politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Ashcroft 20k sample mega-poll highlights the massive ch

SystemSystem Posts: 12,214
edited January 2015 in General

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New Ashcroft 20k sample mega-poll highlights the massive challenge facing the Tories on the NHS

How important do you think the NHS is to the parties and leaders? pic.twitter.com/BCwUh9zN3g

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • GadflyGadfly Posts: 1,191
    First!
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    The Tories have four months to link a sick NHS with a sick economy - whilst painting Labour as the party of the sick economy.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    FPT:
    MarqueeMark said:

    Monksfield said:

    I hope the media has the balls to have the debates with a cardboard cutout of Cameron. It'd make as much sense as the real thing anyway.

    Cameron is a frit clown.

    Î suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties
    The law is quite clear, if a politician is offered airtime, and chooses not to accept it, the offered airtime still counts for the purposes of a fair allocation.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TheWatcher said:

    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.

    Of course it doesn't as I've been saying for years. The Tories ready to split themselves apart on an issue that more voters don't give a monkey's about

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,893
    Kinnock had a huge lead on the NHS in 1992 too
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    This polling was before Ed Miliband's vile, disgusting and odious comment and plan to weaponise the NHS.

    As the ComRes polling shows, the voters prefer Dave on the NHS to Ed.

    And as someone said to me yesterday, Labour have timed this badly, you're not going to have a winter NHS crisis in April and May.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    This polling was before Ed Miliband's vile, disgusting and odious comment and plan to weaponise the NHS.

    As the ComRes polling shows, the voters prefer Dave on the NHS to Ed.

    And as someone said to me yesterday, Labour have timed this badly, you're not going to have a winter NHS crisis in April and May.

    Clutching at straws methink.

  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Dr Peter Carter needs to do at bit more overseas travel.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Interesting difference among voters on responsibility for health:

    Those with preventable (smoking/drinking/obesity) problems should have lower priority vs everyone should get same treatment:

    Con: 57/43
    Lab: 38/62
    LibD: 51/49
    UKIP: 52/48

    http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The-People-the-Parties-and-the-NHS-LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS.pdf
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.

    Of course it doesn't as I've been saying for years. The Tories ready to split themselves apart on an issue that more voters don't give a monkey's about

    Not sure how we plan to "Controlling Immigration" until we have addressed the EU though.

    9% for "Protecting the Environment" does rather suggest the real limit to the Green's expectations.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,972
    It's nice to be in step with the great British public for once in finding Health Secretary Hunt to be particularly unimpressive. I'm not a great fan of Burnham either but at least he doesn't look like he's doing it as a hobby and a hobby that bores him.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Indigo said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.

    Of course it doesn't as I've been saying for years. The Tories ready to split themselves apart on an issue that more voters don't give a monkey's about

    Not sure how we plan to "Controlling Immigration" until we have addressed the EU though.

    9% for "Protecting the Environment" does rather suggest the real limit to the Green's expectations.
    Have you failed to notice that they've picked up some other policies that appeal to the disaffected Labour voter?
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    MikeSmithson said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.

    Of course it doesn't as I've been saying for years. The Tories ready to split themselves apart on an issue that more voters don't give a monkey's about

    Apparently Osborne and BoE will be relying on the ECB using QE to have a positive effect on the UK economy. Although we are not in the Eurozone, it is thought that it will benefit the UK economy. I am not enough of an economics expert to understand why this is the case.

    I think most voters would be concerned if the UK was heading towards the EU exit door, as it could damage the UK economy. The Toriees referendum in 2017 is really to do with the split on the right side of politics about the one issue they have been moaning about for the last 40 years.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,567
    MarqueeMark said:

    The Tories have four months to link a sick NHS with a sick economy - whilst painting Labour as the party of the sick economy.

    No, because of the separate RedBox poll shown in the latter part of this:

    http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/ef575e8837d065a1683c022d2077d342.html
    (not paywalled)

    There is a clear lead for spending more on public services even if it means either increasing borrowing or (especially) not having tax cuts. This is not in fact Labour policy (though Danny here argues that it should be), so it shows the public is on the left of Labour in this area (maybe that's why the Greens are doing relatively well). If the Tories decide to campaign on "Sorry about the NHS, but we need to cut spending for the economy's sake", they will sink like a stone.
  • hucks67hucks67 Posts: 758
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    You really do only see the positive side of things in relation to the Tories.

    If Cameron avoided the leaders debates, it could do real damage to how the public see Cameron/Tories. They might not vote for someone considered a coward.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    They aint gonna happen this time.
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    Another poll highlighting the fact immigration as an issue is a load of hot air.

    It has nothing to do with people's real experience and all the anxiety is based on hysterically negative press coverage.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    hucks67 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    You really do only see the positive side of things in relation to the Tories.

    If Cameron avoided the leaders debates, it could do real damage to how the public see Cameron/Tories. They might not vote for someone considered a coward.
    No. I had a chat with a Labour activist last night who made that observation.

    Did it damage Blair when he chickened out of a debate in 1997?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    NickPalmer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The Tories have four months to link a sick NHS with a sick economy - whilst painting Labour as the party of the sick economy.

    No, because of the separate RedBox poll shown in the latter part of this:

    http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/ef575e8837d065a1683c022d2077d342.html
    (not paywalled)

    There is a clear lead for spending more on public services even if it means either increasing borrowing or (especially) not having tax cuts. This is not in fact Labour policy (though Danny here argues that it should be), so it shows the public is on the left of Labour in this area (maybe that's why the Greens are doing relatively well). If the Tories decide to campaign on "Sorry about the NHS, but we need to cut spending for the economy's sake", they will sink like a stone.
    Here we have the problem with an economically illiterate public. They are not to the left of Labour so much as dont see a problem with endless borrowing. In an ideal world almost everyone would like to spend more on health care, some people realise there isn't a magic money tree, Labour spent 13 years telling the public there was, sadly lots of them believed it.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @iainmartin1: The rise of smaller parties renders old TV debate structure redundant. If UKIP is in, the SNP with more seats must be in. And Greens too.

    @DPJHodges: Cameron needs to be careful. His decision to duck debates could have the same disastrous impact as Tony Blair's decision to duck debates...
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,221
    If the NHS was that much of a problem for the Tories, then Labour should be well ahead in the polls. That they are not should be concerning for the red team.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
    That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    TheWatcher said:

    Indigo said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.

    Of course it doesn't as I've been saying for years. The Tories ready to split themselves apart on an issue that more voters don't give a monkey's about

    Not sure how we plan to "Controlling Immigration" until we have addressed the EU though.

    9% for "Protecting the Environment" does rather suggest the real limit to the Green's expectations.
    Have you failed to notice that they've picked up some other policies that appeal to the disaffected Labour voter?
    Yes, I read most of their policies, although I need to stop once or twice to wipe my eyes from the laughter. Even more so than UKIP they have the sort of policies you can only have when you have no chance of having to implement them. To paraphrase Yes Minister, half of their policies would bankrupt the country in a week, the other half would do it in a day.
  • saddosaddo Posts: 534
    These ratings are the results of labour's stronger brand with regard to the NHS rather than the reality. It's clear from when they were last in office and Wales today that they simply do not have the managerial competence to run anything let alone something as big as the NHS and yet at the moment they remain favoured. Their reality doesn't match the perception which is always in the long run a weak position to be in.

    I have always thought they played the NHS card too early, but I guess it's the only card they had. The tories still have time to close down the issue and then what have labour got?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.
    You might have a point if the ground rules about the debates had been settled. But they haven't - which is what Cameron is arguing about. I stand by my assessment that the broadcaster's lawyers will veto any empty chair debates.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @jameschappers: Ashdown on TV debates: "Can you imagine Thatcher refusing?" Er..she concluded: 'We're not electing a president, we're choosing a government'
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    BenM said:

    Another poll highlighting the fact immigration as an issue is a load of hot air.

    It has nothing to do with people's real experience and all the anxiety is based on hysterically negative press coverage.

    Only you could see 49% and second on the list as "all hot air", its even 5th out of 10 for Labour voters!
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    saddo said:

    These ratings are the results of labour's stronger brand with regard to the NHS rather than the reality. It's clear from when they were last in office and Wales today that they simply do not have the managerial competence to run anything let alone something as big as the NHS and yet at the moment they remain favoured. Their reality doesn't match the perception which is always in the long run a weak position to be in.

    I have always thought they played the NHS card too early, but I guess it's the only card they had. The tories still have time to close down the issue and then what have labour got?

    The economy.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    edited January 2015
    Most people don't vote based on immigration or the NHS. It's the economy stupid.

    Re the letters from the 3 pretenders today each trying to get a debate, it's just the next turn in the haggling. Nothing more than that.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Scott_P said:

    @iainmartin1: The rise of smaller parties renders old TV debate structure redundant. If UKIP is in, the SNP with more seats must be in. And Greens too.

    @DPJHodges: Cameron needs to be careful. His decision to duck debates could have the same disastrous impact as Tony Blair's decision to duck debates...

    I'm not convinced the debates matter very much but am puzzled by the Conservatives' reasoning, given they believe Cameron can outscore Miliband. The "equality of stature" excuse -- that it will make Miliband look as important as Cameron -- reads like old-school political consultants' evidence-free musing.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    BenM said:

    The economy.

    LOL

    @matthancockmp: Even more Labour chaos as they U-Turn on the only policy anyone's heard of. The melting price freeze: http://t.co/idTmvRjNsc
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    hucks67 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    You really do only see the positive side of things in relation to the Tories.

    If Cameron avoided the leaders debates, it could do real damage to how the public see Cameron/Tories. They might not vote for someone considered a coward.
    No. I had a chat with a Labour activist last night who made that observation.

    Did it damage Blair when he chickened out of a debate in 1997?
    Isnt that rather the difference between walking past you without offering you a tenner, and waving one in front of your face and then putting it back in my pocket. When Blair turned it down there hadn't been one before.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    hucks67 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    You really do only see the positive side of things in relation to the Tories.

    If Cameron avoided the leaders debates, it could do real damage to how the public see Cameron/Tories. They might not vote for someone considered a coward.
    No. I had a chat with a Labour activist last night who made that observation.

    Did it damage Blair when he chickened out of a debate in 1997?
    Surely the biggest debating point of this LibLabKip joint letter is whether it means the Kippers have joined the Westminster establishment or whether Ed has relegated himself to the company of the minor parties. ?

    Perhaps its a warm up for the rainbow coalition of left wing state control anti business parties that they will form after the election ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....
    Undoubtedly true. Cameron is so second class compared to Farage, he daren't risk arguing head to head. He would be ripped to shreds on issue after issue, his record would fall to piece and his poor policy platform would be shown up for what it is. Conservatives on this site know this, which is why they are so supportive of him not undergoing proper scrutiny from his political opponents in front of the nation.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,937
    NickPalmer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The Tories have four months to link a sick NHS with a sick economy - whilst painting Labour as the party of the sick economy.

    No, because of the separate RedBox poll shown in the latter part of this:

    http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/ef575e8837d065a1683c022d2077d342.html
    (not paywalled)

    There is a clear lead for spending more on public services even if it means either increasing borrowing or (especially) not having tax cuts. This is not in fact Labour policy (though Danny here argues that it should be), so it shows the public is on the left of Labour in this area (maybe that's why the Greens are doing relatively well). If the Tories decide to campaign on "Sorry about the NHS, but we need to cut spending for the economy's sake", they will sink like a stone.
    Nice attempt to introduce a meme that the Tories' will cut NHS spending. You should be a politician...

    This polling was done before Andy Burnham admitted that Labour will have to revisit the scope of what the NHS provides, which has not yet been acknowledged as the game-changer it will become. SAVE THE NHS!!! (er, as long as it is only providing acute care...)
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    Indigo said:

    NickPalmer said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    The Tories have four months to link a sick NHS with a sick economy - whilst painting Labour as the party of the sick economy.

    No, because of the separate RedBox poll shown in the latter part of this:

    http://times-deck.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/projects/ef575e8837d065a1683c022d2077d342.html
    (not paywalled)

    There is a clear lead for spending more on public services even if it means either increasing borrowing or (especially) not having tax cuts. This is not in fact Labour policy (though Danny here argues that it should be), so it shows the public is on the left of Labour in this area (maybe that's why the Greens are doing relatively well). If the Tories decide to campaign on "Sorry about the NHS, but we need to cut spending for the economy's sake", they will sink like a stone.
    Here we have the problem with an economically illiterate public. They are not to the left of Labour so much as dont see a problem with endless borrowing. In an ideal world almost everyone would like to spend more on health care, some people realise there isn't a magic money tree, Labour spent 13 years telling the public there was, sadly lots of them believed it.
    Pure bunkum I'm afraid. Labour did not spend its term of office telling people there was a magic money tree. They won on a promise to rebuild and reform public services, partly through investing in them. The first few years they stuck to Ken Clarke's plans. All the later spending was within quite normal and acceptable levels of public borrowing.

    What they failed to mention is that the UK tax base was far too heavily dependent on the City. But then again, no one else, including the Tories, mentioned this either. It was a systemic, cross-party mistake.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband need to be careful what they wish for. Or rather, they need to careful what David Cameron wishes for. The big winner from a debate that empty chairs the Prime Minister would be the Prime Minister. Nick Clegg doesn’t need to look into the crystal ball to see what happens when he debates Nigel Farage, he can simply read the opinion polls. And if Ed Miliband intends to submit himself to the Ukip leader's tender mercies, Labour MPs in northern and southern marginals may as well start writing their concession speeches now. Without Cameron to act as a lightning rod, Miliband and Clegg will get electrocuted.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11344223/Without-David-Cameron-Nigel-Farage-will-destroy-Labour-and-the-Lib-Dems.html
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    Socrates said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....
    Undoubtedly true. Cameron is so second class compared to Farage, he daren't risk arguing head to head. He would be ripped to shreds on issue after issue, his record would fall to piece and his poor policy platform would be shown up for what it is. Conservatives on this site know this, which is why they are so supportive of him not undergoing proper scrutiny from his political opponents in front of the nation.

    Did you find any polyps up there ?
  • BenMBenM Posts: 1,795
    edited January 2015
    Scott_P said:

    BenM said:

    The economy.

    LOL

    @matthancockmp: Even more Labour chaos as they U-Turn on the only policy anyone's heard of. The melting price freeze: http://t.co/idTmvRjNsc
    The economy, already weakened by Osborne and the Tories, is undoubtedly getting worse.

    And no one believes any of the boastful Tory claims on it anyway. Which is why the Tories *still* trail in the polls.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @mrianleslie: In what way are TV debates good for democracy? Last time people came away thinking Nick Clegg was brilliant.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TheWatcher said:

    Contrary to all the hot air generated, Europe doesn't ranking highly.

    It's the seventh highest issue facing the nation, and is currently weighing down our growth rate, preventing us from controlling immigration, adding huge pressure to the NHS, and pushing up housing costs, thus massively important for one through four.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    BenM said:

    Scott_P said:

    BenM said:

    The economy.

    LOL

    @matthancockmp: Even more Labour chaos as they U-Turn on the only policy anyone's heard of. The melting price freeze: http://t.co/idTmvRjNsc
    The economy, already weakened by Osborne and the Tories, is undoubtedly getting worse.

    And no one believes any of the boastful Tory claims on it anyway. Which is why the Tories *still* trail in the polls.
    Which parts of the economy are getting worse Ben ? Unemployment ? Rising prices ? Tax take ? Personal debt as a percentage of GDP ?

    Specifics please.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Socrates said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....
    Undoubtedly true. Cameron is so second class compared to Farage, he daren't risk arguing head to head. He would be ripped to shreds on issue after issue, his record would fall to piece and his poor policy platform would be shown up for what it is. Conservatives on this site know this, which is why they are so supportive of him not undergoing proper scrutiny from his political opponents in front of the nation.

    Did you find any polyps up there ?
    I don't see what nasal passages have to do with anything. CCHQ undoubtedly agrees with my analysis, which is why they prefer half the country thinking Cameron's a coward over him debating Farage.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    Scott_P said:

    Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband need to be careful what they wish for. Or rather, they need to careful what David Cameron wishes for. The big winner from a debate that empty chairs the Prime Minister would be the Prime Minister. Nick Clegg doesn’t need to look into the crystal ball to see what happens when he debates Nigel Farage, he can simply read the opinion polls. And if Ed Miliband intends to submit himself to the Ukip leader's tender mercies, Labour MPs in northern and southern marginals may as well start writing their concession speeches now. Without Cameron to act as a lightning rod, Miliband and Clegg will get electrocuted.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11344223/Without-David-Cameron-Nigel-Farage-will-destroy-Labour-and-the-Lib-Dems.html

    More reasons why they are not going to happen.

    One thing Hodges doesn't mention is that the above situation would mean Clegg is the only person defending every single decision of the Coalition. Good luck with that one Nick!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    TGOHF said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    hucks67 said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    You really do only see the positive side of things in relation to the Tories.

    If Cameron avoided the leaders debates, it could do real damage to how the public see Cameron/Tories. They might not vote for someone considered a coward.
    No. I had a chat with a Labour activist last night who made that observation.

    Did it damage Blair when he chickened out of a debate in 1997?
    Surely the biggest debating point of this LibLabKip joint letter is whether it means the Kippers have joined the Westminster establishment or whether Ed has relegated himself to the company of the minor parties. ?

    Perhaps its a warm up for the rainbow coalition of left wing state control anti business parties that they will form after the election ?
    I did read speculation over Christmas that UKIP might propose nationalisation of the railways.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    Socrates said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Socrates said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....
    Undoubtedly true. Cameron is so second class compared to Farage, he daren't risk arguing head to head. He would be ripped to shreds on issue after issue, his record would fall to piece and his poor policy platform would be shown up for what it is. Conservatives on this site know this, which is why they are so supportive of him not undergoing proper scrutiny from his political opponents in front of the nation.

    Did you find any polyps up there ?
    I don't see what nasal passages have to do with anything. CCHQ undoubtedly agrees with my analysis, which is why they prefer half the country thinking Cameron's a coward over him debating Farage.
    Polyos are found elsewhere

    Has Farage published the audit of his allowance spending as he promised or is he a coward?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    rottenborough said:

    More reasons why they are not going to happen.

    One thing Hodges doesn't mention is that the above situation would mean Clegg is the only person defending every single decision of the Coalition. Good luck with that one Nick!

    It would be entertaining if the broadcasters did call their bluff and Nick and Ed then cried foul.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Socrates said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Socrates said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....
    Undoubtedly true. Cameron is so second class compared to Farage, he daren't risk arguing head to head. He would be ripped to shreds on issue after issue, his record would fall to piece and his poor policy platform would be shown up for what it is. Conservatives on this site know this, which is why they are so supportive of him not undergoing proper scrutiny from his political opponents in front of the nation.

    Did you find any polyps up there ?
    I don't see what nasal passages have to do with anything. CCHQ undoubtedly agrees with my analysis, which is why they prefer half the country thinking Cameron's a coward over him debating Farage.
    Polyos are found elsewhere

    Has Farage published the audit of his allowance spending as he promised or is he a coward?
    "Cameron's under attack and we don't have a good defence! Quick! Change the subject!"
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    Socrates said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Socrates said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Socrates said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....
    Undoubtedly true. Cameron is so second class compared to Farage, he daren't risk arguing head to head. He would be ripped to shreds on issue after issue, his record would fall to piece and his poor policy platform would be shown up for what it is. Conservatives on this site know this, which is why they are so supportive of him not undergoing proper scrutiny from his political opponents in front of the nation.

    Did you find any polyps up there ?
    I don't see what nasal passages have to do with anything. CCHQ undoubtedly agrees with my analysis, which is why they prefer half the country thinking Cameron's a coward over him debating Farage.
    Polyos are found elsewhere

    Has Farage published the audit of his allowance spending as he promised or is he a coward?
    "Cameron's under attack and we don't have a good defence! Quick! Change the subject!"
    I'll take that as, no Farage has not published/audited them as he promised.

    So Farage is a liar/frit/chicken/coward.

    Or perhaps he's realised that the political positives outweigh the negatives.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    If the broadcasters offer a party airtime and that party declines to take up that opportunity and the broadcasters then empty chair them the broadcaster will argue they've met their obligations.

    The most interesting thing we can draw from this is that Dave and Tories are ahead in the polls and have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    On each question, the Conservative plinth could just have the camera on it for a minute or some such.

  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Talking of the debates, wasn't one of them supposed to be just Cameron and Miliband? How would they empty chair that?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TheScreamingEagles said:


    Or perhaps he's realised that the political positives outweigh the negatives.

    As Cameron has in the debates.

    The reason for that? Because Cameron's record, policies and arguments would be torn to shreds by Farage. Even CCHQ and the Tory cheerleaders in the press agree.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Scott_P said:

    @jameschappers: Ashdown on TV debates: "Can you imagine Thatcher refusing?" Er..she concluded: 'We're not electing a president, we're choosing a government'

    Good job you ducked our bet eh?
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Some quotes from the BBC guidelines:

    "
    Anyone has the right to refuse to contribute to our output and it is not always necessary to mention their refusal. However, the refusal of an individual or an organisation to make a contribution should not be allowed to act as a veto on the appearance of other contributors holding different views, or on the output itself.

    When our audience might reasonably expect to hear counter arguments or where an individual, viewpoint or organisation is not represented it may be appropriate to explain the absence, particularly if it would be unfair to the missing contributor not to do so. This should be done in terms that are fair. We should consider whether we can represent the missing contributor’s views based on what we already know.
    "

    And:

    "
    Candidates or parties declining to take part in constituency/ward reports or debates cannot, by doing so, effectively exercise a veto over such coverage.

    However, this does not weaken in any way the BBC’s obligations of fairness in ensuring the audience is informed of all main strands of argument.
    "
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Scott_P said:

    rottenborough said:

    More reasons why they are not going to happen.

    One thing Hodges doesn't mention is that the above situation would mean Clegg is the only person defending every single decision of the Coalition. Good luck with that one Nick!

    It would be entertaining if the broadcasters did call their bluff and Nick and Ed then cried foul.
    the Johnstone's paint trophy debate ?
  • PongPong Posts: 4,693
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    I do wonder how Sean knows that. Was someone counting? Was it one child in each school, or all the children in all the schools? I mean 70 (REPEATED IN CAPITALS: SEVENTY) is quite a lot, isn't it? That must mean the islams are taking over, mustn't it? lolz.

    Anyway, kids will be kids. They're very astute at picking up on taboos and sticking two fingers up at authority. They're often wrong, but sometimes they have a point.

    I recall reading Francis Wheen's book a while back, about the slightly absurd enforced mourning we had here following the death of Diana in '97. Definitely food for thought.

    Just before I get mauled, I declare, Je Suis Charlie. Alright?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    Looks like Farage has 'done a Birmingham' on Fox:

    http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/nigel-farage-was-on-fox-news-and-was-as-bad-as-steve-emerson--gys7U1lA9g
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    I do wonder how Sean knows that. Was someone counting? Was it one child in each school, or all the children in all the schools?

    Anyway, kids will be kids. They're very astute at picking up on taboos and sticking two fingers up at authority. They're often wrong, but sometimes they have a point.

    I recall reading Francis Wheen's book a while back, about the slightly absurd enforced mourning we had here following the death of Diana in '97. Definitely food for thought.
    It is the reason why a minute's silence at football matches have become a minute's applause in this country.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Stereotomy said:

    Talking of the debates, wasn't one of them supposed to be just Cameron and Miliband? How would they empty chair that?

    Call it Newsnight ?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    This Ashcroft poll has a 1,400 strong Scottish Sub-sample

    Con 14%, Lab 24%, LD 5%, UKIP 5%, SNP 46%, Greens 4%

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7TUuBACIAEax1-.png
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    rottenborough said:


    Pure bunkum I'm afraid. Labour did not spend its term of office telling people there was a magic money tree. They won on a promise to rebuild and reform public services, partly through investing in them. The first few years they stuck to Ken Clarke's plans. All the later spending was within quite normal and acceptable levels of public borrowing.

    What they failed to mention is that the UK tax base was far too heavily dependent on the City. But then again, no one else, including the Tories, mentioned this either. It was a systemic, cross-party mistake.

    The bit you are missing in that little flight of fancy is public spending more than doubled under Labour. A few sensible years with Ken Clarke's plans, and then a long stream of spending being urinated up the wall. Then the Tories came in, and spending is back under control again.

    Year Spend
    1998 318.43
    1999 332.65
    2000 340.80
    2001 366.09
    2002 389.07
    2003 420.48
    2004 455.07
    2005 491.80
    2006 523.51
    2007 549.40
    2008 582.23
    2009 633.81
    2010 673.10
    2011 694.20
    2012 694.39
    2013 673.92
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    The VI in this poll was

    Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited January 2015
    We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html

    He is still available at 16/1
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    TheWatcher said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.
    2nd and 3rd Generation immigrants seem to be the most prone to radicalisation - are Kippers planning to deport them too ?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html

    He is still available at 16/1

    If the stuff Javid had said had come out of Farage's mouth, it would be being called extremist.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    TheWatcher said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.
    They'd probably be more gutted that Dave supports their front cover.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Pong said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    I do wonder how Sean knows that. Was someone counting? Was it one child in each school, or all the children in all the schools? I mean 70 (REPEATED IN CAPITALS: SEVENTY) is quite a lot, isn't it? That must mean the islams are taking over, mustn't it? lolz.

    Anyway, kids will be kids. They're very astute at picking up on taboos and sticking two fingers up at authority. They're often wrong, but sometimes they have a point.

    I recall reading Francis Wheen's book a while back, about the slightly absurd enforced mourning we had here following the death of Diana in '97. Definitely food for thought.

    Just before I get mauled, I declare, Je Suis Charlie. Alright?
    French education is pretty centralized, I think it all gets reported to the education ministry. See:
    http://mobile.lepoint.fr/politique/emmanuel-berretta/charlie-hebdo-minute-de-silence-perturbee-l-education-nationale-recense-70-chahuts-10-01-2015-1895466_1897.php

    But yeah, depending on the scale of the disruption this may only be 700 kids nationwide, in which case the nation as a whole seems to have performed quite an impressive feat of STFU.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    edited January 2015
    Socrates said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html

    He is still available at 16/1

    If the stuff Javid had said had come out of Farage's mouth, it would be being called extremist.
    No, Farage's tone and approach is all wrong, no wonder you're such a fan.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,378
    edited January 2015
    The NHS is Labour's strongest card, as this poll clearly indicates, but there has never been an election in this country where the NHS was *THE* decisive factor and I don't expect 2015 to buck that trend.

    In the end the NHS could even turn into a negative for Labour insofar as they will clearly bang on about it day and night between now and May and bore everyone to death (because they don't have anything else to bang on about)

    There's also the unfortunate fact that Labour themselves run the NHS in Wales which certainly isn't doing any better than the English NHS, LOL....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    Socrates said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html

    He is still available at 16/1

    If the stuff Javid had said had come out of Farage's mouth, it would be being called extremist.
    There is very little comparison between their comments on the Hebdo massarce other than condemnation.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    The NHS needs one of those new IT systems again!

    I broke my thumb on Boxing Day but I haven't gone to hospital yet, despite it being visibly broken. That's what the NHS needs, more tough, stiff-upper-lip warriors like me. Who can't take tops off Branston Pickle jars.

    Hooray for the martyrs.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
    That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.
    The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610

    I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
    That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.
    The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.
    Big day today for the 45 Malc !



    $45 dollars a barrel....
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    calum said:

    The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610

    I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.

    If Jim Murphy is McMurphy, does that make Nicola Sturgeon, Nurse Ratched?
  • richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    edited January 2015
    Canmeron is playing them all for fools..he is doing what he should do and that is get the best terms and that means having the Greens on board..what can they all be afraid of.?...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DanHannanMEP: I'd be surprised if an empty chair didn't get the better of @Ed_Miliband in a TV debate. http://t.co/hIzu5bMFGy

    @timothy_stanley: Prediction: if an empty chair is included in the debates, Ed will fall over it, Nigel will put his feet up on it & Clegg will canvas it
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Scott_P said:

    Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband need to be careful what they wish for. Or rather, they need to careful what David Cameron wishes for. The big winner from a debate that empty chairs the Prime Minister would be the Prime Minister. Nick Clegg doesn’t need to look into the crystal ball to see what happens when he debates Nigel Farage, he can simply read the opinion polls. And if Ed Miliband intends to submit himself to the Ukip leader's tender mercies, Labour MPs in northern and southern marginals may as well start writing their concession speeches now. Without Cameron to act as a lightning rod, Miliband and Clegg will get electrocuted.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11344223/Without-David-Cameron-Nigel-Farage-will-destroy-Labour-and-the-Lib-Dems.html

    The other party leaders would barely address each other. they would aim and blame everything on the empty chair.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,184
    If the Greens are in the debates, can we have Ska rather than Natalie?

    I quite enjoyed the Euro debates, for some reason...
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.
    2nd and 3rd Generation immigrants seem to be the most prone to radicalisation - are Kippers planning to deport them too ?
    When you say 'deport them too' you mean as well as who?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
    That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.
    The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.
    Big day today for the 45 Malc !



    $45 dollars a barrel....
    no worries for us , England will make up the difference with the famed unionist pooling and sharing. That is why the fearties accepted the bribe , they don't have to worry , given unionists were desperate to hold on to us and pick up the tab. bad for down south as they will have to make up the difference.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Indigo said:

    rottenborough said:


    Pure bunkum I'm afraid. Labour did not spend its term of office telling people there was a magic money tree. They won on a promise to rebuild and reform public services, partly through investing in them. The first few years they stuck to Ken Clarke's plans. All the later spending was within quite normal and acceptable levels of public borrowing.

    What they failed to mention is that the UK tax base was far too heavily dependent on the City. But then again, no one else, including the Tories, mentioned this either. It was a systemic, cross-party mistake.

    The bit you are missing in that little flight of fancy is public spending more than doubled under Labour. A few sensible years with Ken Clarke's plans, and then a long stream of spending being urinated up the wall. Then the Tories came in, and spending is back under control again.

    Year Spend
    1998 318.43
    1999 332.65
    2000 340.80
    2001 366.09
    2002 389.07
    2003 420.48
    2004 455.07
    2005 491.80
    2006 523.51
    2007 549.40
    2008 582.23
    2009 633.81
    2010 673.10
    2011 694.20
    2012 694.39
    2013 673.92
    Wait, aren't we doing everything in terms of percentage of GDP these days?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,498
    calum said:

    The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610

    I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.

    It is a laugh listening to Murphy nowadays, he is the polar opposite of what he was a few weeks ago. He was struggling on the question re leading the Scottish party whilst on the dole as well, was very nippy with Gary.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited January 2015
    isam said:

    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.
    2nd and 3rd Generation immigrants seem to be the most prone to radicalisation - are Kippers planning to deport them too ?
    When you say 'deport them too' you mean as well as who?
    The nurses who fail the UKIP English exam?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
    That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.
    The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.
    Big day today for the 45 Malc !



    $45 dollars a barrel....
    no worries for us , England will make up the difference with the famed unionist pooling and sharing. That is why the fearties accepted the bribe , they don't have to worry , given unionists were desperate to hold on to us and pick up the tab. bad for down south as they will have to make up the difference.
    No worries Malc - you are welcome.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,961
    Support for far-right at 20-year low if you don’t include really obvious things

    http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/support-for-far-right-at-20-year-low-if-you-dont-include-really-obvious-things-2015011494409
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    TheWatcher said:

    isam said:

    TGOHF said:

    TheWatcher said:

    Socrates said:

    sean thomas knox ‏@thomasknox 1 min1 minute ago
    Article is paywalled, but details: in 70 - SEVENTY - French schools, kids refused to honour the Hebdo dead, catcalling during minute silence

    Hebdo would probably approve of the snub to authority.
    2nd and 3rd Generation immigrants seem to be the most prone to radicalisation - are Kippers planning to deport them too ?
    When you say 'deport them too' you mean as well as who?
    The nurses who fail the UKIP English exam?
    But you know as well as I do that's not going to happen

    So, no one then. What a great point
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,410
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html

    He is still available at 16/1

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    We might have a Tory leadership contest starting in less than 4 months time, conhome are (becoming) huge fans of Sajid Javid

    http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/01/javids-moderation-will-help-tackle-islamist-extremism-not-farages-stridency.html

    He is still available at 16/1

    Thanks, a nice tip at a nice price.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited January 2015
    calum said:

    The Daily Murphy has an interesting article today, it turns out that Jim Murphy is not a Unionist. I'm not sure how this sudden realisation on his part is going to play with the Scottish Tories he's hoping to attract;

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-leader-jim-murphy-4973610

    I sense the hand of McTernan behind this, the new ideology, McMurphyism is starting to take shape.

    As I asked a couple of days ago
    http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/512155/#Comment_512155
    Indigo said:

    I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Indigo

    The Jim Murphy claim is so bizarre. Wasn't this the guy that famously went round the country standing on a box to argue for the union?
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    FPT: I suspect the broadcaster's lawyers will sink the debates without Cameron, because they won't know how to satisfy their legal obligations to give equal airtime to the parties.

    Being called frit/chickens is a mere flesh wound in the grand scheme of things.
    Its behind the Paywall - but I've seen a few comments agreeing with Danny Finkelstein's argument Cameron being called names on Twitter would be less damaging than going head to head with Farage on TV.....

    Remember how we were assured that without any doubt whatsoever Cameron would absolutely, definitely, certainly positively debate Salmond.

    And if he didn't everyone would laugh at him until the end of time?
    That's irrelevant the Nat GOTV will win the referendum for Yes.
    The big fearty will be behind the sofa as usual searching for his spine.
    Big day today for the 45 Malc !



    $45 dollars a barrel....

    Oil is yesterday's news, done now.

    Copper's turn to collapse now having decisively broke 6 year support at 3 USD a pound. China couldn't keep on building ghost cities for ever.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    The VI in this poll was

    Con 29%, Lab 33% LD 7%, UKIP 19%, Greens 6%

    Peak Kipper!
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Marf has done cartoon on the NHS which has been added to the header
  • FalseFlagFalseFlag Posts: 1,801
    What is the long term solution the establishment is proposing? Bigger and more intrusive police state, continuing open door immigration, more restrictions on free speech, perhaps a community centre or two?
This discussion has been closed.