Personally, I think that if the Tories are to win they need to make this election as Presidential as possible and major on Cameron's superior ratings as an individual compared with Labour's generally superior ratings to his party. I don't personally see how avoiding a debate with Ed is consistent with such an approach and I fear that Tory overconfidence is not restricted to the betting market.
We're having a local echo of the controversy. Anna has refused any bilateral debate (quoting the Greens in support), any debate before all parties have published manifestos, and any debate organised by any NGO. This is presumably the incumbency thing, but as we're both pretty well-known and she has lots of recent QT debating practice I thought she might be tempted. Lots of teases on Twitter ("But I bought popcorn and everything, Anna...").
You are a teaser Nick. Tbh I am equally bemused about her tactics. Unless she can persuade the Lib Dems not to break the way everyone is predicting she has a mountain to climb and should be looking for every chance she can get.
It cant help her that the Lib Dems and Labour are essentially offering the same fiscal plans and are both well to the left of the austerity the Tories are promising. Makes me wonder how on earth the Lib Dems could contrive to put a Tory rather than Labour Chancellor into Number 11 as well.
I am really not sure what Labour's position is AIUI the Lib Dems and Tories agree on the future path for deficit reduction
No, the Lib Dems want to balance the current budget while the Tories are targeting the total budget. The Tories see no further contribution from tax increases whereas the Lib Dems do. They are very, very far apart on fiscal issues. The Lib Dems and Labour are very close from the details we know of so far.
Tomorrow channel 4 are airing an Dispatches Investigation called "Politicians for Hire"
I wonder if it is to do with that.
I think the title is self explanatory .
Its election season (politicians hunting voters and journalists hunting politicians). I guess that because Wintour is working for the Guardian and Channel 4 are a pro-Labour TV channel I think it's a story about either the Tories or UKIP.
Tories, then - who would hire a UKIP pol, and what for?
Monday is good timing if it is designed to be pmq fodder.
To be fair, last time they went after all parties, just the Tories that did bite a bit weren't very important compared the likes of Hoon who couldn't wait to get his hands on the filthy lucker.
However, now the Tories / Lib Dems are the ones who can promise to really pull the strings, got to think they are more likely to be have been got.
Evening all. Any chance England will give Scotland a decent game tonight? So far it has been pretty obvious they are getting paid by the game rather than the hour. I would like to see what this Scottish team can do when under modest pressure.
On topic the key for the debates is the head to head between Ed and Dave (which is of course why Nick is in the huff). If the tories are behind or still broadly level Cameron will want this confident that he can get the better of Miliband most of the time. If the tories move ahead, of course, then he will adopt the same position of every PM in history since the invention of the radio other than that loser Brown.
Personally, I think that if the Tories are to win they need to make this election as Presidential as possible and major on Cameron's superior ratings as an individual compared with Labour's generally superior ratings to his party. I don't personally see how avoiding a debate with Ed is consistent with such an approach and I fear that Tory overconfidence is not restricted to the betting market.
What are the odds on the Scottish team touching 55 for 5?
Is England playing some new bowlers?
I hope so. If any of them show promise they might earn consideration for Ireland's squad in the next tournament if they want to step up and play for serious contenders.
Would Morgan get a game on current form?
Morgan's form would surely blossom from returning to a winning squad!
Tomorrow channel 4 are airing an Dispatches Investigation called "Politicians for Hire"
I wonder if it is to do with that.
I think the title is self explanatory .
Its election season (politicians hunting voters and journalists hunting politicians). I guess that because Wintour is working for the Guardian and Channel 4 are a pro-Labour TV channel I think it's a story about either the Tories or UKIP.
Tories, then - who would hire a UKIP pol, and what for?
Monday is good timing if it is designed to be pmq fodder.
The question is if the program is to air tomorrow then why is Wintour saying about something big tonight? Unless the politicians in the program are informed before the broadcast and make a statement or resign tonight.
I think Chelsea are up to something. Jose made a last minute appearance on Goals on Sunday to state our case in detail, and the club website has pages devoted to yesterday's shambles, something they have never sanctioned before.
It must all have been done with the approval of the clubs lawyers, maybe they are set to challenge the FA?
In what court? Were Chelsea to take the FA/PL to a civil court FIFA statutes would demand the FA throw them out of the League.
No idea, it's probably an elaborate ruse to get Matic's red card rescinded, but they have definitely taken a confrontational stance.
That's probably true, though I don't think it will work. Do you genuinely think that the refs are out to make Chelsea's life as difficult as possible?
I follow Arsenal home and away and a few years ago (2010-11 and 2011-12) I was convinced something strange was going on with the refereeing in our games. But in the last few years it seems to have settled down.
I really don't like the secretive nature of the PGMOL and really hate Mike Riley. Given the Clattenburg incident and few other run-ins Chelsea have had with the FA, I wouldn't be hugely surprised if something was going on.
There are many hysterical Chelsea fans who have been complaining about a conspiracy theory for some time, I am far too long in the tooth for all that but after yesterday I am having my doubts.
The Clattenburg incident didn't help but the club were in a difficult position, if a player makes the complaint then the club has to see it through, imagine what would have happened if they didn't?
Riley was possibly the worst ref of his generation, to think he is now in charge is truly frightening.
Tomorrow channel 4 are airing an Dispatches Investigation called "Politicians for Hire"
I wonder if it is to do with that.
I think the title is self explanatory .
Its election season (politicians hunting voters and journalists hunting politicians). I guess that because Wintour is working for the Guardian and Channel 4 are a pro-Labour TV channel I think it's a story about either the Tories or UKIP.
Tories, then - who would hire a UKIP pol, and what for?
Monday is good timing if it is designed to be pmq fodder.
The question is if the program is to air tomorrow then why is Wintour saying about something big tonight? Unless the politicians in the program are informed before the broadcast and make a statement or resign tonight.
Normally they are asked for comment on the allegations before the program is aired.
Tomorrow channel 4 are airing an Dispatches Investigation called "Politicians for Hire"
I wonder if it is to do with that.
I think the title is self explanatory .
Its election season (politicians hunting voters and journalists hunting politicians). I guess that because Wintour is working for the Guardian and Channel 4 are a pro-Labour TV channel I think it's a story about either the Tories or UKIP.
Tories, then - who would hire a UKIP pol, and what for?
Monday is good timing if it is designed to be pmq fodder.
The question is if the program is to air tomorrow then why is Wintour saying about something big tonight? Unless the politicians in the program are informed before the broadcast and make a statement or resign tonight.
Normally they are asked for comment on the allegations before the program is aired.
Personally, I think that if the Tories are to win they need to make this election as Presidential as possible and major on Cameron's superior ratings as an individual compared with Labour's generally superior ratings to his party. I don't personally see how avoiding a debate with Ed is consistent with such an approach and I fear that Tory overconfidence is not restricted to the betting market.
We're having a local echo of the controversy. Anna has refused any bilateral debate (quoting the Greens in support), any debate before all parties have published manifestos, and any debate organised by any NGO. This is presumably the incumbency thing, but as we're both pretty well-known and she has lots of recent QT debating practice I thought she might be tempted. Lots of teases on Twitter ("But I bought popcorn and everything, Anna...").
You are a teaser Nick. Tbh I am equally bemused about her tactics. Unless she can persuade the Lib Dems not to break the way everyone is predicting she has a mountain to climb and should be looking for every chance she can get.
It cant help her that the Lib Dems and Labour are essentially offering the same fiscal plans and are both well to the left of the austerity the Tories are promising. Makes me wonder how on earth the Lib Dems could contrive to put a Tory rather than Labour Chancellor into Number 11 as well.
I am really not sure what Labour's position is AIUI the Lib Dems and Tories agree on the future path for deficit reduction
No, the Lib Dems want to balance the current budget while the Tories are targeting the total budget. The Tories see no further contribution from tax increases whereas the Lib Dems do. They are very, very far apart on fiscal issues. The Lib Dems and Labour are very close from the details we know of so far.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
freshly baked (@_freshlybaked) 22/02/2015 18:21 How they do it at #WestHam VIDEO: How to treat fellow passengers! bit.ly/1CZo3PQ pic.twitter.com/R484sBatXK via @FootballFunnys #Chelsea
On topic the key for the debates is the head to head between Ed and Dave (which is of course why Nick is in the huff). If the tories are behind or still broadly level Cameron will want this confident that he can get the better of Miliband most of the time. If the tories move ahead, of course, then he will adopt the same position of every PM in history since the invention of the radio other than that loser Brown.
Major wanted a debate in 1997 and I think Callaghan did in 1979.
Yes because they both knew they had nothing to lose and wanted a chance no one was minded to give them. I suspect Cameron regrets giving Brown that chance, it might well have cost him his majority. It certainly left him fighting on two separate fronts in a way he will make sure does not happen again.
I don't think the debates had an effect in the end in 2010. The waves of the Cleggasm having dissipated by polling day.
Of course if they hadn't taken place then the leaders would have been doing other things with the media's focus still on them and there might have been something of similar magnitude to Brown's Rochdale trip.
Complacency cost Cameron a majority in 2010 and there was certainly complacency about his agreeing to the debates - expecting to beat Brown easily and not bothering to prepare properly against Clegg.
The whole point about the debates is that nobody wins. If you were expecting someone to win - he loses. Kennedy did not in fact beat Nixon in the debates except Nixon did not win either so he lost. Alternatively if somebody wins then he is accused of being prompted with an invisible ear piece and having suspicious bulges in his jacket. A debate where the audience press buttons to reward buzzwords treats the word 'debate' with contempt.
Tomorrow channel 4 are airing an Dispatches Investigation called "Politicians for Hire"
I wonder if it is to do with that.
I think the title is self explanatory .
Its election season (politicians hunting voters and journalists hunting politicians). I guess that because Wintour is working for the Guardian and Channel 4 are a pro-Labour TV channel I think it's a story about either the Tories or UKIP.
Tories, then - who would hire a UKIP pol, and what for?
Monday is good timing if it is designed to be pmq fodder.
The question is if the program is to air tomorrow then why is Wintour saying about something big tonight? Unless the politicians in the program are informed before the broadcast and make a statement or resign tonight.
This is all a TSE speculation. Could be something quite different - Balls reshuffled?
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
There are many hysterical Chelsea fans who have been complaining about a conspiracy theory for some time, I am far too long in the tooth for all that but after yesterday I am having my doubts.
The Clattenburg incident didn't help but the club were in a difficult position, if a player makes the complaint then the club has to see it through, imagine what would have happened if they didn't?
Riley was possibly the worst ref of his generation, to think he is now in charge is truly frightening.
Agree 100% about Riley. Of the current crop we don't like Mike Dean, but that's because we think he hates us! In terms of competence I cannot understand how Mike Jones is still a Premier League ref.
What's interesting is that the ref yesterday was Atkinson. He was the ref that Fergie went for after United lost at the Bridge in February, 2011. Atkinson never refereed at Old Trafford again until Fergie retired.
Tomorrow channel 4 are airing an Dispatches Investigation called "Politicians for Hire"
I wonder if it is to do with that.
I think the title is self explanatory .
Its election season (politicians hunting voters and journalists hunting politicians). I guess that because Wintour is working for the Guardian and Channel 4 are a pro-Labour TV channel I think it's a story about either the Tories or UKIP.
Dan Hodges retweeted Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4m4 minutes ago @DPJHodges I think it might be to do with Politicians for Hire on C4 tomorrow night
@jimwaterson: Dispatches tomorrow has same reporter and same title as the 2010 episode where they stung Hoon, Hewitt and Byers over cash for influence.
On topic the key for the debates is the head to head between Ed and Dave (which is of course why Nick is in the huff). If the tories are behind or still broadly level Cameron will want this confident that he can get the better of Miliband most of the time. If the tories move ahead, of course, then he will adopt the same position of every PM in history since the invention of the radio other than that loser Brown.
Major wanted a debate in 1997 and I think Callaghan did in 1979.
Yes because they both knew they had nothing to lose and wanted a chance no one was minded to give them. I suspect Cameron regrets giving Brown that chance, it might well have cost him his majority. It certainly left him fighting on two separate fronts in a way he will make sure does not happen again.
I don't think the debates had an effect in the end in 2010. The waves of the Cleggasm having dissipated by polling day.
Of course if they hadn't taken place then the leaders would have been doing other things with the media's focus still on them and there might have been something of similar magnitude to Brown's Rochdale trip.
Complacency cost Cameron a majority in 2010 and there was certainly complacency about his agreeing to the debates - expecting to beat Brown easily and not bothering to prepare properly against Clegg.
The whole point about the debates is that nobody wins. If you were expecting someone to win - he loses. Kennedy did not in fact beat Nixon in the debates except Nixon did not win either so he lost. Alternatively if somebody wins then he is accused of being prompted with an invisible ear piece and having suspicious bulges in his jacket. A debate where the audience press buttons to reward buzzwords treats the word 'debate' with contempt.
Not exactly Lincoln-Douglas was it? The format for each debate there was one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder."
And they did this 7 times.
But what about the advert breaks screams Sky and ITV.
There are many hysterical Chelsea fans who have been complaining about a conspiracy theory for some time, I am far too long in the tooth for all that but after yesterday I am having my doubts.
The Clattenburg incident didn't help but the club were in a difficult position, if a player makes the complaint then the club has to see it through, imagine what would have happened if they didn't?
Riley was possibly the worst ref of his generation, to think he is now in charge is truly frightening.
Agree 100% about Riley. Of the current crop we don't like Mike Dean, but that's because we think he hates us! In terms of competence I cannot understand how Mike Jones is still a Premier League ref.
What's interesting is that the ref yesterday was Atkinson. He was the ref that Fergie went for after United lost at the Bridge in February, 2011. Atkinson never refereed at Old Trafford again until Fergie retired.
How are refs there graded? In the NFL every official is graded after every game by the league, and the best officials get formed into new teams for the playoffs and Superbowl.
Is there no grading of officials there? That would weed out the bad ones.
Mr. kle4, yeah, not much of a dark lord fan myself. Although I may have one as a villain for Sir Edric at some point.
Done right, or played with, it can work fine so comedically I think it can be great, it's just as a fan of the genre I did come across it a bit too much in too generic a fashion. I even wrote a book several years ago where the twist (done many times by others) was that the antagonist to the heroes, most of whom were decent people, was despite that not the dark lord they thought, just, well, a normal sort of ruler who happens to be opposed to them, albeit with some dark lordy type abilities.
Very much the premise of Glen Cook's (original) Black Company Trilogy.
Interesting - I own it but haven't got around to reading it, so should probably correct that.
That one is sitting on my bookshelf waiting its turn to be read.
Oh MD - if you are around purchased IX on the strength of your interview with author
Dan Hodges retweeted Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4m4 minutes ago @DPJHodges I think it might be to do with Politicians for Hire on C4 tomorrow night
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
Danny is being economical with the actuality. ''The IFS, noting Osborne’s aim of achieving a budget surplus of 1% of GDP by 2020, calculated that 55% of the tax has been completed, with 45% still to go. It is worth noting, however, that on the original aim of merely eliminating the current budget deficit (in other words continuing to borrow to invest), the chancellor is rather closer to finishing the job. The IFS also used figures from the International Monetary Fund to compare Britain with other countries. They show that the scale of underlying deficit reduction in some countries has been staggering. In Greece it has been 20.3% of GDP, Iceland 17%, Ireland 9.9%, Latvia 8.2%, Portugal 8.1% and Spain 6.7%. Underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go. That ranks only seventh among advanced economies to date, a far cry from the idea that some kind of mad Frankenstein austerity experiment has been carried out.'' ''Britain is further above its pre-crisis level of GDP than all but two other G7 countries – Canada and America'' http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html#more
There are many hysterical Chelsea fans who have been complaining about a conspiracy theory for some time, I am far too long in the tooth for all that but after yesterday I am having my doubts.
The Clattenburg incident didn't help but the club were in a difficult position, if a player makes the complaint then the club has to see it through, imagine what would have happened if they didn't?
Riley was possibly the worst ref of his generation, to think he is now in charge is truly frightening.
Agree 100% about Riley. Of the current crop we don't like Mike Dean, but that's because we think he hates us! In terms of competence I cannot understand how Mike Jones is still a Premier League ref.
What's interesting is that the ref yesterday was Atkinson. He was the ref that Fergie went for after United lost at the Bridge in February, 2011. Atkinson never refereed at Old Trafford again until Fergie retired.
How are refs there graded? In the NFL every official is graded after every game by the league, and the best officials get formed into new teams for the playoffs and Superbowl.
Is there no grading of officials there? That would weed out the bad ones.
How are refs graded? In the NFL every official is graded after every game by the league, and the best officials get formed into new teams for the playoffs and Superbowl.
Is there no grading of officials there? That would weed out the bad ones.
They are assessed by ex refs and apparently they have quite an extensive debrief. What I don't like is the small number of refs that do Premier League games. I think it's something like 17. In 2011-12 we had Mike Dean do six of our 38 league games, and that's not healthy.
To be honest, I try not to moan about them too much as it's not an easy job. But I think Chelsea can feel particularly annoyed with the shove on Costa as that was blatant. The hand ball, and even the Barnes tackle, aren't always easy to spot in real time. But I get the sense that Chelsea are annoyed that they seem to be consistently getting bad decisions.
Dan Hodges retweeted Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4m4 minutes ago @DPJHodges I think it might be to do with Politicians for Hire on C4 tomorrow night
Thought his comments on the Ukraine were odd, so I thought a look at his background would be worthwhile. It certainly is a different standard for politicians.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
Danny is being economical with the actuality. ''The IFS, noting Osborne’s aim of achieving a budget surplus of 1% of GDP by 2020, calculated that 55% of the tax has been completed, with 45% still to go. It is worth noting, however, that on the original aim of merely eliminating the current budget deficit (in other words continuing to borrow to invest), the chancellor is rather closer to finishing the job. The IFS also used figures from the International Monetary Fund to compare Britain with other countries. They show that the scale of underlying deficit reduction in some countries has been staggering. In Greece it has been 20.3% of GDP, Iceland 17%, Ireland 9.9%, Latvia 8.2%, Portugal 8.1% and Spain 6.7%. Underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go. That ranks only seventh among advanced economies to date, a far cry from the idea that some kind of mad Frankenstein austerity experiment has been carried out.'' ''Britain is further above its pre-crisis level of GDP than all but two other G7 countries – Canada and America'' http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html#more
As interest rates for the UK have been so low, Osborne has acted like a householder and rolled over the debt as it's so cheap. I'm not sure why the Tories haven't explained this. Its good economics.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
I think it is a bit more complicated unfortunately. This is from Lib Dem Voice after a Clegg speech:
"So all three parties now have a balanced budget target, and each is different. The Conservatives want an absolute budget surplus with no exclusions (but with investment rising with GDP), and Labour propose a ‘current budget’ surplus – excluding all capital spending – and falling debt.
Nick Clegg has now created a new target that excludes some but not all forms of capital spending. Ironically, Labour’s chosen measure is what the Coalition has been targeting, while the yellow and blue parties each wish to adopt a new deficit measure.
So what does it mean to exclude “capital spending that enhances economic growth or financial stability”? The Guardian reports that “according to the Lib Dems, Clegg’s proposals would allow borrowing to fund items such as transport, housing, and communications, which promote growth, but not schools and hospitals, which would have to be funded from ordinary tax revenues.” http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-nick-cleggs-fiscal-target-splitting-the-difference-40898.html
On topic the key for the debates is the head to head between Ed and Dave (which is of course why Nick is in the huff). If the tories are behind or still broadly level Cameron will want this confident that he can get the better of Miliband most of the time. If the tories move ahead, of course, then he will adopt the same position of every PM in history since the invention of the radio other than that loser Brown.
Major wanted a debate in 1997 and I think Callaghan did in 1979.
Yes because they both knew they had nothing to lose and wanted a chance no one was minded to give them. I suspect Cameron regrets giving Brown that chance, it might well have cost him his majority. It certainly left him fighting on two separate fronts in a way he will make sure does not happen again.
I don't think the debates had an effect in the end in 2010. The waves of the Cleggasm having dissipated by polling day.
Of course if they hadn't taken place then the leaders would have been doing other things with the media's focus still on them and there might have been something of similar magnitude to Brown's Rochdale trip.
Complacency cost Cameron a majority in 2010 and there was certainly complacency about his agreeing to the debates - expecting to beat Brown easily and not bothering to prepare properly against Clegg.
The whole point about the debates is that nobody wins. If you were expecting someone to win - he loses. Kennedy did not in fact beat Nixon in the debates except Nixon did not win either so he lost. Alternatively if somebody wins then he is accused of being prompted with an invisible ear piece and having suspicious bulges in his jacket. A debate where the audience press buttons to reward buzzwords treats the word 'debate' with contempt.
Not exactly Lincoln-Douglas was it? The format for each debate there was one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder."
And they did this 7 times.
But what about the advert breaks screams Sky and ITV.
Well you make a good point about 'formats'. Not to mention lecterns and who stands where.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
Danny is being economical with the actuality.
The actualite is that the Tories are way out on a limb in their austerity fetishism. In any other field I would expect them to struggle to get allies to implement their plans but as this is politics they might be able to rely on the Lib Dems again.
Dan Hodges retweeted Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4m4 minutes ago @DPJHodges I think it might be to do with Politicians for Hire on C4 tomorrow night
Dan Hodges retweeted Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4m4 minutes ago @DPJHodges I think it might be to do with Politicians for Hire on C4 tomorrow night
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
Danny is being economical with the actuality.
The actualite is that the Tories are way out on a limb in their austerity fetishism. In any other field I would expect them to struggle to get allies to implement their plans but as this is politics they might be able to rely on the Lib Dems again.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
I think it is a bit more complicated unfortunately.
I dont think it is. Sure Lib Dem politicians will try to make it appear so but it's in their interests to do that.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
I think it is a bit more complicated unfortunately.
I dont think it is. Sure Lib Dem politicians will try to make it appear so but it's in their interests to do that.
Well I have given you quotes from both Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg setting out the position in public speeches in recent times. But if you know better Neil, fair enough.
It never ceases to amaze me that politicians can be so stupid to be caught out by newspaper stings.
But the fact that MPs like Straw and Rifkind could get caught out like this makes me think MPs are made genuine offers like these all of the time.
What worries me as well is not only the corruption but the stupidity. Head of the Intelligence Committee and a random lobbyist for a Chinese company appears...Now I know that they set up fake website for these companies, but there are loads of very easy ways you can check when the site was setup, amount of traffic etc, before even getting somebody to do a proper check.
On topic the key for the debates is the head to head between Ed and Dave (which is of course why Nick is in the huff). If the tories are behind or still broadly level Cameron will want this confident that he can get the better of Miliband most of the time. If the tories move ahead, of course, then he will adopt the same position of every PM in history since the invention of the radio other than that loser Brown.
Major wanted a debate in 1997 and I think Callaghan did in 1979.
Yes because they both knew they had nothing to lose and wanted a chance no one was minded to give them. I suspect Cameron regrets giving Brown that chance, it might well have cost him his majority. It certainly left him fighting on two separate fronts in a way he will make sure does not happen again.
I don't think the debates had an effect in the end in 2010. The waves of the Cleggasm having dissipated by polling day.
Of course if they hadn't taken place then the leaders would have been doing other things with the media's focus still on them and there might have been something of similar magnitude to Brown's Rochdale trip.
Complacency cost Cameron a majority in 2010 and there was certainly complacency about his agreeing to the debates - expecting to beat Brown easily and not bothering to prepare properly against Clegg.
The whole point about the debates is that nobody wins. If you were expecting someone to win - he loses. Kennedy did not in fact beat Nixon in the debates except Nixon did not win either so he lost. Alternatively if somebody wins then he is accused of being prompted with an invisible ear piece and having suspicious bulges in his jacket. A debate where the audience press buttons to reward buzzwords treats the word 'debate' with contempt.
Not exactly Lincoln-Douglas was it? The format for each debate there was one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute "rejoinder."
And they did this 7 times.
But what about the advert breaks screams Sky and ITV.
Well you make a good point about 'formats'. Not to mention lecterns and who stands where.
Regarding the Kennedy Nixon debates, one of the oddities was that those watching on TV thought JFK won, with Nixon looking shifty and sweaty, but those who listened on radio thought Nixon had won.
Not great for Labour, I bet a heap more voters know who Straw is than Rifkind.
Straw was damaged goods from the Blair era anyway, also he is not running for re-election. The Labour party has already a safe distance from him as with anyone with Blair roots.
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
His approach isnt balanced (well, not between Labour and the Tories anyway) it's the same fiscal approach as Labour's. Of course it isnt in his political interests to admit as much but, hey, that's politicians for you.
I think it is a bit more complicated unfortunately.
I dont think it is. Sure Lib Dem politicians will try to make it appear so but it's in their interests to do that.
Well I have given you quotes from both Danny Alexander and Nick Clegg setting out the position in public speeches in recent times. But if you know better Neil, fair enough.
I dont think the speeches say what you seem to think they say.
I am quite proud of myself. I managed to sit through the entire second half of the Daytona 500. I am not a NASCAR fan - like basketball it's a sport I just cannot get into.
The most irksome aspect of the various political sleaze stories is not the sheer unambitiousness of the avarice shown by the errant politicians, but the annoyance we will get in a week's time from political insiders complaining that the public get their poor perception of politicians from a few rotten apples. The supply of rotten apples seems inexhaustible.
Robin Brant @robindbrant 12m12 minutes ago i understand that jack straw will refer himself to the commissioner for parliamentary standards & may be suspended form the PLP
What way to finish his career in The Commons...though some might wonder what is hidden in that Chilcott Report.
Looks like I, like my fellow PB Tories, is always right, and I learn.
Its a pity they do not name the 6 MPS who refused the bogus requests. Straw is retiring so he will not be an MP. He might of course be a Lord, but not in govt or the commons. Any lobbying by a private citizen would not be a crime. It seems a rather weak expose to be honest. Equally it seems a bit unfair of Ch4 to pick on short sighted MPs who cannot see the camera sticking out of the briefcase or that the chinaman is talking into his tie-pin.
@robindbrant: sir malcolm rifkind has told me he would've been happy to say what he said in this undercover filming in a channel 4 interview, and adds..
@robindbrant: ...he was not offering to get information that was secret or not publically available
Comments
However, now the Tories / Lib Dems are the ones who can promise to really pull the strings, got to think they are more likely to be have been got.
Unless the politicians in the program are informed before the broadcast and make a statement or resign tonight.
The Clattenburg incident didn't help but the club were in a difficult position, if a player makes the complaint then the club has to see it through, imagine what would have happened if they didn't?
Riley was possibly the worst ref of his generation, to think he is now in charge is truly frightening.
He says:
"“By placing all the burden on spending cuts – far beyond what is necessary – the Conservatives would lead an ideological drive to shrink the state with damaging social and economic consequences. Labour have theoretically signed up to tackling the deficit by 2017/18, but their plans reveal no intention at all to meet this goal. For them, it’s deficit reduction on the ‘never, never’."
To be honest I agree with his more balanced approach.
#COYS
Alternatively if somebody wins then he is accused of being prompted with an invisible ear piece and having suspicious bulges in his jacket.
A debate where the audience press buttons to reward buzzwords treats the word 'debate' with contempt.
What's interesting is that the ref yesterday was Atkinson. He was the ref that Fergie went for after United lost at the Bridge in February, 2011. Atkinson never refereed at Old Trafford again until Fergie retired.
Dan Hodges retweeted
Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon·4m4 minutes ago
@DPJHodges I think it might be to do with Politicians for Hire on C4 tomorrow night
Harry Cole@MrHarryCole·3 mins3 minutes ago
@MichaelPDeacon @DPJHodges ahh
And they did this 7 times.
But what about the advert breaks screams Sky and ITV.
Is there no grading of officials there? That would weed out the bad ones.
Oh MD - if you are around purchased IX on the strength of your interview with author
Damian McBride @DPMcBride · 1h 1 hour ago
Are the last two tweets from @patrickwintour and @ladymyler related? I guess we'll soon find out.
Katie Myler @LadyMyler · 1h 1 hour ago
In the space of the last 10 minutes, mood has gone from calm and happy to murderous.
Correction, back to square one.
Katie Myler
@LadyMyler
@DPMcBride @patrickwintour Ha! No. They're categorically not related.
''The IFS, noting Osborne’s aim of achieving a budget surplus of 1% of GDP by 2020, calculated that 55% of the tax has been completed, with 45% still to go. It is worth noting, however, that on the original aim of merely eliminating the current budget deficit (in other words continuing to borrow to invest), the chancellor is rather closer to finishing the job.
The IFS also used figures from the International Monetary Fund to compare Britain with other countries. They show that the scale of underlying deficit reduction in some countries has been staggering. In Greece it has been 20.3% of GDP, Iceland 17%, Ireland 9.9%, Latvia 8.2%, Portugal 8.1% and Spain 6.7%.
Underlying deficit reduction in Britain has been 6.6% of GDP, with 3.5% still to go. That ranks only seventh among advanced economies to date, a far cry from the idea that some kind of mad Frankenstein austerity experiment has been carried out.''
''Britain is further above its pre-crisis level of GDP than all but two other G7 countries – Canada and America''
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/002078.html#more
To be honest, I try not to moan about them too much as it's not an easy job. But I think Chelsea can feel particularly annoyed with the shove on Costa as that was blatant. The hand ball, and even the Barnes tackle, aren't always easy to spot in real time. But I get the sense that Chelsea are annoyed that they seem to be consistently getting bad decisions.
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/10/18/the-sins-of-liam-fox/
Thought his comments on the Ukraine were odd, so I thought a look at his background would be worthwhile. It certainly is a different standard for politicians.
"So all three parties now have a balanced budget target, and each is different. The Conservatives want an absolute budget surplus with no exclusions (but with investment rising with GDP), and Labour propose a ‘current budget’ surplus – excluding all capital spending – and falling debt.
Nick Clegg has now created a new target that excludes some but not all forms of capital spending. Ironically, Labour’s chosen measure is what the Coalition has been targeting, while the yellow and blue parties each wish to adopt a new deficit measure.
So what does it mean to exclude “capital spending that enhances economic growth or financial stability”? The Guardian reports that “according to the Lib Dems, Clegg’s proposals would allow borrowing to fund items such as transport, housing, and communications, which promote growth, but not schools and hospitals, which would have to be funded from ordinary tax revenues.”
http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-nick-cleggs-fiscal-target-splitting-the-difference-40898.html
Unfortunately though only Sir Malcolm Rifkind is running next year and in a seat that is extremely safe.
Ex-ministers Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind brag to business about their political contacts http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/investigations/11428077/Ex-ministers-Jack-Straw-and-Sir-Malcolm-Rifkind-brag-to-business-about-their-political-contacts.html …
Not to mention lecterns and who stands where.
I have my doubts since he can be re-elected in Kensington easily regardless of scandals.
Then I googled.
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/help-elect-dayle-taylor-as-blackburn-ukip-mp
Hopeless.
I also await the actual details to see if the accusations actually amount to anything.
But the fact that MPs like Straw and Rifkind could get caught out like this makes me think MPs are made genuine offers like these all of the time.
He's Chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
He'll have to quit that, I expect
Not sure he will lose his seat, unless he voluntarily steps down.
The Labour party has already a safe distance from him as with anyone with Blair roots.
i understand that jack straw will refer himself to the commissioner for parliamentary standards & may be suspended form the PLP
What way to finish his career in The Commons...though some might wonder what is hidden in that Chilcott Report.
Goodnight.
Straw is retiring so he will not be an MP. He might of course be a Lord, but not in govt or the commons. Any lobbying by a private citizen would not be a crime. It seems a rather weak expose to be honest.
Equally it seems a bit unfair of Ch4 to pick on short sighted MPs who cannot see the camera sticking out of the briefcase or that the chinaman is talking into his tie-pin.
@robindbrant: ...he was not offering to get information that was secret or not publically available