greens' best by-election performance in those 10 contests was only 3.5%. Ignoring Mid-Ulster, the best non-Con/Lab/LD/UKIP performance in those 10 contests was not the Greens but RESPECT, who got 8.3% in Rotherham. (Or you could look at Scottish Parliament by-elections, where the Greens' record is 6th, 6th and didn't stand.)
The Greens' big result was 4th place with 3 MEPs on 6.9% in the Euro-elections, compared to 1 MEP on 6.6% for the LibDems, and 2 MEPs on 2.4% for the SNP. But at the local elections on the same day, the Greens got 38 councillors to 163 UKIP and 427 LD.
So, should we include the Greens (in the context of including LD and UKIP while presumably excluding the SNP, BNP, DUP &c.)?
The 2010 results say no. By-election performance says no. Local election results say no. Euro-elections say yes. Polls say maybe. Predicted MP numbers based on those polls say no.
Henry
Populus had UKIP at around the 300 mark unweighted from what I can remember a few months back so they definitely seem to have made progress since then.
Ashcroft has UKIP weighted from 121 to 118 which would be worth about 240 if it was the same sample size as Populus...
Populus' problem is so far as UKIP is concerned that they genuinely do seem to have too many on a self selection bias basis that accurate weighting is very very difficult for them.
The phone polls will be more accurate I think for the UKIP score - except ICM which unless it has a methodology change that works to (correctly) downweight in general the Labour raw vote, will understate UKIP... I have a bet with @The_Screaming_Eagles to this end.
If invitations go out to four leaders, it'll always appear to be in the interests of at least one to participate, no matter what, because they feel they have nothing to lose. OK, Clegg may have thought that about the Euro-debates and he fared badly but the point was he still threw his hat in the ring.
Once someone accepts and in this case, particularly if two out of four accept, there's a great temptation for a third to do who thinks he can out-perform the fourth. If that fourth one backs out, he both appeared to be running scared and will allow the others to take free hits at him, which is a huge advantage to the rest, while if he doesn't, the third will still be calculating that he'll come off relatively better. But the dynamics will draw the fourth in as well.
As for the rest, they can jump up and down as much as they like but the numbers are against them. The only exception is that some form of local provision for Wales and Scotland does really need to be made and the SNP and Plaid may have a case if it isn't.
http://labourlist.org/2014/10/labour-wants-the-tv-debates-but-todays-proposals-are-flawed/
i) include the greens
ii) reverse the order to 5:3:2 - so final debate is Cameron vs Miliband
iii) Also do online, not just TV
Seems reasonable to me.....
Personally I would be more confident he will a lower spending target ( whatever version he's on ) by cancelling spending in March like he has done in the past.
279 -> 286 UKIP
My question I guess is why does Populus believe it's UKIP numbers need so much weighting, and why are the raw numbers very high and then the weighted numbers so low.
It's a puzzle !
(a) no tax up to £13,500
(b) less competition for jobs from migrants
The only one that is messy is Lib Dems and UKIP, because it seems almost certain to me that UKIP will win more votes and the Lib Dems more seats.
All this is assuming that you want to select the participants on the basis of pre-judging the result, which seems to be slightly presumptuous.
(c) No jobs.
I happened to drive past The Roayal Free Hospital this morning and was struck by the cheerfulness and enthusiasm of the pickets - and on an exceptionally grey, wet day too. What's more they were receiving a lot of waves and friendly support from motorists and other passers-by.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, I think they are winning the PR war.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29597026
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/10/broadcasters-throw-down-tv-debates-gauntlet/
Interesting times when the Spectator & LabourList are singing from the same song sheet.....
Workers on the min wage would be better off under UKIP
(a) no tax up to £13,500
(b) less competition for jobs from migrants
I disagree. I think the cuts necessary to secure that - combined with the cuts that will be needed to fund the cuts UKIP has promised at the top - will lead to a level of shrinkage in the size of the state that will at best enshrine the inequalities of opportunity that we have currently and at worst will make them far worse.
All I can say to that is, vote elsewhere!
Well, indeed. But hopefully you understand why I am anti-UKIP now.
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/106249/daily_mirror_monday_13th_october_2014.html
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch · 1h 1 hour ago
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/oct/13/nigel-farage-2015-leaders-debates-bbc-itv-sky-news?CMP=twt_gu … <~~ disgusting UKIP bias by London media. SNP have six MPs
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch · 59 mins 59 minutes ago
Under no circumstances should Cameron debate with Farage given SNP's standing, present and future MP numbers
Louise Mensch @LouiseMensch · 57 mins 57 minutes ago
.@Sam_Wylde the SNP have six times more UK MPs than Ukip and on May 15, 30 times more
etc.
Not quite as disturbing as being stroked by Rupert, but still a bit quease making.
(a) no tax up to £13,500
(b) less competition for jobs from migrants
So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home won't that mean that the millions of Brits living abroad will be forced to come home? Looking for Jobs? Far better qualified than the unemployed Brits?
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
I wouldn't put my mother or grandmother in a care home in the first place.
But the Conservative Party leader said the proposal had to be one "everyone agrees to"
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2014-10-13/broadcasters-reveal-2015-party-leader-tv-debates-plans/
From Ofcom: "6.2 Due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period. Broadcasters must also consider giving appropriate coverage to other parties and independent candidates with significant views and perspectives"
The word 'weight' is significant as this implies that simple membership of the 'major parties' list isn't necessarily enough to guarantee equal coverage, just that they are entitled to appropriately-weighted coverage. To leave the Lib Dems out of one may therefore be justified (and including UKIP in one may also be).
Section 6.9 may also be relevant:
"6.9 If a candidate takes part in an item about his/her particular constituency, or electoral area, then candidates of each of the major parties must be offered the opportunity to take part. (However, if they refuse or are unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)"
That is in the context of an individual constituency, so the rider may not be applicable. Indeed, the fact that the rider isn't included in the sections dealing with national coverage could imply a deliberate decision that a party's refusal should veto an event. On the other hand, it could be argued that it establishes a principle and that what is applicable at a constituency level ought reasonably to be applicable at a national one. I don't think it's something that we could reach a definitive answer on given what's there.
These proposals will be utterly unacceptable to any democrat.
And goes downhill from there......
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/oct/13/jeremy-hunts-commons-statement-on-ebola-politics-live-blog#block-543bb6c9e4b0fd64f752f96f
Without skilled immigration this country is finished. Without immigration the NHS is doomed. Without immigration who will care for our elderly?
Does it occur to UKIP supporters that the reason 'British' jobs are being given by employers to immigrants is because employers don't think that the British unemployed are employable? Better to transfer jobs abroad or where that's not possible, close down and take your capital elsewhere.
A simple question for kippers: 'Are you going to look after Granny when her care home closes?'
"So, assuming UKIP actually send the immigrants home ..."
No point reading on after that false assumption. Try again
Or are you one those stupid gay "marriage" advocates?
Whats the explanation then ?
I've sent Populus an email asking them about it. You have a copy in your vanilla inbox.
One issue would be which Green party politician should be included if they got an invite. Hopefully one of the Scottish ones.
He said He would "do a deal with whoever was in government if...xyz"
Massive difference, they even showed ghim saying that in the build up
".. ideology of governmental suppression of individual freedom".
Do you really think that that fits the Greens?