Could Sky/C4 defy the Ofcom ruling and invite the Greens to the third debate? I think this would be popular with the public.
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
Given Cameron's previous promises to have debates and his shiftiness now, who can blame people who think his referendum promise might not be all it seems if/ when the day arrives
The polling says people think he is making excuses... UKIP should major on this parallel when Tories campaign on offering a referendum
Don't worry Sam - Nige's new joint pen pal chum Ed won't be reneging on his promise not to have a referendum.
Could Sky/C4 defy the Ofcom ruling and invite the Greens to the third debate? I think this would be popular with the public.
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
I can write the thread header for that news now - "Blow for Cameron as 5-3-2 debates go ahead" ...
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.
"he went for simplicity". Marvellous.
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
I think I can point to things that Farage, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have said that are clearly false.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.
"he went for simplicity". Marvellous.
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
I think I can point to things that Farage, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have said that are clearly false.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.
Who has told "the most" porky pies though.
Nick DID apologise for this tuition fees about-turn...
Could Sky/C4 defy the Ofcom ruling and invite the Greens to the third debate? I think this would be popular with the public.
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
1. The Ofcom suggestion is out for consultation - it's not a "ruling". 2. It does not affect the TV debates.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.
As "he went for simplicity". Marvellous.
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
I think I can point to things that Farage, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have said that are clearly false.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.
Who has told "the most" porky pies though. ..
As Dr Johnson observed, there is little point in settling precedence between a louse and a flea.....
Do the Green supporters realise that it is more like a socialist workers party than a non toxic Lib Dem party?
I haven't been a member of the Liberal Democrats, so I can't comment definitively on the validity of your assertion. Given the ex-supporters [members? I forget] of the Liberal Democrats I met through the short-lived Democracy 2015 thing I must say that I have my doubts.
Thinking about the youtube clip a bit more Milliband really did play that rather well. He committed to engaging in a cross-party debate with whoever the TV companies put up, which makes Cameron look like an idiot for calling him a coward, but he didn't commit to debating the Greens specifically which avoids any ambush gotcha style 1-on-1 debate with the Greens.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.
It’s ridiculous to say he’ll be tagged as a ‘chicken’; more likely a calculating, foxy politician. The obvious response is to call his bluff and allow the Greens along. Having only the two leaders likely to become PM makes sense as a debate. If you move from that you should have all the parties with a seat in the Commons. After all any of them could be coalition partners or supporters of a minority administration, so it makes sense for us to hear their position on crucial issues.
Comments
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
(Although as Al Murray is likely to poll only a few hundred votes, it'll need to be a close race for it to have any effect)
Edit: It IS 18 if you are in a 'position of trust' over the other party.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.
Nick DID apologise for this tuition fees about-turn...
2. It does not affect the TV debates.
Farage vs Paul Nuttall/Murray
' but more likely he doesn't give a damn and everyone will see it that way.'
You really think 'everyone' really gives a toss?
F**k a duck,
OT. Today's Sid and Doris award goes to........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908579/Orthodox-Israeli-newspaper-airbrushes-female-world-leaders-JeSuisCharlie-march-photographs.html
The obvious response is to call his bluff and allow the Greens along.
Having only the two leaders likely to become PM makes sense as a debate. If you move from that you should have all the parties with a seat in the Commons. After all any of them could be coalition partners or supporters of a minority administration, so it makes sense for us to hear their position on crucial issues.