"When Harold Wilson challenged then Prime Minister Alec Douglas-Home to an election debate. Home rejected the proposal on the grounds that: "You'll get a sort of Top of the Pops contest. You'll then get the best actor as leader of the country and the actor will be prompted by a scriptwriter." Michael Cockerill
Tomorrow will be a tough one to call, because even with YouGov moving to the Tories over the past week, you would think Labour should be a due a lead soon...
Updated the PB polling database with a new charts covering just 2015, with a smaller averaging window (see the tabs at the bottom). Safety not guaranteed....
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
I doubt most people are even remotely interested, unless they interrupt the scheduling of their favourite soap or z lister dancing programme.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Most people, if asked, would say there should be debates, but it's not going to change anybody's votes and I think Lynton has made Cameron aware of this.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
It appears one of the prefects is rebelling, what punishment will the head boy come up with for him?
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you?
Because looking at the camera,nearly made clegg PM ;-)
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Most people, if asked, would say there should be debates, but it's not going to change anybody's votes and I think Lynton has made Cameron aware of this.
I agree that if the debates don't happen it's unlikely to change many votes at all. If they do happen and Cameron sits them out, that may have a significant impact. However, from the broadcasters' attitudes so far, they really really don't want him missing and may well pull the plug on the whole thing rather than stage an event (or events) that end up determining the election.
Am I the only person who thinks Andrew Mitchell has been hard done by ?
No, his legal team didn't inspire much confidence either.
Whats happened with him now ?
I think he was a victim of this country's libel system tbh. Yes yes I know he kind of made his own bed but I believe him over the copper tbh.
Well, he shouldn't have called the copper a f*cking pleb.
After Rifkind's disgrace its not been a good few days for posh Tories.
But it wasn't calling the plod a f*cking pleb which has caused Mitchell's downfall but the word pleb on its own.
Now would Mitchell have been okay if he'd called the plod a f*cking c*nt ?
If so then there might be a lesson for all of us - get in the habit of calling people a f*cking c*nt when having an argument so that it becomes habit and you don't risk more 'dangerous' words being said.
Tim Montgomerie ن@montie·40 secs41 seconds ago Enjoying @May2015 giving @MSmithsonPB a thoroughly deserved kicking twitter.com/May2015NS/status/573233597307596801 …
Tim Montgomerie ن retweeted May2015@May2015NS·50 mins50 minutes ago If you like your politics news to be derivative, uncredited and shameless, make sure you're following @MSmithsonPB.
Aren't they both just working through Lord A's polls, so they would be similar?
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Sunil Prasannan @Sunil_P2 · 13m13 minutes ago Is the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW really biased in favour of @YouGov? Not when you consider that during February only 20 of 43 polls were YouGov.
Toby Perkins MP @tobyperkinsmp 2m2 minutes ago Just when you think @SunPolitics couldn't possibly get more ridiculous. This: "David Cameron throws down TV debates gauntlet"
How can anyone defend the way he has acted over the debates?
It's called negotiating what you think is the best option for you. Clegg and Milipede have both been doing it as well.
Will Scottish voters please think about my Scottish Tories vs The Pandas bet
Still highly winnable. Will Berwickshire go SNP or Tory though.
Mundell probably holds...
See this is a misconception.
There seems to be an idea that the Labour Party hierarchy and their vocal social media posters can issue a command and their vote will jump on for the Tories.
This isn't feasible in Scotland. Labour voters will not vote Tory. If anything, the publicity of the poll will drive Labour voters in Mundells constituency into the arms of a welcoming SNP.
This isn't West Central Scotland where Sectarianism is in play. Labour voters outside that area are not bound by allegiance to the Union/Queen/Northern Ireland.
No, it's the rural, conservative Borders, which overwhelmingly voted No at the referendum.
And which elected SNP MPs in 1974 and 1997.
Not exactly, given that the seat was only created in 2005. In the two elections it has had, the SNP have polled 9.1 and 10.8%. Given the surge the SNP has had since then, I wouldn't write them off by any means but the idea that it's a hotbed of nationalism seems a little far-fetched. Nor can I see an enormous amount of pro-SNP tactical voting for a party which finished fourth last time coming from one which finished second.
And do you think the surge in SNP support is based upon nationalism rather than upon which party is likely to get the most for Scotland ?
Voting SNP is effectively a free vote in Scotland.
I'd call putting a Labour government in place a very expensive vote.
Not if it means extra spending on Scotland without any extra taxes on Scotland.
Career in ruins Reputation in ruins Lost a fortune
but it was Mitchell who was the victim of the crime !!!
And the criminals were police.
Isn't this sort of thing only meant to happen in thugocracies and banana republics ???
Quite. Even now there seem plenty of people who would be quite happy to confirm that in their eyes the illegal or inappropriate actions of multiple members of the police to take down a government minister is largely irrelevant because Mitchell is by many accounts an arse, and an arse who probably insulted a guy. Oh, shock horror, that makes it all ok then.
The other aspect which PBers in Scotland have already spotted is the resilience of the Tory vote in Scotland.The Tory leader had a good indyref.This means we have 3-way marginals to consider so tactical voting is likely in many directions.Overall,more uncertainty as to just who will be governing us on May 8.Lady Sylvia Hermon and Caroline Lucas could still end up Queenmakers,the most powerful people in government.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 9 hrs9 hours ago I have today made a £20 bet with @ShippersUnbound that there will be a 2 way debate between Cameron and Miliband. A fool and his money, etc
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
@michaelsavage: BREAKING: Tony Blair has donated £1,000 to every Labour candidate in one of the party's 106 battleground target seats.
Has Blair explained why he's donating money to the Labour campaign? Presumably to strengthen his position if Labour lose? He can say well we tried it Ed's way and I backed him. Now let's go back to doing things my way.
I know it sounds unlikely and I'm not saying it's true but I heard Blair was a Labour Party supporter, so maybe he wants them to win.
Remember you have on here, Labour supporters, who in all honesty, say Blair is a Tory.
I'm probably also loosely Labour-supporting (at least vs Con) but I'd vote for almost any Tory over Tony Blair. However, he probably does still have some genuine loyalty to Labour.
He may well do but it would be better if he didn't. The Labour party will never be what he wants it to be.
@David_Cameron bottling because he has no record to defend and no vision of the future. If @Ed_Miliband is as bad as he says why so scared?
The first part is clearly ridiculous - obviously Cameron has a record to defend and a vague vision of the future, his opponents just think both are crap which is their right (and many of his own side think the same, hence him being in trouble) - but the second part is hard to put up a defence to. Granted the people are hardly going to be protesting the lack of debates if they don't go ahead, but Cameron got to a situation where he got most of what he could have hoped for with the debates and was able to put up a mildly defensible if pretty preposterous reason for why he was causing a fuss (he cares about the Greens getting a say, you see), and instead of sticking there has proven conclusively that he will not be satisfied with any reasonable compromise that arranging these things would entail, and therefore that he does not want them to happen.
That is something that could stick, though he has managed to avoid it so far it seems, because while the others only want the debates because they think they will benefit, they are at least not taking something away from the public (even something as minor as these debates) whereas Cameron is because he is too scared to risk messing up opposite Ed M.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And the LibDems are likely to face an existential crisis.
When Labour or the Conservatives lose power they will be confident about returning to government after an election or two as the political cycle turns.
The natural centre left - centre right system gives each party a purpose.
But what about the LibDems ?
Their NOTA anti-establishment role has gone.
Their anti-Conservative working class vote in rural Scotland, Wales and south-west England is being usurped by the SNP and UKIP.
Their incumbancy votes go with each MP defeated.
Their tactical votes go when it becomes obvious that the LibDems aren't 'winning here'.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
To capture the section of the population that actually support their policies? It's a far more limited ambition than they have had, and it will be hard to maximise that potential vote given their reputation is and will be in utter tatters, but they could rebuild to a core 10-15% maybe, but without the potential in recent times to expand a further 5-10% hoovering up that NOTA vote at GE times.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And the LibDems are likely to face an existential crisis.
When Labour or the Conservatives lose power they will be confident about returning to government after an election or two as the political cycle turns.
The natural centre left - centre right system gives each party a purpose.
But what about the LibDems ?
Their NOTA anti-establishment role has gone.
Their anti-Conservative working class vote in rural Scotland, Wales and south-west England is being usurped by the SNP and UKIP.
Their incumbancy votes go with each MP defeated.
Their tactical votes go when it becomes obvious that the LibDems aren't 'winning here'.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
LibDems will lick their wounds and prepare for a comeback. Clearly you are not a fan.
None of the prospective governments look very attractive:
Ed with a majority. Nuff said.
Ed having to dance to puppetmaster Alex
No viable government at all.
Conservatives scoffing babies and boring us to death over Europe.
Within months the LD influence on government will seem like a golden period in British political history.
@michaelsavage: BREAKING: Tony Blair has donated £1,000 to every Labour candidate in one of the party's 106 battleground target seats.
Has Blair explained why he's donating money to the Labour campaign? Presumably to strengthen his position if Labour lose? He can say well we tried it Ed's way and I backed him. Now let's go back to doing things my way.
I know it sounds unlikely and I'm not saying it's true but I heard Blair was a Labour Party supporter, so maybe he wants them to win.
Remember you have on here, Labour supporters, who in all honesty, say Blair is a Tory.
I'm probably also loosely Labour-supporting (at least vs Con) but I'd vote for almost any Tory over Tony Blair. However, he probably does still have some genuine loyalty to Labour.
He may well do but it would be better if he didn't. The Labour party will never be what he wants it to be.
Miliband accepting Blair's money and no outrage from miliband on hacking from the mirror group,you must be Furious.
I was falling in the camp of I couldn't give a sh!t who won the GE but the last couple of months,the Hypocrisy from milibands campaign has made me laugh and afraid we might be getting a idiot as PM ;-)
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
Labour is braced for a giveaway budget in less than two weeks’ time with many in the party expecting the chancellor to raise the level at which national insurance is paid — equivalent to an income tax cut for most people. This would damage Ed Miliband’s claim that poor households are failing to benefit from the economic recovery, say shadow cabinet sources.
The chancellor will double the political pain for Labour in the budget if he funds his tax cut by matching Mr Miliband’s raid on pension tax reliefs enjoyed by top earners.
This would allow the Tories to paint Labour as the party of the “jobs tax”, in a repeat of a 2010 election attack.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And the LibDems are likely to face an existential crisis.
When Labour or the Conservatives lose power they will be confident about returning to government after an election or two as the political cycle turns.
The natural centre left - centre right system gives each party a purpose.
But what about the LibDems ?
Their NOTA anti-establishment role has gone.
Their anti-Conservative working class vote in rural Scotland, Wales and south-west England is being usurped by the SNP and UKIP.
Their incumbancy votes go with each MP defeated.
Their tactical votes go when it becomes obvious that the LibDems aren't 'winning here'.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
LibDems will lick their wounds and prepare for a comeback. Clearly you are not a fan.
None of the prospective governments look very attractive:
Ed with a majority. Nuff said.
Ed having to dance to puppetmaster Alex
No viable government at all.
Conservatives scoffing babies and boring us to death over Europe.
Within months the LD influence on government will seem like a golden period in British political history.
Even if the next government wasn't very attractive, why would voters flock back to the Lib Dems when there are so many other untarnished (or not-so-tarnished) options available at the moment?
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
They certainly are not a fundamental right, you are correct, but if Cameron thought he would do well he would without question be on board and might even go so far as to call them a fundamental right to shame anyone else who was hesitant, so it is a bit much to call the idea bonkers when everyone knows he would be supportive if he thought he would benefit.
And you almost hear the theme from Jaws for Labour in this Para:
"In discussions of Scotland at the general election I keep seeing assumptions that the SNP will actually win 20 to 30 seats, that their support will naturally fall back to some extent as the election approaches, that this degree of landslide won’t really happen. That might end up being true – I am normally the first to sound a note of caution to people getting excited over polls showing some unbelievable shift in public opinion – but in this case, the polling is very steady and consistent in showing a surge in SNP support, the constituency polling backs up the national polls and the reality of First Past the Post is that a big lead in the vote can be exaggerated into an overwhelming dominance in seat numbers."
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Most people, if asked, would say there should be debates, but it's not going to change anybody's votes and I think Lynton has made Cameron aware of this.
I agree that if the debates don't happen it's unlikely to change many votes at all. If they do happen and Cameron sits them out, that may have a significant impact. However, from the broadcasters' attitudes so far, they really really don't want him missing and may well pull the plug on the whole thing rather than stage an event (or events) that end up determining the election.
If the broadcasters organise a debate, bend over backwards to accommodate Cameron, he still doesn't show up, and the spectacle of him not showing up ends up losing him the election, they would be absolutely delighted. There's no reason at all for then to pull the plug in those circumstances
I find table 1, Page 2 of Ashcroft's National Poll very surprising.
For instance, of the GE10 LDs, 17% said they'd vote UKIP compared with 12% going to the Greens. Also the Labour core vote at 83% is much higher than the 72% Tory core (because only 8% of Lab are going UKIP compared with 20% of Tory).
I have adjusted the assumptions of switching behaviour in my model and checked them against the individual constituencies polled. (I don't use "swing" parameters as I consider it old-fashioned and unsuited to what is happening).
The result, which is only a feasible scenario based on current polling and is therefore not a forecast, is as follows:
In 2010, the LDs had a lot of swing voters and previous non-voter support, courtesy of Clegg's debate performances. It's not unreasonable to see that kind of voter drifting to UKIP. Indeed, the Lib Dems made (and make) great play of not being the other two and many of their former voters backed them mainly in opposition to someone else.
Similarly, Labour's 2010 score was far closer to their true core vote whereas the Tories' was bulked out by a lot of swing voters who've since moved on. To compare like with like, you'd need baselines where the two parties were at similar positions support-wise (maybe the Tories in 2013, for example). That said, I don't think there's much doubt that many of UKIP's recruits since 2010 were formerly core Con voters.
I'm intrigued as to why you think UKIP will poll 17.5% when they're currently well below that and falling. Election coverage may help but not all publicity is good publicity.
The 17.5% UKIP share comes from applying the rule that 17% of GE10 Tories and 10% of GE10 Lab voters vote UKIP, and applying that to each constituency. The 17% and 10% come from the latest Ashcroft cross-tabs. The 17.5% is a result of that.
I agree that the UKIP vote seems to be slipping. If I assume that only 14% of Tories and 7% of Lab switch to UKIP then the UKIP share drops to 15.5% and the Con and Lab shares go up a point. The seats become 272/279 Con/Lab.
Drop it further to 10% of Tories and 5% of Lab then the UKIP share drops to 13.5% and the seats become 281/276 Con/Lab.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And the LibDems are likely to face an existential crisis.
When Labour or the Conservatives lose power they will be confident about returning to government after an election or two as the political cycle turns.
The natural centre left - centre right system gives each party a purpose.
But what about the LibDems ?
Their NOTA anti-establishment role has gone.
Their anti-Conservative working class vote in rural Scotland, Wales and south-west England is being usurped by the SNP and UKIP.
Their incumbancy votes go with each MP defeated.
Their tactical votes go when it becomes obvious that the LibDems aren't 'winning here'.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
LibDems will lick their wounds and prepare for a comeback. Clearly you are not a fan.
None of the prospective governments look very attractive:
Ed with a majority. Nuff said.
Ed having to dance to puppetmaster Alex
No viable government at all.
Conservatives scoffing babies and boring us to death over Europe.
Within months the LD influence on government will seem like a golden period in British political history.
About a third of the times I've voted it has been for a LibDem.
Personally I'm rather saddened that so many effective LibDem politicians will have had their careers cut short. Although I'm also rather amused at the humiliation of those cocksure LibDems who expected to get the advantages of being in government whilst still acting as an opposition to the Conservatives.
But you don't explain how any of your scenarios will be improved by having the LibDems involved or what the underlying purpose of the LibDems will be.
And I think its going to be a long time before the LibDems are able to live down the great tuition fees betrayal.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And the LibDems are likely to face an existential crisis.
When Labour or the Conservatives lose power they will be confident about returning to government after an election or two as the political cycle turns.
The natural centre left - centre right system gives each party a purpose.
But what about the LibDems ?
Their NOTA anti-establishment role has gone.
Their anti-Conservative working class vote in rural Scotland, Wales and south-west England is being usurped by the SNP and UKIP.
Their incumbancy votes go with each MP defeated.
Their tactical votes go when it becomes obvious that the LibDems aren't 'winning here'.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
LibDems will lick their wounds and prepare for a comeback. Clearly you are not a fan.
None of the prospective governments look very attractive:
Ed with a majority. Nuff said.
Ed having to dance to puppetmaster Alex
No viable government at all.
Conservatives scoffing babies and boring us to death over Europe.
Within months the LD influence on government will seem like a golden period in British political history.
Even if the next government wasn't very attractive, why would voters flock back to the Lib Dems when there are so many other untarnished (or not-so-tarnished) options available at the moment?
Because many voters are sensible centrists. It is how both Blair and Cameron became PM.
Centrism may take a while to come back to fashion but it will happen sooner as Ed departs stage left and the Tories stage right.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
So what's the alternative? I keep hearing people moaning about the debates being a bad thing yet no alternative is proposed. What sort of election campaign do you want?
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
So what's the alternative? I keep hearing people moaning about the debates being a bad thing yet no alternative is proposed. What sort of election campaign do you want?
Just an election campaign. One without tv debates. There are lots of precedents.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
So what's the alternative? I keep hearing people moaning about the debates being a bad thing yet no alternative is proposed. What sort of election campaign do you want?
No TV leaders debate,just like every Election up to 2010,that's my alternative.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And th LibDems after the election ?
LibDeory.
And I think its going to be a long time before the LibDems are able to live down the great tuition fees betrayal.
There, at least, I do have some sympathy for the LDs. Ok, they went back on their word and probably knew they'd have to, but the crowing of Labour and some Tories on the 'betrayal' at times has in many ways been pretty insufferable to endure, the absolutely false pretense presented by way of implication as if the LDs are the first political party to ever have to U-turn on a policy, even a fundamental policy, that it was a uniquely egregious rather than just egregious example of such a thing, and without the excuse of coalition to fall back on.
Nevertheless, they don't seem able to live it down, and they just have not picked up in all this time - in fact they appear to be going back if there is any movement - and so it is at the point where even in what should be safe areas people who want to vote for them may not bother, and they can seemingly do nothing about it other than hope Labour get in, make a hash of things and they can reposition as a labour-lite party again contrite about their sins of working with the Tories (which may be difficult as some of the few MPs left may not actually be the more Labour leaning ones).
The chancellor will double the political pain for Labour in the budget if he funds his tax cut by matching Mr Miliband’s raid on pension tax reliefs enjoyed by top earners.
I'm suspect that all those Conservative supporters who were so appalled at EdM's pension fund idea will have a sudden change of mind about its fairness and will no longer be concerned about all those high earners emigrating.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, oleaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
So what's thcampaign do you want?
No TV leaders debate,just like every Election up to 2010,that's my alternative.
Not really viable - if the Tory and Labour leaders in 2020 each think they'll benefit, they'll be back proposing them again. Might as well lay out some ground rules now as we'll just face it again next time. Set the most reasonable precedent you can this cycle or next cycle the proposals might be even worse.
Personally I won't mind not having the debates - a little disappointed at the lack of the spectacle, but I'm not one to think somehow my rights will have been infringed somehow - but I remain baffled at the level of opposition to them given they were apparently such a good idea last time. I honestly don't recall them being that impactive last time - as we are told endlessly, normal people are not going to watch such things anyway, or follow the news about them, so while they undoubtedly had an impact on the narrative and headlines, I find it hard to accept they undermined the campaign to the degree people seem to think they did.
They'd be a neat addition to the campaigns if they happened, not the entirety of them. Cameron is paranoid if he thinks they would be.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
So what's the alternative? I keep hearing people moaning about the debates being a bad thing yet no alternative is proposed. What sort of election campaign do you want?
Just an election campaign. One without tv debates. There are lots of precedents.
Indeed. Read the leaflets, and manifestos, question candidates, just as we've done for the previous century or so. Might take a bit more thought and involvement than a 90 minute TV spectacle, but seems to work.
The chancellor will double the political pain for Labour in the budget if he funds his tax cut by matching Mr Miliband’s raid on pension tax reliefs enjoyed by top earners.
I'm suspect that all those Conservative supporters who were so appalled at EdM's pension fund idea will have a sudden change of mind about its fairness and will no longer be concerned about all those high earners emigrating.
Could be fun. If that is the plan, someone should have dropped the word to some of the more reliable attack dogs to go easy on that Labour idea.
The other aspect which PBers in Scotland have already spotted is the resilience of the Tory vote in Scotland.The Tory leader had a good indyref.This means we have 3-way marginals to consider so tactical voting is likely in many directions.Overall,more uncertainty as to just who will be governing us on May 8.Lady Sylvia Hermon and Caroline Lucas could still end up Queenmakers,the most powerful people in government.
Remember you always need to add 3 onto the SNP seat projection for Plaid who are in full Electoral and Westminster alliance with the SNP. This means Labour only need ~270 seats to hold a majority with SNP confidence and supply.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always lose PMQs by any stretch. He might win, or he might lose, or he might lose so badly that cameron looked like a bully and he won the sympathy vote. What is truly bonkers is the suggestion that debates are a fundamental right of the electorate. They just aren't, they are a silly American invention and so worthless as an index of political merit that last time round they made Mr 5% Clegg look good. Sure they'd be entertaining, but so would watching the party leaders wrestling naked in a tub of baked beans.
So what's the alternative? I keep hearing people moaning about the debates being a bad thing yet no alternative is proposed. What sort of election campaign do you want?
Just an election campaign. One without tv debates. There are lots of precedents.
Indeed. Read the leaflets, and manifestos, question candidates, just as we've done for the previous century or so. Might take a bit more thought and involvement than a 90 minute TV spectacle, but seems to work.
Agree,90 min looking down a camera could have brought us clegg has PM but it did lose Cameron votes and a majority.
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And th LibDems after the election ?
LibDeory.
And I think its going to be a long time before the LibDems are able to live down the great tuition fees betrayal.
There, at least, I do have some sympathy for the LDs. Ok, they went back on their word and probably knew they'd have to, but the crowing of Labour and some Tories on the 'betrayal' at times has in many ways been pretty insufferable to endure, the absolutely false pretense presented by way of implication as if the LDs are the first political party to ever have to U-turn on a policy, even a fundamental policy, that it was a uniquely egregious rather than just egregious example of such a thing, and without the excuse of coalition to fall back on.
Nevertheless, they don't seem able to live it down, and they just have not picked up in all this time - in fact they appear to be going back if there is any movement - and so it is at the point where even in what should be safe areas people who want to vote for them may not bother, and they can seemingly do nothing about it other than hope Labour get in, make a hash of things and they can reposition as a labour-lite party again contrite about their sins of working with the Tories (which may be difficult as some of the few MPs left may not actually be the more Labour leaning ones).
Some things are so fundamental to a political party's perceived purpose that they can't be explained away.
What's the point of Labour if they can't deal with the unions - winter of discontent. What the point of Tories if they can't manage the economy - Black Wednesday. What's the point of LibDems if they can't look after students - tuition fees.
There's also the aspect that breaking their word on tuition fees made the LibDems look morally equivalent to the Conservatives and Labour. No longer were they 'nice' people who chose principle above the pursuit of power, they stopped being 'none of the above' and became 'same as the above'.
@TheWatcher "Read the leaflets, and manifestos, question candidates, just as we've done for the previous century or so"
Also amuse ourselves by watching re runs of Cameron's views on various subjects before the last election, and blessing prince Ozzie for his astounding and new found generosity in his final budget?
Thinking about a Lib Dem yankee,Bermondsey,Sheffield Hallam,Yeovil and Inverness-all to lose.Could it be a very expensive night,too, at £650 a candidate,the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.
There's likely to be an enormous blame game among the LibDems after the election (which is also likely to see a few hundred more LibDem councillors be defeated).
And th LibDems after the election ?
LibDeory.
And I think its going to be a long time before the LibDems are able to live down the great tuition fees betrayal.
There, at least, I do have some sympathy for the LDs. Ok, they went back on their word and probably knew they'd have to, but the crowing of Labour and some Tories on the 'betrayal' at times has in many ways been pretty insufferable to endure, the absolutely false pretense presented by way of implication as if the LDs are the first political party to ever have to U-turn on a policy, even a fundamental policy, that it was a uniquely egregious rather than just egregious example of such a thing, and without the excuse of coalition to fall back on.
Nevertheless, they don't seem able to live it down, and they just have not picked up in all this time - in fact they appear to be going back if there is any movement - and so it is at the point where even in what should be safe areas people who want to vote for them may not bother, and they can seemingly do nothing about it other than hope Labour get in, make a hash of things and they can reposition as a labour-lite party again contrite about their sins of working with the Tories (which may be difficult as some of the few MPs left may not actually be the more Labour leaning ones).
There's also the aspect that breaking their word on tuition fees made the LibDems look morally equivalent to the Conservatives and Labour. No longer were they 'nice' people who chose principle above the pursuit of power, they stopped being 'none of the above' and became 'same as the above'.
That's just it though, it hasn't - they've been regarded as being 'worse than the above' for doing it. I take your point about fundamental aspects of a party and all that, but I do feel that the fact of them becoming a joke for that in many places is a tad unfair, but of course politics is rarely fair.
The prospect of Alex Salmond propping up Eds government would get me thinking were I to be in a marginal.
Yes, and you wouldn't be alone in that
You'll need to explain why the idea of the most popular elected government in UK politics with the most fiscally secure and robust record scares you so much.
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 14m 14 minutes ago .@David_Cameron The British public want the debates so let's get on with it. Stop holding them to ransom by trying to dictate the terms.
Do we really though ?
Why wouldnt you? After all Ed is Crap and Dave is a Master Debater
Ed is a clever guy and capable of putting together a plausible TV debate package that won't fall apart in 90 minutes, not least because it will consist of (1) criticising individual decisions of the government making the two parties look incompetent / callous / ideological etc., and (2) narrating problems with society e.g. gross inequality, particularly in the context of those criticisms, meaning he doesn't have to actually propose anything much. That kind of strategy might well work. It might not too, but it's a big risk.
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
Well exactly. Ed does not always losebaked beans.
So what's the alternative? I keep hearing people moaning about the debates being a bad thing yet no alternative is proposed. What sort of election campaign do you want?
Just an election campaign. One without tv debates. There are lots of precedents.
Indeed. Read the leaflets, and manifestos, question candidates, just as we've done for the previous century or so. Might take a bit more thought and involvement than a 90 minute TV spectacle, but seems to work.
Agree,90 min looking down a camera could have brought us clegg has PM but it did lose Cameron votes and a majority.
So while seeing and hearing the candidates of all parties in as many ways as is possible is in theory a good thing, in truth people are so silly that they will make the wrong choices if they see and hear them in this one particular, and very small, way. I thought the public could be trusted with better judgement than that, but I guess not.
I'm not sure that 5 minutes of looking at a few hundred words max and a few stock photos on leaflets is really a good basis for swaying votes either, perhaps we should get rid of those, if people are so silly to be swayed by something so minute rather than a proper analysis of 5 years of government/opposition, it is a mistake to have them.
The chancellor will double the political pain for Labour in the budget if he funds his tax cut by matching Mr Miliband’s raid on pension tax reliefs enjoyed by top earners.
I'm suspect that all those Conservative supporters who were so appalled at EdM's pension fund idea will have a sudden change of mind about its fairness and will no longer be concerned about all those high earners emigrating.
Could be fun. If that is the plan, someone should have dropped the word to some of the more reliable attack dogs to go easy on that Labour idea.
It wouldn't surprise me if Osborne did it...all tactics, rather than doing what is right. He has already cut it once, which was bad enough.
Because many voters are sensible centrists. It is how both Blair and Cameron became PM.
Centrism may take a while to come back to fashion but it will happen sooner as Ed departs stage left and the Tories stage right.
The most centrist party is the SNP
According to...? I cannot tell from that chart, which has the parties in areas I am not used to seeing (which is not to say it may not be correct/incorrect on that basis alone).
@kle4 Cameron likes to "debate" as long as he doesn't have to answer a question, gets the last word, and has an orchestrated crowd shouting and bawling down the opposition. This is to be expected of course, because he is a master of his craft. (other explanations are available)
There is no resilience whatsoever in the Tory vote in Scotland. Ashcroft would imply a Tory vote of around 14 per cent nationally! In addition they would lose their only MP and have 2 less MPs than pandas.
Not if it means extra spending on Scotland without any extra taxes on Scotland.
As I say voting SNP is a free vote.
Free for the Scots. Very expensive indeed for the rest of us.
England will feel better for standing on her own two feet.
Both England and Scotland are more productive than the UK average.
Lot to be said for full dissolution.
I have a strong suspicion that if Ulster were part of Ireland it would be much wealthier and generally happier as a place (after an likely difficult transition period). Certainly the economy would be a far better match for Ireland than it is within the UK.
The only problem to full dissolution would be Wales. But as that's a De Jure part of England, you can keep them.
So while seeing and hearing the candidates of all parties in as many ways as is possible is in theory a good thing, in truth people are so silly that they will make the wrong choices if they see and hear them in this one particular, and very small, way. I thought the public could be trusted with better judgement than that, but I guess not.
I'm not sure that 5 minutes of looking at a few hundred words max and a few stock photos on leaflets is really a good basis for swaying votes either, perhaps we should get rid of those, if people are so silly to be swayed by something so minute rather than a proper analysis of 5 years of government/opposition, it is a mistake to have them.
It nearly worked for clegg in the first debate,lucky for Cameron he had two more debates to pull it back,after the debates if I remembered rightly,the tories never fully recovered in the polls.
Because many voters are sensible centrists. It is how both Blair and Cameron became PM.
Centrism may take a while to come back to fashion but it will happen sooner as Ed departs stage left and the Tories stage right.
The most centrist party is the SNP
According to...? I cannot tell from that chart, which has the parties in areas I am not used to seeing (which is not to say it may not be correct/incorrect on that basis alone).
There is no resilience whatsoever in the Tory vote in Scotland. Ashcroft would imply a Tory vote of around 14 per cent nationally! In addition they would lose their only MP and have 2 less MPs than pandas.
I think he means that the Tory share of VI hasn't changed in pretty much any election in Scotland since 1987. And truth be told, it really hasn't.
The chancellor will double the political pain for Labour in the budget if he funds his tax cut by matching Mr Miliband’s raid on pension tax reliefs enjoyed by top earners.
I'm suspect that all those Conservative supporters who were so appalled at EdM's pension fund idea will have a sudden change of mind about its fairness and will no longer be concerned about all those high earners emigrating.
Could be fun. If that is the plan, someone should have dropped the word to some of the more reliable attack dogs to go easy on that Labour idea.
It wouldn't surprise me if Osborne did it...all tactics, rather than doing what is right. He has already cut it once, which was bad enough.
It nearly worked for clegg in the first debate,lucky for Cameron he had two more debates to pull it back,after the debates if I remembered rightly,the tories never fully recovered in the polls.
So people had a chance to consider matters after the debates, and factoring them in along with everything else they'd seen and heard, they did not return the Tories to the amount the felt was achievable. I don't see the issue, clearly it worked in that people paid attention but it didn't overwhelm already set opinions. If a major story on breaks between now and the election it might impact on voting intentions more than might be reasonable for its import (or afterwards people may theorize it had that impact), that's be unlucky for whoever it hurt the most, but it's still just one piece of the overall GE sludge of information and appeals for votes.
If the public at large decide to give more weight to the debates than a leaflet shoved through their door, there's nothing wrong with them doing so. It isn't essential that the public be provided with either or neither, but the idea the debates are somehow unfair or unreasonable because they might, only might, have more impact than certain people think they should (and again, the parties themselves would clearly not make that argument if they thought they would benefit, so they at least cannot complain with a straight face about the debates dominating) is just really weird.
Some people are actually snarking about making decisions based on a 90 minute debate, but I'm sure it's fine to put up silly posters all over the nation with silly slogans to convince people in 0.5 seconds (on the assumption, as with the debate argument, that we should somehow view their impact in isolation, rather than just one part of the wider campaign - if someone might be swayed by those 90 minutes that is their choice, if they are swayed talking to someone on the doorstep for 5 minutes the same)
Ugh, it's so nonsensical.
At the very least people, consider those of us in safe seats - I will get very few leaflets and if anyone knocks on the door I will be stunned rigid in surprise, at best maybe there will be an event in walking distance or public transport (no car at present) I could theoretically attend if I should so choose to find out more about a party or parties in my area. For sheer variety's sake even discounting the above arguments I would appreciate more than relying on a daily drip of news snippets and hysterically partisan commentators.
Some things are so fundamental to a political party's perceived purpose that they can't be explained away.
What's the point of Labour if they can't deal with the unions - winter of discontent. What the point of Tories if they can't manage the economy - Black Wednesday. What's the point of LibDems if they can't look after students - tuition fees.
There's also the aspect that breaking their word on tuition fees made the LibDems look morally equivalent to the Conservatives and Labour. No longer were they 'nice' people who chose principle above the pursuit of power, they stopped being 'none of the above' and became 'same as the above'.
I think this comment is very insightful.
I do wonder what's the point of voting Labour in a Westminster election if you're living in Scotland. For someone who leans pro-Union, they can always vote for a unionist party in the Scottish elections if they want to head off another referendum. But if you see your local MP as someone who is there to represent the best interests of your constituency - and basically to carve out the best deal for you and your neighbours and family - then it's surely got to be the SNP all the way. Highest price to buy them off.
For someone with left-wing sympathies, the SNP have the particular advantage of not needing to dilute themselves because they fret about their electoral appeal to the southern English middle classes. Even if you disagree with the particulars of some SNP policies, their MPs aren't in a position to implement them at Westminster.
Toby Perkins MP @tobyperkinsmp 2m2 minutes ago Just when you think @SunPolitics couldn't possibly get more ridiculous. This: "David Cameron throws down TV debates gauntlet"
How can anyone defend the way he has acted over the debates?
Well, It's a simple answer
Look where we are now compared to where we were with Labour. There is no need of a debate of any kind, Labour did wrong in government and called it wrong on every major topic for the last 5 years. Gosh they even talked Britain down and no longer shout racist as they accuse the present government of failing on immigration ( these are the same guys that sent out search parties, while rubbing the whites noses in diversity and smearing Tory wives.)
It's the economy stupid, and employment and low interests rates and....etc etc. Even now NHS as the latest horror story emerges for the NHS on Labours watch.
( off course your guy dare not talk about any of that that even at PMQ's )
No empty chair needed just a demonstration of your guys empty brain and empty promises that will ultimately destroy this country.
There is no resilience whatsoever in the Tory vote in Scotland. Ashcroft would imply a Tory vote of around 14 per cent nationally! In addition they would lose their only MP and have 2 less MPs than pandas.
I think he means that the Tory share of VI hasn't changed in pretty much any election in Scotland since 1987. And truth be told, it really hasn't.
That is complete and utter nonsense. The Tory vote share in Scotland in 1987 and 1992 was well over 20%, hence about 50% higher than it was in 2010.
I'm beginning to regret pointing out 'tim's' twitter account yesterday - he's got two new followers! (and several dozen new tweets...) - its even grimmer than when he was here - no humour at all......
When Hodges is ranting against people's immigration policies in the Telegraph don't you think they should tell people that he was one of the founders of the pro-migration pressure group Migration Matters ?
Comments
Tomorrow will be a tough one to call, because even with YouGov moving to the Tories over the past week, you would think Labour should be a due a lead soon...
http://goo.gl/9RfFdf
PoliticsHome @politicshome
Tomorrow's Times front page: Osborne planning tax cuts for workers pic.twitter.com/tpQN2ILwoM
But it wasn't calling the plod a f*cking pleb which has caused Mitchell's downfall but the word pleb on its own.
Now would Mitchell have been okay if he'd called the plod a f*cking c*nt ?
If so then there might be a lesson for all of us - get in the habit of calling people a f*cking c*nt when having an argument so that it becomes habit and you don't risk more 'dangerous' words being said.
Is the Sunil on Sunday ELBOW really biased in favour of @YouGov? Not when you consider that during February only 20 of 43 polls were YouGov.
As I say voting SNP is a free vote.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn · 9 hrs9 hours ago
I have today made a £20 bet with @ShippersUnbound that there will be a 2 way debate between Cameron and Miliband. A fool and his money, etc
On the other hand, the rigours of a 4+ week campaign would likely produce a far more ruthless focus on Miliband's potential prime ministerial skills.
That is something that could stick, though he has managed to avoid it so far it seems, because while the others only want the debates because they think they will benefit, they are at least not taking something away from the public (even something as minor as these debates) whereas Cameron is because he is too scared to risk messing up opposite Ed M.
And the LibDems are likely to face an existential crisis.
When Labour or the Conservatives lose power they will be confident about returning to government after an election or two as the political cycle turns.
The natural centre left - centre right system gives each party a purpose.
But what about the LibDems ?
Their NOTA anti-establishment role has gone.
Their anti-Conservative working class vote in rural Scotland, Wales and south-west England is being usurped by the SNP and UKIP.
Their incumbancy votes go with each MP defeated.
Their tactical votes go when it becomes obvious that the LibDems aren't 'winning here'.
What will be the purpose of the LibDems after the election ?
None of the prospective governments look very attractive:
Ed with a majority. Nuff said.
Ed having to dance to puppetmaster Alex
No viable government at all.
Conservatives scoffing babies and boring us to death over Europe.
Within months the LD influence on government will seem like a golden period in British political history.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WDlR2P00_w
I was falling in the camp of I couldn't give a sh!t who won the GE but the last couple of months,the Hypocrisy from milibands campaign has made me laugh and afraid we might be getting a idiot as PM ;-)
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9275
And you almost hear the theme from Jaws for Labour in this Para:
"In discussions of Scotland at the general election I keep seeing assumptions that the SNP will actually win 20 to 30 seats, that their support will naturally fall back to some extent as the election approaches, that this degree of landslide won’t really happen. That might end up being true – I am normally the first to sound a note of caution to people getting excited over polls showing some unbelievable shift in public opinion – but in this case, the polling is very steady and consistent in showing a surge in SNP support, the constituency polling backs up the national polls and the reality of First Past the Post is that a big lead in the vote can be exaggerated into an overwhelming dominance in seat numbers."
I agree that the UKIP vote seems to be slipping. If I assume that only 14% of Tories and 7% of Lab switch to UKIP then the UKIP share drops to 15.5% and the Con and Lab shares go up a point. The seats become 272/279 Con/Lab.
Drop it further to 10% of Tories and 5% of Lab then the UKIP share drops to 13.5% and the seats become 281/276 Con/Lab.
It's close.
Personally I'm rather saddened that so many effective LibDem politicians will have had their careers cut short. Although I'm also rather amused at the humiliation of those cocksure LibDems who expected to get the advantages of being in government whilst still acting as an opposition to the Conservatives.
But you don't explain how any of your scenarios will be improved by having the LibDems involved or what the underlying purpose of the LibDems will be.
And I think its going to be a long time before the LibDems are able to live down the great tuition fees betrayal.
Centrism may take a while to come back to fashion but it will happen sooner as Ed departs stage left and the Tories stage right.
'the lost deposits yellows are facing a huge financial loss.It's possible a second election could kill them off or they will implode.'
Or just wait until Farron takes over.
Nevertheless, they don't seem able to live it down, and they just have not picked up in all this time - in fact they appear to be going back if there is any movement - and so it is at the point where even in what should be safe areas people who want to vote for them may not bother, and they can seemingly do nothing about it other than hope Labour get in, make a hash of things and they can reposition as a labour-lite party again contrite about their sins of working with the Tories (which may be difficult as some of the few MPs left may not actually be the more Labour leaning ones).
Personally I won't mind not having the debates - a little disappointed at the lack of the spectacle, but I'm not one to think somehow my rights will have been infringed somehow - but I remain baffled at the level of opposition to them given they were apparently such a good idea last time. I honestly don't recall them being that impactive last time - as we are told endlessly, normal people are not going to watch such things anyway, or follow the news about them, so while they undoubtedly had an impact on the narrative and headlines, I find it hard to accept they undermined the campaign to the degree people seem to think they did.
They'd be a neat addition to the campaigns if they happened, not the entirety of them. Cameron is paranoid if he thinks they would be.
What's the point of Labour if they can't deal with the unions - winter of discontent.
What the point of Tories if they can't manage the economy - Black Wednesday.
What's the point of LibDems if they can't look after students - tuition fees.
There's also the aspect that breaking their word on tuition fees made the LibDems look morally equivalent to the Conservatives and Labour. No longer were they 'nice' people who chose principle above the pursuit of power, they stopped being 'none of the above' and became 'same as the above'.
"Read the leaflets, and manifestos, question candidates, just as we've done for the previous century or so"
Also amuse ourselves by watching re runs of Cameron's views on various subjects before the last election, and blessing prince Ozzie for his astounding and new found generosity in his final budget?
I'm not sure that 5 minutes of looking at a few hundred words max and a few stock photos on leaflets is really a good basis for swaying votes either, perhaps we should get rid of those, if people are so silly to be swayed by something so minute rather than a proper analysis of 5 years of government/opposition, it is a mistake to have them.
Cameron likes to "debate" as long as he doesn't have to answer a question, gets the last word, and has an orchestrated crowd shouting and bawling down the opposition.
This is to be expected of course, because he is a master of his craft.
(other explanations are available)
There is no resilience whatsoever in the Tory vote in Scotland. Ashcroft would imply a Tory vote of around 14 per cent nationally! In addition they would lose their only MP and have 2 less MPs than pandas.
I have a strong suspicion that if Ulster were part of Ireland it would be much wealthier and generally happier as a place (after an likely difficult transition period). Certainly the economy would be a far better match for Ireland than it is within the UK.
The only problem to full dissolution would be Wales. But as that's a De Jure part of England, you can keep them.
So while seeing and hearing the candidates of all parties in as many ways as is possible is in theory a good thing, in truth people are so silly that they will make the wrong choices if they see and hear them in this one particular, and very small, way. I thought the public could be trusted with better judgement than that, but I guess not.
I'm not sure that 5 minutes of looking at a few hundred words max and a few stock photos on leaflets is really a good basis for swaying votes either, perhaps we should get rid of those, if people are so silly to be swayed by something so minute rather than a proper analysis of 5 years of government/opposition, it is a mistake to have them.
It nearly worked for clegg in the first debate,lucky for Cameron he had two more debates to pull it back,after the debates if I remembered rightly,the tories never fully recovered in the polls.
If the public at large decide to give more weight to the debates than a leaflet shoved through their door, there's nothing wrong with them doing so. It isn't essential that the public be provided with either or neither, but the idea the debates are somehow unfair or unreasonable because they might, only might, have more impact than certain people think they should (and again, the parties themselves would clearly not make that argument if they thought they would benefit, so they at least cannot complain with a straight face about the debates dominating) is just really weird.
Some people are actually snarking about making decisions based on a 90 minute debate, but I'm sure it's fine to put up silly posters all over the nation with silly slogans to convince people in 0.5 seconds (on the assumption, as with the debate argument, that we should somehow view their impact in isolation, rather than just one part of the wider campaign - if someone might be swayed by those 90 minutes that is their choice, if they are swayed talking to someone on the doorstep for 5 minutes the same)
Ugh, it's so nonsensical.
At the very least people, consider those of us in safe seats - I will get very few leaflets and if anyone knocks on the door I will be stunned rigid in surprise, at best maybe there will be an event in walking distance or public transport (no car at present) I could theoretically attend if I should so choose to find out more about a party or parties in my area. For sheer variety's sake even discounting the above arguments I would appreciate more than relying on a daily drip of news snippets and hysterically partisan commentators.
I do wonder what's the point of voting Labour in a Westminster election if you're living in Scotland. For someone who leans pro-Union, they can always vote for a unionist party in the Scottish elections if they want to head off another referendum. But if you see your local MP as someone who is there to represent the best interests of your constituency - and basically to carve out the best deal for you and your neighbours and family - then it's surely got to be the SNP all the way. Highest price to buy them off.
For someone with left-wing sympathies, the SNP have the particular advantage of not needing to dilute themselves because they fret about their electoral appeal to the southern English middle classes. Even if you disagree with the particulars of some SNP policies, their MPs aren't in a position to implement them at Westminster.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-31739051
Look where we are now compared to where we were with Labour. There is no need of a debate of any kind, Labour did wrong in government and called it wrong on every major topic for the last 5 years. Gosh they even talked Britain down and no longer shout racist as they accuse the present government of failing on immigration ( these are the same guys that sent out search parties, while rubbing the whites noses in diversity and smearing Tory wives.)
It's the economy stupid, and employment and low interests rates and....etc etc. Even now NHS as the latest horror story emerges for the NHS on Labours watch.
( off course your guy dare not talk about any of that that even at PMQ's )
No empty chair needed just a demonstration of your guys empty brain and empty promises that will ultimately destroy this country.
SNP spread. Moves up decisively to 40-42.
The only people who will make fuss are the media and labour because they know they can only gain.
The voters won't give stuff if there are no debates.
Actual values.
Ashcroft did a megapoll at the weekend which to my mind when you take the typically higher Tory propensity to vote more or less indicates a TIE.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/National-poll-tables-March-2015-LAM124A.pdf
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/National-poll-tables-March-2015-LAM124A.pdf
However, the fieldwork for the 8,000 poll means it has to be included in February's polling.
Intending to vote = 6360
Lab 2193
Con 1936
UKIP 1113
LD 370
Grn 373
Night all x
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11449546/Nigel-Farages-turnaround-on-immigrants-is-too-little-too-late.html