Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave’s approach to leaders’ debates gets the thumbs down fr
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Dave’s approach to leaders’ debates gets the thumbs down from the ComRes sample
Isn’t the leaders’ debate issue just a concern that gets those within the “bubble” excited but few others? Will it really swing many votes?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://order-order.com/2015/01/13/israeli-ambassador-demands-clegg-action-against-david-ward/
It's not the bubble talking, the public loved the debates and will expect them this time.. if Cameron puts the kybosh on them he will be less popular because of it
Mind you, the people I am talking about might not vote I suppose
"The anti-semitic L/D's raise their ugly heads again and Israel protests to Clegg:
http://order-order.com/2015/01/13/israeli-ambassador-demands-clegg-action-against-david-ward/ "
I think there are many more than David Ward who would think long and hard before agreeing to stand next to Netanyahu on a 'solidarity' march against butchery.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.636736
Do Labour need to weaponise the debates?
According to MurderMap there were just 82 homicides in London last year which is the lowest figure for many decades, and is less than 1 per 100,000 people giveń that the capital's population is about 8.5 million.
Unfortunately 2015 has got off to a bad start with 10 murders in the first 9 days:
http://www.murdermap.co.uk/investigate.asp
The reasons I have for characterising hannan as 'pro-immigration' are as follows:
1) he signed the watchemacallit declaration
The conservatives sit as part of the alliance of conservatives and reformists (or whatever they're calling it these days) and its associated pan-european political party was set up by hannan (from memory, he was its first secretary). A (sub?)set of those associated national parties and parliamentarians wrote and signed an associated declaration, whose full name I forget. That declaration declared (ouch!) that certain things should be upheld (a political credo, so to speak). One of them is freedom of movement. If you're willing to sign (and co-author) such a document, it may me not unreasonable to conclude that one just may be a teensy bit pro-immigration.
2) read his telegraph blogs
This needs a bit of ploughing through, but of you go thru his blogs you'll see that he used to mention the freedom of movement as one of the things underpinning his dreams of an"open, outward-looking" future for the Uk. Then over the past eighteen months (as migration became more salient) he began to leave it out. It was about the same time he started talking about 'controlled migration', which (as I pointed out to Socrates) is a euphemism that allows pro-migration people to decieve anti-immigration voters
3) ask him
It's simple. Ask him what the net inward migration will be under a conservative non-coalition government. I'll take a maximum or average, per year or in total, butut it has to be a number. If he starts twittering about "controlled migration" or simply refuses to give a number...well, you know I'm right...:-)
(Normally I try to give chapter and verse, but I'm on a ruddy train doing this via a smartphone, so I'm a bit limited. Please forgive spelling mistakes and absent capitalisation)
I also don't really understand the arguments people make about the debates "trivialising" politics (making it an "X Factor style contest" or whatever). They might not be perfect, but surely they're a damnsight more substantive than the endless parade of photo opportunities in supermarkets and kissing babies that we'll get otherwise?
A foreign government trying to interfere with the freedom of speech of one of our MPs?
KISS MY A***
This poll show should conclusive evidence that the public both want the debates, 67% is a very clear message, and expect them to take place.
Barely ten million. Pfft.
@JohnRentoul: Adams in the Telegraph http://t.co/aXkuz2Vxzc
TThe 43% may well include people who think "the debates should not go ahead without the Greens but if Cameron doesn't want to join in, then empty chair him."
"Vegetarians ?"
http://media.cagle.com/44/2014/01/15/143072_600.jpg
Conflict of interest? Many think so.
"when in doubt reach for a cornichon."
I had to reach for a dictionary
'Amazing at how the LDs jump up and point fingers at the slightest anti-foreigner statement from other parties yet retain the anti-jew Ward as their representative. I guess its the same as tolerating Rennard's antics?'
Yes,great at lecturing us with with their platitudes,can't understand why Clegg is so frit of Ward & Rennard.
new thread: Marf
1) Hannan is a BOO'er, and does not sign up to freedom of movement
2) I have. They make the case for controlled immigration with numerical limits
3) I have, in person. He's never described himself as wanting anything but controlled, managed immigration at sensible levels.
Incidentally, for your reference, he's on the record as saying pretty much the only reason he's still in the Tories and not UKIP is because of the pledge on an in-out EU referendum.
Cameron is right whatever his motive may be.
As I pointed out to Socrates, controlled migration (or complexitiestthereof, like "controlled, managed migration within nnumeric limits") are euphemisms that allow pro emigration politicians to decieve anti-immigration voters
So I'll ask again: what (in hannans view) will be the net inward migration in a conservative non-coalition government? Even Cameron had the stones to give a number
Voodoo poll. Two words. Scrap. Heap.
Farage will be a footnote in history .