Seven participants is certainly not too many for a debate. It is, of course, probably several too many for an argument though. As I'd much rather see a debate than an argument I'm happy enough with the idea.
A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart.
But he's got what he wanted now. If he runs away again it'll look truly pathetic.
Oh, He'll find a way out. No doubt they are planning one as we speak.
What was Farage's excuse for running away from the UKIP Carnival in Croydon? Perhaps that one could be recycled.
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
A crowd where all six of the other participants will be attacking him to various degrees, more than will be the case with Miliband. Who knows how Clegg will decide to play it but I imagine the Greens/SNP/PC/Labour will all compete to see who can criticize him the most, and Farage will seek any opportunity to tear strips off him as well. Undermining Miliband will be a goal of the others too no doubt, but one way to do that is to rough Cameron up worse than Miliband manages. Perhaps it will leech votes from impressed Labour voters, but it could equally see Cameron looking terrible - when so many shots will be made at him, some are bound to hit home.
you think the greens or snp think they'll get a lot of votes from tory 'floaters' do you rather than from labour or lib dem 'floaters'? I'd have thought they'll fire at the parties closest to them as their supporters are likely to have less distance to travel.
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
A crowd where all six of the other participants will be attacking him to various degrees, more than will be the case with Miliband. Who knows how Clegg will decide to play it but I imagine the Greens/SNP/PC/Labour will all compete to see who can criticize him the most, and Farage will seek any opportunity to tear strips off him as well. Undermining Miliband will be a goal of the others too no doubt, but one way to do that is to rough Cameron up worse than Miliband manages. Perhaps it will leech votes from impressed Labour voters, but it could equally see Cameron looking terrible - when so many shots will be made at him, some are bound to hit home.
No, that is much better than a format where three other leaders are tearing into him. In any case, the SNP will be much more concerned about laying into Miliband, and in terms which play in Scotland exclusively. Miliband in contrast won't be able to respond to the Scottish angle without opening up an English flank.
I really can't see how any debate line-up could be better from Cameron's point of view. He'll accept now, having got what he wanted by having the courage to call the others' bluff.
A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart.
But he's got what he wanted now. If he runs away again it'll look truly pathetic.
He's got what a lot of people wanted - myself included. I hoped he'd achieve this result even if he didn't hope to do so himself. I agree that he can't run away from it now.
As for the structure of the debate - I'm sure there will be plenty of back and forth but I hope it will be done in a civilized way. For starters I think the lecterns should go. I'd rather see them all sat around a big table. More inclusive and less confrontational.
(Edited to change the word podiums to lecterns. I don't know why I wrote podiums.)
At this rate the TV Co's will simply get bored with the whole idea and bin it. There's only so much squabbling and whining that any sane and intelligent person can tolerate.
A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart.
But he's got what he wanted now. If he runs away again it'll look truly pathetic.
He's got what a lot of people wanted - myself included. I hoped he'd achieve this result even if he didn't hope to do so himself. I agree that he can't run away from it now.
As for the structure of the debate - I'm sure there will be plenty of back and forth but I hope it will be done in a civilized way. For starters I think the lecterns should go. I'd rather see them all sat around a big table. More inclusive and less confrontational.
(Edited to change the word podiums to lecterns. I don't know why I wrote podiums.)
At this rate the TV Co's will simply get bored with the whole idea and bin it. There's only so much squabbling and whining that any sane and intelligent person can tolerate.
You've not spotted how many years they've been showing soaps then?
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
A crowd where all six of the other participants will be attacking him to various degrees, more than will be the case with Miliband. Who knows how Clegg will decide to play it but I imagine the Greens/SNP/PC/Labour will all compete to see who can criticize him the most, and Farage will seek any opportunity to tear strips off him as well. Undermining Miliband will be a goal of the others too no doubt, but one way to do that is to rough Cameron up worse than Miliband manages. Perhaps it will leech votes from impressed Labour voters, but it could equally see Cameron looking terrible - when so many shots will be made at him, some are bound to hit home.
you think the greens or snp think they'll get a lot of votes from tory 'floaters' do you rather than from labour or lib dem 'floaters'? I'd have thought they'll fire at the parties closest to them as their supporters are likely to have less distance to travel.
Possibly, it depends how best they think they can get those Labour or LD votes - by trashing Ed M, or showing how effectively they trash Cameron. The latter has the unintended, but for them no doubt welcome, potential to get more Tory voters to stay home or switch to UKIP perhaps, if Cameron is shown up.
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
A crowd where all six of the other participants will be attacking him to various degrees, more than will be the case with Miliband. Who knows how Clegg will decide to play it but I imagine the Greens/SNP/PC/Labour will all compete to see who can criticize him the most, and Farage will seek any opportunity to tear strips off him as well. Undermining Miliband will be a goal of the others too no doubt, but one way to do that is to rough Cameron up worse than Miliband manages. Perhaps it will leech votes from impressed Labour voters, but it could equally see Cameron looking terrible - when so many shots will be made at him, some are bound to hit home.
you think the greens or snp think they'll get a lot of votes from tory 'floaters' do you rather than from labour or lib dem 'floaters'? I'd have thought they'll fire at the parties closest to them as their supporters are likely to have less distance to travel.
Exactly. Why would the SNP waste time attacking Cameron when they're fighting house-by-house against Labour across the whole of Scotland? SLAB have been keeping EdM away from Scotland as much as possible - it's an SNP dream for Sturgeon to be debating side-by-side with Weird Ed The Westminster Toff.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
What would be awesome is if the broadcasters sprang a surprise on the leaders in the first debate, with Anne Robinson as the host for an impromptu performance of the Weakest Link, with politically relevant factual questions.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
She isnt employed by the BBC, is she? My main reason for not taking her seriously is that I never know whether she is giving us her opinion or is being pressured to give us some man's opinion.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
When you are in the BBC's favourite club, there isn't much you can do wrong. Russell Brand is another that they can't get enough of.
Make some antisemitic remark live on air, no action...make a racist remark off air, instant sacking. Make a racist remarks off air and on air, but earn the BBC loads of money, warning.
Totally O/T but I've just had a "cold call" from someone offering to get me compensation for bad investment advice.
Stupidly was a bit short and didn't get all the details, but I'm sure many here would be interested!
why would anyone need that? you should tell them to eff off.
If you have a complaint you complain to the source of the advice, there's an FCA regulated approach for handling that & if you haven't got a satisfactory outcome for most things you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman service.
Anyone calling up like that is as bad as the PPI ambulance chasers - do it yourself if you have been wronged and then you won't be handing over money to a spiv.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
[EDIT: On reflection, Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity. The crimes are still worlds apart in terms of seriousness.]
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
She isnt employed by the BBC, is she? My main reason for not taking her seriously is that I never know whether she is giving us her opinion or is being pressured to give us some man's opinion.
Posters on here keep calling Cameron cowardly and hide behind false names...weirdos
Well, that's an accusation coming out of left field. Even if someone is also a coward, it would not in itself invalidate an accusation that Cameron too is a coward, and that's even if we accept the frankly bizarre notion that people using screennames is an act of cowardice.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
She was in Daily Politics the other weak. Utterly confounding.
"She isnt employed by the BBC, is she? My main reason for not taking her seriously is that I never know whether she is giving us her opinion or is being pressured to give us some man's opinion."
Now that's funny! You want to give the appropriately named Anorak a lesson.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Nick Robinson@bbcnickrobinson·5 mins5 minutes ago For avoidance of doubt -@DUPleader never in TV debates proposals. He's now demanding to know why as got more seats than Plaid, SNP & Greens
At this rate, the Monster Raving Loony Party will be in the debates.
And the Bus Pass Elvis Party. O, and maybe Al Murray.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Except the best way to win over lefties is to show you're even more angry about cuts than Labour and the Lib Dems are.
Which is fine as it doesn't do much to the Tory support base and it will help win votes back from soft UKIP supporters if people become enraged enough about left wingery.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
[EDIT: On reflection, Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity. The crimes are still worlds apart in terms of seriousness.]
How do we know she is telling the truth ? She has form of not telling the truth even inside a court. Also, as has been pointed out, she could be speaking on behalf of someone else.
KL4 Bollocks..if you are going to call someone a coward then be brave enough to use your real name..or become the coward
Could you re-issue that challenge, giving your real name, properly punctuated, full address and email? Rather than cravenly skulking behind all the other Richard Dodds in the world.
i will then explain why your point is such a rubbish one.
KL4 Bollocks..if you are going to call someone a coward then be brave enough to use your real name..or become the coward
Yes of course, there is no other reason someone would use a screenname on the internet. I think Cameron will do anything to avoid the debates so long as he can avoid appearing too unreasonable though I would stop short of calling him an outright coward, but your argument is still utter shite. EDIT Not least because unless the person is known personally to everyone else using a space on the internet, a 'real' name is no guarantee of identity either.
I opposed your ridiculous assertion on principle, not because I felt the sting of being the brunt of your comment, as while I think Cameron is desperate to avoid a debate, that would not in itself make him a coward either. Just intensely tactical and over cautious.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
[EDIT: On reflection, Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity. The crimes are still worlds apart in terms of seriousness.]
How do we know she is telling the truth ? She has form of not telling the truth even inside a court. Also, as has been pointed out, she could be speaking on behalf of someone else.
What part of "Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity" is troubling you? 'Cos to me it looks like we agree. And if you have no integrity, then you shouldn't be giving your view on a national broadcaster. That wasn't really my bone of contention, though. If she'd been banged up for common assualt, that wouldn't affect her integrity in the same way, and I'd be less bothered by her being on the radio/TV.
"A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart."
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
I'm surprised with his media background he wasn't savvy enough to see this worst of all outcomes happening.
Far worse for Ed and Nigel. They are the ones who need to debate Cameron without all that background noise. Whats in it for Labour or UKIP.
I agree that a four way debate is better for Farage, but any debate at all is still good for them. If you've got a good product, the more chance you have to show it off, the better, in any format. It's only if you're selling a dud (like Cameron) that you need to be selective about how it's shown.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
What do Sin Fein and DUP think of this latest proposal?
At this rate Fianna Fail, SPD, CDU will also have to be invited. In fact, having CDU is important since most of UKIP's points re: EU can only be answered by having Merkel in there !!!
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Except the best way to win over lefties is to show you're even more angry about cuts than Labour and the Lib Dems are.
Yes, and they'll be attacking Miliband on the basis that he's not going to reverse the 'Tory cuts'. That's an argument which plays well for those who don't accept the need for sound finances in the first place, but they'd never vote Conservative anyway. Conversely, Miliband will either have to try to claim that he'd be as irresponsible as the best of them - which Cameron would be delighted with - or that he wouldn't, which risks pushing potential Labour voters to the SNP and to the Greens. Almost anything he says can be used by Cameron against him in the one-on-one debate.
"A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart."
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
I'm surprised with his media background he wasn't savvy enough to see this worst of all outcomes happening.
Far worse for Ed and Nigel. They are the ones who need to debate Cameron without all that background noise. Whats in it for Labour or UKIP.
I agree that a four way debate is better for Farage, but any debate at all is still good for them. If you've got a good product, the more chance you have to show it off, the better, in any format. It's only if you're selling a dud (like Cameron) that you need to be selective about how it's shown.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
Yes it does. Obviously.
EDIT: Just check out the sentencing guidelines if you don't believe me.
"A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart."
Extraordinary decision by Cameron. The advantage he has in a two or three way debate is his standing as PM. With seven this advantage is lost. He just becomes one of a crowd.
I'm surprised with his media background he wasn't savvy enough to see this worst of all outcomes happening.
Far worse for Ed and Nigel. They are the ones who need to debate Cameron without all that background noise. Whats in it for Labour or UKIP.
I agree that a four way debate is better for Farage, but any debate at all is still good for them. If you've got a good product, the more chance you have to show it off, the better, in any format. It's only if you're selling a dud (like Cameron) that you need to be selective about how it's shown.
Any chance of the 6 other parties screaming waaaacist/insurance based model for the NHS for 2 hours straight?
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
KL4 Bollocks..if you are going to call someone a coward then be brave enough to use your real name..or become the coward
Could you re-issue that challenge, giving your real name, properly punctuated, full address and email? Rather than cravenly skulking behind all the other Richard Dodds in the world.
i will then explain why your point is such a rubbish one.
Everyone should also use their own photo as an avatar. Like I do.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I thought the principle that some crimes are more serious than others and so demand different sentences was well established.
KL4 Bollocks..if you are going to call someone a coward then be brave enough to use your real name..or become the coward
Could you re-issue that challenge, giving your real name, properly punctuated, full address and email? Rather than cravenly skulking behind all the other Richard Dodds in the world.
i will then explain why your point is such a rubbish one.
Everyone should also use their own photo as an avatar. Like I do.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
[EDIT: On reflection, Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity. The crimes are still worlds apart in terms of seriousness.]
How do we know she is telling the truth ? She has form of not telling the truth even inside a court. Also, as has been pointed out, she could be speaking on behalf of someone else.
What part of "Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity" is troubling you? 'Cos to me it looks like we agree. And if you have no integrity, then you shouldn't be giving your view on a national broadcaster. That wasn't really my bone of contention, though. If she'd been banged up for common assualt, that wouldn't affect her integrity in the same way, and I'd be less bothered by her being on the radio/TV.
I am not sure what your point is. I agree with you on this more than 100%.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
Yes it does. Obviously.
EDIT: Just check out the sentencing guidelines if you don't believe me.
She was convicted of perverting the course of justice, which faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
Wrong on the last one.
Tory: The UK is the best performing economy in Europe, and one of the best in the world. We're creating more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. After some tough years when we've been dealing with the mess Labour left behind them, wages are now rising faster than inflation. Why put all this at risk by listening to those who have no coherent plan?
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
Seems daft when phrased like that. As I understand it, the reasoning was: 1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk. 2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given. 3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching. 4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
Wrong on the last one.
Tory: The UK is the best performing economy in Europe, and one of the best in the world. We're creating more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. After some tough years when we've been dealing with the mess Labour left behind them, wages are now rising faster than inflation. Why put all this at risk by listening to those who have no coherent plan?
No doubt. If he turns up. Although Cameron may get diverted by arguing with Farage about whether the 2017 referendum will really happen.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
Yes it does. Obviously.
EDIT: Just check out the sentencing guidelines if you don't believe me.
She was convicted of perverting the course of justice, which faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Ishmael..who I am and what I do has been well recorded on here... do try and catch up..funny how all the coward callers are so uptight ..hitting a nerve perhaps....
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Indeed. How refreshing for him.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland" PC: "Labour are failing in Wales" Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc" LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy." Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected." UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here." Tory: No show
Wrong on the last one.
Tory: The UK is the best performing economy in Europe, and one of the best in the world. We're creating more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. After some tough years when we've been dealing with the mess Labour left behind them, wages are now rising faster than inflation. Why put all this at risk by listening to those who have no coherent plan?
No doubt. If he turns up. Although Cameron may get diverted by arguing with Farage about whether the 2017 referendum will really happen.
We have repeatedly tried to put a bill before Parliament only to have it blocked by Labour and the Lib Dems.
No doubt. If he turns up. Although Cameron may get diverted by arguing with Farage about whether the 2017 referendum will really happen.
He'll turn up. And he won't argue with Farage on that, he'll just state that, if you want a referendum, the only way to get one is to vote Conservative (which, I note in passing, has the unusual merit amongst political arguments of actually being true). Meanwhile Miliband and the others will argue that the referendum puts jobs at risk because the uncertainty it will create (some truth in that, too) - but that contradicts what Farage will be saying. Cameron's position in the middle, as the only party proposing to give voters the choice, is not at all bad on that scenario, and of course Farage is much more diluted in the proposed new format.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
Yes it does. Obviously.
EDIT: Just check out the sentencing guidelines if you don't believe me.
She was convicted of perverting the course of justice, which faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: *scoffing laugh/smug look* Everyone but us is a liar who knows nothing about Scotland. PC: I'm so happy to be here. That is all Greens: Vive la revolution LD: Nick Clegg? No, I'm his replacement, Nikolai Durantes. Labour: Have you noticed how David Cameron is a Tory? I just blew your mind, didn't I? UKIP: Listen to me, listen to me, listen to me! LibLabConGreSNPPCDUPSFSDLPUUPAlliance are just professional elites of the MSM! Only we can give you the right/left party you want. Or whatever's good for you. Tory: Ed M looks weird.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: *scoffing laugh/smug look* Everyone but us is a liar who knows nothing about Scotland. PC: I'm so happy to be here. That is all Greens: Vive la revolution LD: Nick Clegg? No, I'm his replacement, Nikolai Durantes. Labour: Have you noticed how David Cameron is a Tory? I just blew your mind, didn't I? UKIP: Listen to me, listen to me, listen to me! LibLabConGreSNPPCDUPSFSDLPUUPAlliance are just professional elites of the MSM! Only we can give you the right/left party you want. Or whatever's good for you. Tory: Ed M looks weird.
Jokes aside, UKIP are the only anti-mass immigration party up there, despite 50-70% of the British public agreeing with them on the issue.
KL4 Bollocks..if you are going to call someone a coward then be brave enough to use your real name..or become the coward
Could you re-issue that challenge, giving your real name, properly punctuated, full address and email? Rather than cravenly skulking behind all the other Richard Dodds in the world.
i will then explain why your point is such a rubbish one.
Everyone should also use their own photo as an avatar. Like I do.
Yebbut how recently was that taken?
Let's say recently, hence the greyer pallor from lack of sun.
No doubt. If he turns up. Although Cameron may get diverted by arguing with Farage about whether the 2017 referendum will really happen.
He'll turn up. And he won't argue with Farage on that, he'll just state that, if you want a referendum, the only way to get one is to vote Conservative (which, I note in passing, has the unusual merit amongst political arguments of actually being true).
No, it's not true. You're going to vote Conservative and not get a referendum.
Seven participants is certainly not too many for a debate. It is, of course, probably several too many for an argument though. As I'd much rather see a debate than an argument I'm happy enough with the idea.
A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart.
But he's got what he wanted now. If he runs away again it'll look truly pathetic.
These TV programmes created by the media and billed as 'debates' are anything but debates anyway. They are simply answers to selected questions, selected by a selected moderator, put forward by selected members of a selected audience. If there is one thing these 'beauty parades' are not it is a debate such as you might expect in the Oxford Union.
What you cannot face up to is that Cameron has won round one in the political stitch-up game that surrounds these 'debates'.
No doubt. If he turns up. Although Cameron may get diverted by arguing with Farage about whether the 2017 referendum will really happen.
He'll turn up. And he won't argue with Farage on that, he'll just state that, if you want a referendum, the only way to get one is to vote Conservative (which, I note in passing, has the unusual merit amongst political arguments of actually being true).
No, it's not true. You're going to vote Conservative and not get a referendum.
I can't do it by myself, it's true! But UKIP supporters collectively could, if they wanted to.
OT. Just heard Vicky Pryce commenting on quantitative easing on BBC 4. Interesting that Ched Evans as an ex con is thought to be too important a role model to ply his trade whereas a BBC financial correspondent isn't.
It's only interesting if you ignore the relative gravity of their crimes. Sorry, but you made a pretty dumb comment there. I'll assume it was a troll.
I thought perjury was a pretty serious offense?
I've edited my post, and - having thought about it a bit more - agree that she should be given much less air-time than she's currently receiving. But I stand by my stance that the crimes are very different. Perjury is taken very seriously by the law, but does not rank as such with people outside the judiciary. In my opinion. That's not to say it was trivial, just not on a par with rape.
Yes the crimes are different, but that doesn't make one any less serious than the other!
I'm still trying to understand how two men can have sex with a woman immediately after each other, and one's a rapist and the other isn't, when no coercion was involved.
It seems the jury (and media) accepted in this case that going back to the room with the first guy was enough consent... if there had been no second guy the first would no doubt have been found guilty
In a seven way, the order in which participants get called is important. Will Nigel Farage speak before or after David Cameron? Will Natalie Bennett set the agenda for Ed Miliband or critique his answer?
In a seven way, the order in which participants get called is important. Will Nigel Farage speak before or after David Cameron? Will Natalie Bennett set the agenda for Ed Miliband or critique his answer?
Absolutely crucial, but I imagine they'll randomise it and use a different sequence for each question.
Ishmael..who I am and what I do has been well recorded on here... do try and catch up..funny how all the coward callers are so uptight ..hitting a nerve perhaps....
Richard
You fell out of the self-important tree and hit every single branch on the way down. All I know about you, after some time "on here", is that you think there are no hills in Scotland.
If whatever you do is unaffected by what you do on here, bully for you. Pseudonymity is the norm here and elsewhere on the internet and no one needs to justify it. But if I had to, I work in academia and could at a stroke rule myself out of any job I might in future apply for by saying under my own name that I might vote Ukip, or that I think Foucault was a pretentious wanker. I haven't called Cameron a coward, but if I did Dr Johnson's maxim would apply: "You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
In a seven way, the order in which participants get called is important. Will Nigel Farage speak before or after David Cameron? Will Natalie Bennett set the agenda for Ed Miliband or critique his answer?
They'll have to bus some SNP and Plaid Cymru supporters in to make the audience balanced. Considering the trouble undergone to just agree a format, sorting out the technicalities won't be easy.
All Leaders debate each other separately in one on one debates.
Wouldn't we end up having about 50? Can't be arsed to check my maths.
21.
David Cameron would debate each of the other six, Ed Miliband would debate the remaining five, Nick Clegg would debate each of the other four, Nigel Farage would take on each of the last three, Natalie Bennett would challenge each of the final two, and Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon could agree on everything.
Ishmael..who I am and what I do has been well recorded on here... do try and catch up..funny how all the coward callers are so uptight ..hitting a nerve perhaps....
Absolutely, though not just from coward callers obviously, that you dismiss everyone irritated as being so demonstrates you are fitting people to a conclusion. Though with the same logic as before, hitting a nerve is not proof of anything, let alone your correctness, as the rank stupidity of your comment lends itself to multiple explanations of why it would irritate. I'd like to think irritation without sincerity was the point, and that by responding I was merely feeding some ego thing, but without proof to the contrary I always assume people mean what they say, however idiotic.
Whether you believe such idiocy or not, obviously I've made my own point clear enough, so shall shut up now, but now I have a full five occasions I've lost my rag at something someone has written on here, which is pretty decent for 4000 posts, and most of the other occasions were from people being antagonistic rather than silly, but I feel like I've hit a milestone.
A final word - there are plenty of good reasons people might not be willing or able to use their real name depending on the subject matter, and no requirement to do so in any case. Even if a failure to do so was relevant in how seriously one could consider a point made by someone not using their real name, it would still not invalidate that point completely. Why you think it does is beyond my comprehension.
If I never hear from Vicky Price again I do not think my life will be diminished. I am not going to have a breakdown about it but I really don't think the BBC should be employing her to express a professional opinion about anything. She is a delusional scum bag.
On the debates this should suit Cameron fine. I really don't believe that Ed was lulling him into a false sense of security on Wednesday, he really is that poor. The problem for Cameron the last time is that a 3 man format clearly favours the guy in the middle who points to both "extremes" and plays the reasonableness card. Nick did that very well and it was the 3rd debate before Cameron really got on top of the problem.
So a "debate" of short, sharp prepared soundbites with the SNP, UKIP and the Greens all desperate to have a go at Ed should be a laugh followed by a head to head that could be brutal. Much, much better than what was on offer before.
If I was Labour I would not be happy about this and if I was a Lib Dem I would be furious but tough. They have been outmanoeuvred by a sitting PM who has the cards. No disgrace in that, he simply has to know how to play them.
All Leaders debate each other separately in one on one debates.
Wouldn't we end up having about 50? Can't be arsed to check my maths.
21.
David Cameron would debate each of the other six, Ed Miliband would debate the remaining five, Nick Clegg would debate each of the other four, Nigel Farage would take on each of the last three, Natalie Bennett would challenge each of the final two, and Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon could agree on everything.
Seven participants is certainly not too many for a debate. It is, of course, probably several too many for an argument though. As I'd much rather see a debate than an argument I'm happy enough with the idea.
A proper debate requires back and forth. That's entirely why Cameron the Cowardly wanted to avoid one. His soundbites would get torn apart.
But he's got what he wanted now. If he runs away again it'll look truly pathetic.
What you cannot face up to is that Cameron has won round one in the political stitch-up game that surrounds these 'debates'.
He's done better out of it than I thought he would, though I still think he could come out worse, though at least the possibility is not as certain as it was before.
Yes, there's no point in Green / SNP / PC doing boilerplate criticism of Cameron.
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Indeed, Ed Miliband will be slaughtered.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: *scoffing laugh/smug look* Everyone but us is a liar who knows nothing about Scotland. PC: I'm so happy to be here. That is all Greens: Vive la revolution LD: Nick Clegg? No, I'm his replacement, Nikolai Durantes. Labour: Have you noticed how David Cameron is a Tory? I just blew your mind, didn't I? UKIP: Listen to me, listen to me, listen to me! LibLabConGreSNPPCDUPSFSDLPUUPAlliance are just professional elites of the MSM! Only we can give you the right/left party you want. Or whatever's good for you. Tory: Ed M looks weird.
Jokes aside, UKIP are the only anti-mass immigration party up there, despite 50-70% of the British public agreeing with them on the issue.
In a seven way, the order in which participants get called is important. Will Nigel Farage speak before or after David Cameron? Will Natalie Bennett set the agenda for Ed Miliband or critique his answer?
It will, obviously, rotate after each question - ie different order for each question.
Since SNP contests only in Scotland, PC in Wales, the Green Party only in England, on what basis are DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance excluded ? Is Northern Ireland in the second division of the UK ?
Comments
I really can't see how any debate line-up could be better from Cameron's point of view. He'll accept now, having got what he wanted by having the courage to call the others' bluff.
Stupidly was a bit short and didn't get all the details, but I'm sure many here would be interested!
Make some antisemitic remark live on air, no action...make a racist remark off air, instant sacking. Make a racist remarks off air and on air, but earn the BBC loads of money, warning.
If you have a complaint you complain to the source of the advice, there's an FCA regulated approach for handling that & if you haven't got a satisfactory outcome for most things you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman service.
Anyone calling up like that is as bad as the PPI ambulance chasers - do it yourself if you have been wronged and then you won't be handing over money to a spiv.
[EDIT: On reflection, Pryce was found guilty of persitently lying, which does hit her credibility as an independent analyst with a measure of integrity. The crimes are still worlds apart in terms of seriousness.]
They will be trying to win votes - and that means win votes off Lab and LD which is where their votes will come from.
Yeah, but think how good the photo still will be this time with five leader's cocking their legs in a row, rather than two.
It'll look like a 1930s Broadway tap-dance show.
"She isnt employed by the BBC, is she? My main reason for not taking her seriously is that I never know whether she is giving us her opinion or is being pressured to give us some man's opinion."
Now that's funny! You want to give the appropriately named Anorak a lesson.
i will then explain why your point is such a rubbish one.
I opposed your ridiculous assertion on principle, not because I felt the sting of being the brunt of your comment, as while I think Cameron is desperate to avoid a debate, that would not in itself make him a coward either. Just intensely tactical and over cautious.
"Posters on here keep calling Cameron cowardly and hide behind false names...weirdos"
Even by the standards of your non sequiturs that makes no sense. We miss you when you're in the Priory
Rich Greenhill@RichGreenhill
MT @Conorpope: exclusive picture of the first leaders' debate etc >
https://twitter.com/RichGreenhill/status/558323196035076097
All in all, a very satisfactory set of affairs.
EDIT: Just check out the sentencing guidelines if you don't believe me.
Those respective debating points in full:
SNP: "Labour are failing in Scotland"
PC: "Labour are failing in Wales"
Greens: "Labour should be Labour and renationalise the railways, pay a living wage etc"
LD: "Only by having Vince Cable in the Cabinet can you stop manic lunatics wrecking our economy."
Labour: "The NHS will completely collapse by June if we are not elected."
UKIP: "All the others would let most of Turkey move here."
Tory: No show
Clegg = Robin
Cammo = Kermit
Ed = One of Chef's chickens
Farage = Oscar (ok Sesame St but close enough)
Tory: The UK is the best performing economy in Europe, and one of the best in the world. We're creating more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. After some tough years when we've been dealing with the mess Labour left behind them, wages are now rising faster than inflation. Why put all this at risk by listening to those who have no coherent plan?
I'd advise him to accept right now and then let all the others fight it out.
Good work from the Tories refraining from accepting the terms of the first one.
SNP and Plaid in the debates will be more problematic for Labour than UKIP will to Tories, I reckon.
1) Lad and lass meet, after meeting earlier in the night. Both are now sh1tfaced. They stagger back to hotel and bonk.
2) No crime committed. The return to the hotel is grounds for believing consent given.
3) Another lad turns up, not especially the worse for wear. His mates are at the window watching.
4) He bonks lass, who is still paralytic and unable to give reasonable consent. Crime committed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30938755
4-18 months. May be increased if it was related to a serious crime. Like rape, for example.
PC: I'm so happy to be here. That is all
Greens: Vive la revolution
LD: Nick Clegg? No, I'm his replacement, Nikolai Durantes.
Labour: Have you noticed how David Cameron is a Tory? I just blew your mind, didn't I?
UKIP: Listen to me, listen to me, listen to me! LibLabConGreSNPPCDUPSFSDLPUUPAlliance are just professional elites of the MSM! Only we can give you the right/left party you want. Or whatever's good for you.
Tory: Ed M looks weird.
What you cannot face up to is that Cameron has won round one in the political stitch-up game that surrounds these 'debates'.
You fell out of the self-important tree and hit every single branch on the way down. All I know about you, after some time "on here", is that you think there are no hills in Scotland.
If whatever you do is unaffected by what you do on here, bully for you. Pseudonymity is the norm here and elsewhere on the internet and no one needs to justify it. But if I had to, I work in academia and could at a stroke rule myself out of any job I might in future apply for by saying under my own name that I might vote Ukip, or that I think Foucault was a pretentious wanker. I haven't called Cameron a coward, but if I did Dr Johnson's maxim would apply: "You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables."
Neil-I'll pass.
David Cameron would debate each of the other six, Ed Miliband would debate the remaining five, Nick Clegg would debate each of the other four, Nigel Farage would take on each of the last three, Natalie Bennett would challenge each of the final two, and Leanne Wood and Nicola Sturgeon could agree on everything.
Whether you believe such idiocy or not, obviously I've made my own point clear enough, so shall shut up now, but now I have a full five occasions I've lost my rag at something someone has written on here, which is pretty decent for 4000 posts, and most of the other occasions were from people being antagonistic rather than silly, but I feel like I've hit a milestone.
A final word - there are plenty of good reasons people might not be willing or able to use their real name depending on the subject matter, and no requirement to do so in any case. Even if a failure to do so was relevant in how seriously one could consider a point made by someone not using their real name, it would still not invalidate that point completely. Why you think it does is beyond my comprehension.
On the debates this should suit Cameron fine. I really don't believe that Ed was lulling him into a false sense of security on Wednesday, he really is that poor. The problem for Cameron the last time is that a 3 man format clearly favours the guy in the middle who points to both "extremes" and plays the reasonableness card. Nick did that very well and it was the 3rd debate before Cameron really got on top of the problem.
So a "debate" of short, sharp prepared soundbites with the SNP, UKIP and the Greens all desperate to have a go at Ed should be a laugh followed by a head to head that could be brutal. Much, much better than what was on offer before.
If I was Labour I would not be happy about this and if I was a Lib Dem I would be furious but tough. They have been outmanoeuvred by a sitting PM who has the cards. No disgrace in that, he simply has to know how to play them.
"What happens if the LibDems refuse to take part in the 7 UP challenge?"
Now that IS funny!!
You could hold the debates naked in a pool of iced water full of Jelly fish and Clegg would be first in......
PS What's happened to the stock market......Hunchman?