Howdy, Stranger!

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

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is this going to backfire for Dave as the one and only deba

245

Comments

  • scotslassscotslass Posts: 912
    THE LAST POST FOR THE TORIES

    The more I look at the Ashcroft the more it becomes clear that Mundell is on his way out. The SNP are already marginally in front, there is still a Labour vote to squeeze and the SNP have selected a NHS nurse Emma Harper to fight the seat. Mundell is a goner - pandas 2 Tories 0!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    CD13 said:

    Indigo,

    Thanks for the link about Proctor being fined £1450.

    And from Wiki ... "In June 1986, The People newspaper published claims that Proctor had taken part in spanking and cane beating of male prostitutes, aged between 17 and 21, in his London flat. The age of consent for homosexuals was still 21 in 1986, and the following year Proctor was charged with gross indecency and resigned his candidature."

    But surely, Ed wants 'gross indecency' offences to be expunged (or whatever the legal term is).

    Will Proctor get his £1450 back?

    However, he still stands guilty of a far worse crime ... that of being a Tory?

    IANAL but I don't think he can really get off the hook anyway, this is one of those offences we were talking about a day or two ago unless I misunderstand. The age of consent has changed, however he was paying money to procure sexual services and its is unlawful to buy sex from someone under the age of 18 throughout the UK, and one of the rent boys was 17.
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    Dr Fox,

    You beat me to it (no pun intended).

    But on a serious note, I suspect the move to delete a whole raft of previous convictions is just an excuse to polish politicians' progressive credentials.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    A poem about books that I liked

    Brian Bilston (@brian_bilston)
    05/03/2015 07:41
    Here's a poem about a book group called 'Book Group'.

    #WorldBookDay pic.twitter.com/LHmzMJOC28
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,500

    malcolmg said:

    malcolmg said:

    But, but, but......Cameron had to debate Salmond, everybody said so.....if the debates question turns into a big issue, then won't voters simply see the leaders as publicity hungry media whores not interested in the issues that affect them?

    He has already proven he is weak and feart, now he cowers at the prospect of facing Wallace, LOL.
    Though he avoided the battle, he won the war. Scotland voted for Union.

    Clever man!
    Yes we can see it is lost , do you live underground you dunderheided halfwit.
    Just pointing out that sometimes the best way to win is to avoid battle.

    Personally I am happy to see so many Scots rejoicing in the Union by eagerly campaigning for seats in Westminster!
    Fox ,. it was not aimed at you
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    Plato said:

    I've got almost zero interest in the debates - especially a 7-sided one.

    One between Cameron and Miliband may get me to tune in, but it's no sure thing. The fuss volume about it is hilariously OTT.

    So far, bar the prospect of the SNP/No Voters splattering SLAB on May 7th, this election campaign is doing almost nothing for me.

    Scott_P said:

    @JananGanesh: The number of actual people who care about these TV debates equals the number who still use the word "frit".

    Broadcasters are desperate to get debates so that they have the major stake in the campaign. Cameron is right that last time the whole shooting match was all about the debates and their run-up and aftermath.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited March 2015

    The last PM debates were utter dross, overly stage managed and sterile. - If they are to go ahead then at least revamp the bloody things to involve enormo-haddock and dwarf tossing.

    Keep Wee Dougie out of this.
    But otherwise you are totally correct.
    No slight intended against 'Wee Dougie' - a charming chap..!
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    The all-leaders debate would show to the country the real agendas of the Nationalist parties as much of the time most constituents are not exposed to their beliefs.

    For example, under its present leadership Plaid C is republican, very left wing and its head in the clouds economically.
    Green is in fact very authoritarian and is really devoid of economic policies.
    SNP seems to be changing from middle ground to quite lefty with economic vagueness - especially under the new oil price.
    The LDs, rather then being novel this time, would be exposed as rather against what most people want.
    UKIP is suddenly realising that unless the UK leaves the EU, at present UKIP's degrees of freedom are more limited than its propaganda would leave people to believe.
    Labour will be exposed as a major cause of austerity, and complete agnosticism about immigration, education and health-service as well as turning a blind eye to widespread and organised child abuse.
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    FPT

    Interesting analysis of UKIP strategy:

    ‘Our aims are quite simple,’ says [Ukip’s election strategist ] Bruni-Lowe: ‘Get Nigel elected in South Thanet, win a good number of seats, and then come second in more than 100 northern constituencies.’ Finding a Westminster perch for the leader is the top priority. A few more seats would be nice, but Ukip’s aim is to position itself for the 2020 election. The bet is on Labour’s support dissolving in the north of England, as it is already doing in Scotland.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9461352/as-the-election-nears-ukip-is-getting-serious-about-its-strategy/

    Given how short-term the vision of Con/Lab seems to be, a party with a plan is a novel thing.

    A strategy that relies on capturing core labour votes is one based on out labouring labour. Labour voters expect labour policies. Of course the ukip notion of bashing immigrants might be enough.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216
    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    UKIP supporters will be pleased with Telegraph's analysis of Matthew Goodwin's views on where their strength lies. Farage to win "convincingly" and 3 or 4 others in the bag.

    Looking at his predicted UKIP strongholds, I was interested to note that the area around Merthry Tydfil was very strong. We've not heard much about Welsh kippers as far as I am aware. Obviously this is Lab heartland territory, but could an upset be in the works?

    UKIP tied Labour in Wales in the 2014 EU Parliament elections.

    The Elections in Wales blog posted an analysis of 2009>2014 changes in support by local authority. UKIP's most improved areas were:

    Merthyr Tydfil 21.3
    Wrexham 18.3
    Newport 18.1

    "The 2014 European election was, of course, UKIP’s big breakthrough in Wales. Nowhere did their vote share increase by less than 10 percentage points. But if we look at the results above we can perhaps understand why both Labour and the Conservatives in north-east Wales have apparently been experiencing some concerns about UKIP’s challenge there."

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/23/898/
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Ishmael_X said:

    isam said:

    Friends of mine with zero interest in politics (most of them) were glued to the debates last time. Facebook friends who normally post videos of lad bible etc were discussing politics. Obviously the Cameroons on here are trying to downplay their significance because it's the party line. If Dave was demanding them and ed was wavering they would be calling ed an Enemy of democracy etc but that's par for the course (kudos to TSE for lack of bias in thread header)

    If all politicians had agreed not to have debates this time, I don't think the wider public would notice and they would get away with it, but if there is a big song and dance created over the lack of debates by the other parties then the general public will notice and take sides, and I think they will blame/criticise Dave

    You are a kipper, and you don't see what a dishonest and distorting medium television is? Do you think it has been fair in its portrayal of Ukip?
    The debates with Clegg were fair... The ch4, panorama and meet the kipper programmes had an agenda but we did get the goggle box and day in the life of Farage programmes as well... I think the type of person that is inclined to vote Ukip has already shown independence of thought by doing so, and can make their own mind up about agendas
  • RicardoRicardo Posts: 7
    isam said:

    Friends of mine with zero interest in politics (most of them) were glued to the debates last time. Facebook friends who normally post videos of lad bible etc were discussing politics.

    A lot of that was novelty value though and the Cleggasm. Afterwards I think most people realised they are a waste of space.

    Losing the TV debates will be one of the best things for democracy. We need constituency focus with trending memes on social media which will have far more meaningful traction.
  • According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Financier said:

    The all-leaders debate would show to the country the real agendas of the Nationalist parties as much of the time most constituents are not exposed to their beliefs.

    For example, under its present leadership Plaid C is republican, very left wing and its head in the clouds economically.
    Green is in fact very authoritarian and is really devoid of economic policies.
    SNP seems to be changing from middle ground to quite lefty with economic vagueness - especially under the new oil price.
    The LDs, rather then being novel this time, would be exposed as rather against what most people want.
    UKIP is suddenly realising that unless the UK leaves the EU, at present UKIP's degrees of freedom are more limited than its propaganda would leave people to believe.
    Labour will be exposed as a major cause of austerity, and complete agnosticism about immigration, education and health-service as well as turning a blind eye to widespread and organised child abuse.

    I seriously doubt any of the NOTA parties' voters will give a damn, since they do not expect Plaid, the Greens or even the mighty UKIP to be forming the next government.

    The problem for the Prime Minister with the 7-way debate is there will be 5 leaders slagging off the government (prop: D Cameron, Esq). If the blue team wanted only one debate, it should surely have chosen the head-to-head with Miliband where Cameron is perceived to have the upper hand.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015

    FPT

    Interesting analysis of UKIP strategy:

    ‘Our aims are quite simple,’ says [Ukip’s election strategist ] Bruni-Lowe: ‘Get Nigel elected in South Thanet, win a good number of seats, and then come second in more than 100 northern constituencies.’ Finding a Westminster perch for the leader is the top priority. A few more seats would be nice, but Ukip’s aim is to position itself for the 2020 election. The bet is on Labour’s support dissolving in the north of England, as it is already doing in Scotland.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9461352/as-the-election-nears-ukip-is-getting-serious-about-its-strategy/

    Given how short-term the vision of Con/Lab seems to be, a party with a plan is a novel thing.

    A strategy that relies on capturing core labour votes is one based on out labouring labour. Labour voters expect labour policies. Of course the ukip notion of bashing immigrants might be enough.
    You do talk some tosh. You mean like all those WVM that voted for Thatcher, when most of the North of England went Blue in 1979 ?
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    There is the wider question of the shame Cameron has brought onto Eton.Old Etonians are supposed to be bred to be the cream of the intellectual crop and yet Cameron ducks getting into the ring with a Labour who was educated at a North London comprehensive,public school.
    Cameron may have done terrible damage to Eton's reputation,possibly indelibly.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    The problem for the Prime Minister with the 7-way debate is there will be 5 leaders slagging off the government (prop: D Cameron, Esq). If the blue team wanted only one debate, it should surely have chosen the head-to-head with Miliband where Cameron is perceived to have the upper hand.

    5 leftie parties, 2 righties, and the other rightie party wants Labour votes as well. Is there more votes for parties like UKIP and the Greens in attacking Cameron as PM, or Miliband because they need his voters ?

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    TOPPING said:

    A lot will depend on the broadcasters. They can make it an issue or they can accept the Downing Street ultimatum. Let's see what they do.

    If the Tories are going to major on Ed, though, and make him a central part of their campaign, a very natural question is: "If Ed is so crap and it would be dangerous to let him close to Downing Street, why is the PM scared to debate with him?" They'll need a good answer to that one.

    About time someone stood up to the broadcasters.

    Sky now control football in this country, not the FA or Premier League, do we want them controlling politics as well?

    The BBC try hard enough as it is.
    Sky = subscription model = you the viewer control football.

    Don't like it? Stop paying the effing sub.
    BBC and their huge left bias attempt to control politics.

    Can I stop paying my licence fee?
    Of course. You can kill two birds with one stone:

    1) Stop being indoctrinated by the BBC
    2) Stop paying the licence fee
  • FlightpathFlightpath Posts: 4,012

    Kay Burley, Sky News presenter tweets: So @campbellclaret says he's been prepping @Ed_Miliband for #TVdebates by 'playing David Cameron' Now there's a thought...

    It's also why the debates are bogus. 'prepping' !!
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095

    There is the wider question of the shame Cameron has brought onto Eton.Old Etonians are supposed to be bred to be the cream of the intellectual crop and yet Cameron ducks getting into the ring with a Labour who was educated at a North London comprehensive,public school.
    Cameron may have done terrible damage to Eton's reputation,possibly indelibly.

    Its rare to say this , but you are talking utter bowlocks.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    There is the wider question of the shame Cameron has brought onto Eton.Old Etonians are supposed to be bred to be the cream of the intellectual crop and yet Cameron ducks getting into the ring with a Labour who was educated at a North London comprehensive,public school.
    Cameron may have done terrible damage to Eton's reputation,possibly indelibly.

    Ed went to Haverstock Comprehensive, often jokingly called "Labour's Eton", its effectively a finishing school for future leftie politicians.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    Ishmael_X said:

    isam said:

    Friends of mine with zero interest in politics (most of them) were glued to the debates last time. Facebook friends who normally post videos of lad bible etc were discussing politics. Obviously the Cameroons on here are trying to downplay their significance because it's the party line. If Dave was demanding them and ed was wavering they would be calling ed an Enemy of democracy etc but that's par for the course (kudos to TSE for lack of bias in thread header)

    If all politicians had agreed not to have debates this time, I don't think the wider public would notice and they would get away with it, but if there is a big song and dance created over the lack of debates by the other parties then the general public will notice and take sides, and I think they will blame/criticise Dave

    You are a kipper, and you don't see what a dishonest and distorting medium television is? Do you think it has been fair in its portrayal of Ukip?
    I'm a Kipper and have no doubt that Farage would do well in any debates as he proved with Clegg. However I don't want the debates either, they are just American style showbiz rubbish.

    I am increasingly fed up with style over substance, we currently have three leaders who all look good, are good at presentation but in reality are all useless. I couldn't care less if my PM looked like Quasimodo if he was brilliant at his job.

    Churchill was fat, bald, liked a big cigar, a glass or two of brandy and a kip at lunchtime, can you imagine that now?
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    FPT

    Interesting analysis of UKIP strategy:

    ‘Our aims are quite simple,’ says [Ukip’s election strategist ] Bruni-Lowe: ‘Get Nigel elected in South Thanet, win a good number of seats, and then come second in more than 100 northern constituencies.’ Finding a Westminster perch for the leader is the top priority. A few more seats would be nice, but Ukip’s aim is to position itself for the 2020 election. The bet is on Labour’s support dissolving in the north of England, as it is already doing in Scotland.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9461352/as-the-election-nears-ukip-is-getting-serious-about-its-strategy/

    Given how short-term the vision of Con/Lab seems to be, a party with a plan is a novel thing.

    A strategy that relies on capturing core labour votes is one based on out labouring labour. Labour voters expect labour policies. Of course the ukip notion of bashing immigrants might be enough.
    But UKIP don't have any notion of bashing immigrants - UKIP want the best of people of any colour, nation or race to come to the UK. Unlike the EU policy where if you're not an EU national you're persona non grata - dreadful bigotry, intolerance and racism.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132
    Indigo said:

    The problem for the Prime Minister with the 7-way debate is there will be 5 leaders slagging off the government (prop: D Cameron, Esq). If the blue team wanted only one debate, it should surely have chosen the head-to-head with Miliband where Cameron is perceived to have the upper hand.

    5 leftie parties, 2 righties, and the other rightie party wants Labour votes as well. Is there more votes for parties like UKIP and the Greens in attacking Cameron as PM, or Miliband because they need his voters ?

    Cameron's team want the 7-way debate because it won't happen. Not least because of the DUP.
  • RicardoRicardo Posts: 7

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot will depend on the broadcasters. They can make it an issue or they can accept the Downing Street ultimatum. Let's see what they do.

    If the Tories are going to major on Ed, though, and make him a central part of their campaign, a very natural question is: "If Ed is so crap and it would be dangerous to let him close to Downing Street, why is the PM scared to debate with him?" They'll need a good answer to that one.

    About time someone stood up to the broadcasters.

    Sky now control football in this country, not the FA or Premier League, do we want them controlling politics as well?

    The BBC try hard enough as it is.
    Sky = subscription model = you the viewer control football.

    Don't like it? Stop paying the effing sub.
    BBC and their huge left bias attempt to control politics.

    Can I stop paying my licence fee?
    Of course. You can kill two birds with one stone:

    1) Stop being indoctrinated by the BBC
    2) Stop paying the licence fee
    1) Not a chance of that ever happening.
    2) Would love to but don't want to break the law.
  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820

    Posters getting all het up about the tv debates and whether or not Cameron has made an error may care to reflect that when voting time comes "it's the economy stupid".

    The debates (so called) are just beauty contests. Every sitting PM since the dawn of time has refused debates. Err... except Brown. Says it all.
    If it is true Labour refused in 1997, it must be the Conservatives who wanted them, surely?
    Usually the Government don't like them as it promotes the opposition, who can attack without having to defend themselves. However in 1997 John Major knew that he would lose badly and so had nothing more to lose by taking part. Since Labour knew they would win handsomely they didn't have to take any risks.
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548

    Good morning, everyone.

    I bloody predicted this. That arse Clegg wants Cornwall to have its own assembly, paving the way for carving England up into pieces:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31739267

    I said this, the moment that perfidious weasel threw an unasked for minority status at Cornwall.

    Beeb has now made them a nation; Key Point on today's Politics Live page:

    - Clegg is on a tour of Cornwall to mark St Piran's Day, the national day of Cornwall

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.


  • I would prefer to see the leaders take up the sport of body-building, so that instead of debates we could instead choose who to vote for on the basis of a pose-down.

    All the candidates would display their abs and lats and we could then decide based on how feathered they looked in the 'most muscular'.

    Miliband will always have spaghetti arms, regrettably.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,132

    UKIP supporters will be pleased with Telegraph's analysis of Matthew Goodwin's views on where their strength lies. Farage to win "convincingly" and 3 or 4 others in the bag.

    Looking at his predicted UKIP strongholds, I was interested to note that the area around Merthry Tydfil was very strong. We've not heard much about Welsh kippers as far as I am aware. Obviously this is Lab heartland territory, but could an upset be in the works?

    UKIP tied Labour in Wales in the 2014 EU Parliament elections.

    The Elections in Wales blog posted an analysis of 2009>2014 changes in support by local authority. UKIP's most improved areas were:

    Merthyr Tydfil 21.3
    Wrexham 18.3
    Newport 18.1

    "The 2014 European election was, of course, UKIP’s big breakthrough in Wales. Nowhere did their vote share increase by less than 10 percentage points. But if we look at the results above we can perhaps understand why both Labour and the Conservatives in north-east Wales have apparently been experiencing some concerns about UKIP’s challenge there."

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/23/898/
    So, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, worth a punt on UKIP? It's 17-1 with Betfair and 26 with William Hill. I'd be nervous as I know pretty much zero about Welsh politics other than there are many seats where the Labour vote is weighed rather than counted.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    UKIP supporters will be pleased with Telegraph's analysis of Matthew Goodwin's views on where their strength lies. Farage to win "convincingly" and 3 or 4 others in the bag.

    Looking at his predicted UKIP strongholds, I was interested to note that the area around Merthry Tydfil was very strong. We've not heard much about Welsh kippers as far as I am aware. Obviously this is Lab heartland territory, but could an upset be in the works?

    UKIP tied Labour in Wales in the 2014 EU Parliament elections.

    The Elections in Wales blog posted an analysis of 2009>2014 changes in support by local authority. UKIP's most improved areas were:

    Merthyr Tydfil 21.3
    Wrexham 18.3
    Newport 18.1

    "The 2014 European election was, of course, UKIP’s big breakthrough in Wales. Nowhere did their vote share increase by less than 10 percentage points. But if we look at the results above we can perhaps understand why both Labour and the Conservatives in north-east Wales have apparently been experiencing some concerns about UKIP’s challenge there."

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/23/898/
    I am interested. Are there any seats that would merit a further look?

    I am thinking Anglophone Labour heartland seats where Plaid is seen as too West Welsh, and where Tories are toxic.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot will depend on the broadcasters. They can make it an issue or they can accept the Downing Street ultimatum. Let's see what they do.

    If the Tories are going to major on Ed, though, and make him a central part of their campaign, a very natural question is: "If Ed is so crap and it would be dangerous to let him close to Downing Street, why is the PM scared to debate with him?" They'll need a good answer to that one.

    About time someone stood up to the broadcasters.

    Sky now control football in this country, not the FA or Premier League, do we want them controlling politics as well?

    The BBC try hard enough as it is.
    Sky = subscription model = you the viewer control football.

    Don't like it? Stop paying the effing sub.
    BBC and their huge left bias attempt to control politics.

    Can I stop paying my licence fee?
    Of course. You can kill two birds with one stone:

    1) Stop being indoctrinated by the BBC
    2) Stop paying the licence fee
    1) Not a chance of that ever happening.
    2) Would love to but don't want to break the law.
    er, you can stop watching the BBC. Watch all other channels on the internet.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015

    Good morning, everyone.

    I bloody predicted this. That arse Clegg wants Cornwall to have its own assembly, paving the way for carving England up into pieces:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31739267

    I said this, the moment that perfidious weasel threw an unasked for minority status at Cornwall.

    Beeb has now made them a nation; Key Point on today's Politics Live page:

    - Clegg is on a tour of Cornwall to mark St Piran's Day, the national day of Cornwall

    The fact of 3 of the 6 seats in Cornwall being LD marginals I am sure is a matter of no consequence to him ;)
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    David Walliams being gay back into 1/2...
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot will depend on the broadcasters. They can make it an issue or they can accept the Downing Street ultimatum. Let's see what they do.

    If the Tories are going to major on Ed, though, and make him a central part of their campaign, a very natural question is: "If Ed is so crap and it would be dangerous to let him close to Downing Street, why is the PM scared to debate with him?" They'll need a good answer to that one.

    About time someone stood up to the broadcasters.

    Sky now control football in this country, not the FA or Premier League, do we want them controlling politics as well?

    The BBC try hard enough as it is.
    Sky = subscription model = you the viewer control football.

    Don't like it? Stop paying the effing sub.
    BBC and their huge left bias attempt to control politics.

    Can I stop paying my licence fee?
    Of course. You can kill two birds with one stone:

    1) Stop being indoctrinated by the BBC
    2) Stop paying the licence fee
    1) Not a chance of that ever happening.
    2) Would love to but don't want to break the law.
    er, you can stop watching the BBC. Watch all other channels on the internet.
    Nope. The TV Tax doesn't care.
    A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment (e.g. TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders) to watch or record television programmes, as they are being shown on TV. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received. The licence fee is not a payment for BBC services (or any other television service), although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC.
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

    EDIT: Ah, on the internet will work until they get their £5 levy idiocy passed, but you cant watch any programs on a TV or you are nabbed.
  • nigel4englandnigel4england Posts: 4,800
    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.


    The debates are no more part of the political process than Question Time.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    edited March 2015
    Indigo said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    A lot will depend on the broadcasters. They can make it an issue or they can accept the Downing Street ultimatum. Let's see what they do.

    If the Tories are going to major on Ed, though, and make him a central part of their campaign, a very natural question is: "If Ed is so crap and it would be dangerous to let him close to Downing Street, why is the PM scared to debate with him?" They'll need a good answer to that one.

    About time someone stood up to the broadcasters.

    Sky now control football in this country, not the FA or Premier League, do we want them controlling politics as well?

    The BBC try hard enough as it is.
    Sky = subscription model = you the viewer control football.

    Don't like it? Stop paying the effing sub.
    BBC and their huge left bias attempt to control politics.

    Can I stop paying my licence fee?
    Of course. You can kill two birds with one stone:

    1) Stop being indoctrinated by the BBC
    2) Stop paying the licence fee
    1) Not a chance of that ever happening.
    2) Would love to but don't want to break the law.
    er, you can stop watching the BBC. Watch all other channels on the internet.
    Nope. The TV Tax doesn't care.
    A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment (e.g. TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders) to watch or record television programmes, as they are being shown on TV. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received. The licence fee is not a payment for BBC services (or any other television service), although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC.
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

    EDIT: Ah, on the internet will work until they get their £5 levy idiocy passed, but you cant watch any programs on a TV or you are nabbed.

    interesting, but "as they are being shown on TV".

    Doesn't this carve out having a computer? I mean if they are not shown on TV to start with then surely they can't tax people for having a computer and a modem?

    (or can you..!?)
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    I'm disappointed the debates aren't taking place. They drew in the general public last time and gave a new energy to the campaign. David Cameron is letting the public down by sabotaging them.

    That said, I do see this as essentially a minor matter.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Off topic, I see that shadsy has yet to put the constituency markets back up.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    TOPPING said:

    Indigo said:

    TOPPING said:


    er, you can stop watching the BBC. Watch all other channels on the internet.

    Nope. The TV Tax doesn't care.
    A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment (e.g. TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders) to watch or record television programmes, as they are being shown on TV. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received. The licence fee is not a payment for BBC services (or any other television service), although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC.
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

    EDIT: Ah, on the internet will work until they get their £5 levy idiocy passed, but you cant watch any programs on a TV or you are nabbed.
    interesting, but "as they are being shown on TV".

    Doesn't this carve out having a computer? I mean if they are not shown on TV to start with then surely they can't tax people for having a computer and a modem?

    (or can you..!?)

    Not now, they are trying to!

    At the moment you cant use a TV to watch any programs, even recorded ones, without the risk of ending up in the dock. I have heard that the TV Licensing people even have a try at people using TVs with digitial inputs for computer monitors because they could be used for reception, in effect you need to tear the reception circuit out of the TV to use it safely.

    You can currently watch whatever you want in the internet if you can get access to it, but the BBC are currently lobbying to replace the TV license with a fixed money levy irrespective of if you have a TV or not. Which is so idiotic it makes Cameron's Encryption nonsense look sensible, since people in other countries that use a VPN service will see our programs for nothing, and we will have to pay for them.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.


    The debates are no more part of the political process than Question Time.
    Utter rubbish.

    Every time a politician enters the public arena is part of the political process.

  • Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

  • EasterrossEasterross Posts: 1,915
    Morning again all and fair play to John Thurso. 4th glossy leaflet from him since Christmas. Clearly all LibDem literature is being printed in Portsmouth since this is the 4th to come from there. Nothing from SNP yet. Complacency?

    I am delighted if the debates fall through. They completely dominated the 2010 election. I would rather see party leaders crisscrossing the country speaking to people in constituencies as John Major did in 1992 so effectively. Good to remind the TV companies that they are there to report the news, not shape it or create it.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,046
    Indigo said:

    TOPPING said:

    Indigo said:

    TOPPING said:


    er, you can stop watching the BBC. Watch all other channels on the internet.

    Nope. The TV Tax doesn't care.
    A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment (e.g. TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders) to watch or record television programmes, as they are being shown on TV. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received. The licence fee is not a payment for BBC services (or any other television service), although licence fee revenue is used to fund the BBC.
    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

    EDIT: Ah, on the internet will work until they get their £5 levy idiocy passed, but you cant watch any programs on a TV or you are nabbed.
    interesting, but "as they are being shown on TV".

    Doesn't this carve out having a computer? I mean if they are not shown on TV to start with then surely they can't tax people for having a computer and a modem?

    (or can you..!?)
    Not now, they are trying to!

    At the moment you cant use a TV to watch any programs, even recorded ones, without the risk of ending up in the dock. I have heard that the TV Licensing people even have a try at people using TVs with digitial inputs for computer monitors because they could be used for reception, in effect you need to tear the reception circuit out of the TV to use it safely.

    You can currently watch whatever you want in the internet if you can get access to it, but the BBC are currently lobbying to replace the TV license with a fixed money levy irrespective of if you have a TV or not. Which is so idiotic it makes Cameron's Encryption nonsense look sensible, since people in other countries that use a VPN service will see our programs for nothing, and we will have to pay for them.

    So in theory (and I am thinking of @nigel4england's political sanity here) you can not have a TV, watch all the freeview channels (presumably not iPlayer live) on your computer and not need to pay the license fee?

    The BBC in fact seems to think that this is possible:

    iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/tvlicence
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

    No, its a composite question.

    Do you think there should be televised debates?
    Should they be between the party leaders ?
    Should it be during the general election campaign ?

    Otherwise you don't know which question they are really answering.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @GaryGibbonBlog: TV debates – the end game http://t.co/Y6sACsb5rS #c4news
  • JonnyJimmyJonnyJimmy Posts: 2,548
    antifrank said:

    Off topic, I see that shadsy has yet to put the constituency markets back up.

    Nor the Lab seats O/U; was 269.5 when taken down last night, with Con at (still available) 281.5
  • CD13CD13 Posts: 6,366
    I watched BBC news for a while yesterday afternoon and an impromptu discussion arose between the newsreader, a guest and a BBC summariser on location. All three had a little chuckle about the failure of Ukip to achieve a breakthrough following their conference and the release of the immigration figures.

    It certainly sounded like Ratty and Mole talking about the weasels and stoats. "These dreadful people, they couldn't organise etc"

    The BBC does have a liberal, metropolitan bias and it's rare that the mask slips. Ed occasionally suffers from a certain disdain but never quite so overtly.

    But I doubt if this will harm Ukip. And for the BBC, it's an unusual occurrence - they are only human.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    Dear me, TSE penning a thread that the true blues said was dead and buried, and no one was interested in.
    (I note the raving lunacy of someone claiming most on this board are not interested, as though it represented a broad sample of public opinion)

    However, they should have been aware that the "Shouty man turning down the volume" was just never going to fly with the majority of the country.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015
    TOPPING said:

    Indigo said:

    TOPPING said:



    interesting, but "as they are being shown on TV".

    Doesn't this carve out having a computer? I mean if they are not shown on TV to start with then surely they can't tax people for having a computer and a modem?

    (or can you..!?)

    Not now, they are trying to!

    At the moment you cant use a TV to watch any programs, even recorded ones, without the risk of ending up in the dock. I have heard that the TV Licensing people even have a try at people using TVs with digitial inputs for computer monitors because they could be used for reception, in effect you need to tear the reception circuit out of the TV to use it safely.

    You can currently watch whatever you want in the internet if you can get access to it, but the BBC are currently lobbying to replace the TV license with a fixed money levy irrespective of if you have a TV or not. Which is so idiotic it makes Cameron's Encryption nonsense look sensible, since people in other countries that use a VPN service will see our programs for nothing, and we will have to pay for them.
    So in theory (and I am thinking of @nigel4england's political sanity here) you can not have a TV, watch all the freeview channels (presumably not iPlayer live) on your computer and not need to pay the license fee?

    The BBC in fact seems to think that this is possible:

    iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/tv/tvlicence
    Communications Act (2004) s.363
    (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
    (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
    (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
    (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
    (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,is guilty of an offence.
    So just the installation of the TV requires a license, even if you don't plan to watch it, never mind which channels you plan to watch.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Morning again all and fair play to John Thurso. 4th glossy leaflet from him since Christmas. Clearly all LibDem literature is being printed in Portsmouth since this is the 4th to come from there. Nothing from SNP yet. Complacency?

    I am delighted if the debates fall through. They completely dominated the 2010 election. I would rather see party leaders crisscrossing the country speaking to people in constituencies as John Major did in 1992 so effectively. Good to remind the TV companies that they are there to report the news, not shape it or create it.

    One can have John Major's soap box campaign and the debates. They did not preclude each other.

    I'm glad to hear you reporting on the scintillating campaign of the good Viscount. It's essential we ensure a decent representation of Scottish peers in the House of Commons. :smile:

  • Indigo said:

    Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

    No, its a composite question.

    Do you think there should be televised debates?
    Should they be between the party leaders ?
    Should it be during the general election campaign ?

    Otherwise you don't know which question they are really answering.
    But it's not Voodoo, is it?

    And the 70% response does reflect a fairly high level of support?

    And the level of support it reflects seems rather greater than you might surmise by reading this thread?

    It's not the world's greatest issue but I think the conclusion to draw is the obvious one.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    edited March 2015

    Indigo said:

    Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

    No, its a composite question.

    Do you think there should be televised debates?
    Should they be between the party leaders ?
    Should it be during the general election campaign ?

    Otherwise you don't know which question they are really answering.
    But it's not Voodoo, is it?

    And the 70% response does reflect a fairly high level of support?

    And the level of support it reflects seems rather greater than you might surmise by reading this thread?

    It's not the world's greatest issue but I think the conclusion to draw is the obvious one.
    No, I am being pedantic, I did psychometric test design at Uni and I learned to dislike this sort of question, you never know which part of it people think they are answering.

    In this case I think its one of those things that people have an opinion on, but don't actually care about a whole lot. That's the whole problem with 99% of surveys, is you get a boolean answer and no sense of the amount of investment in the answer. "Do you prefer Rich Tea or Digestive Biscuits", will give you an answer possibly even one that suggests a majority view, but most people will be quite happy with either or both, and no one is going to be offended if the other is served.
  • SmarmeronSmarmeron Posts: 5,099
    @Ishmael_X
    You may have a point about the debates not being a great format, and it might have worked as well, if it wasn't for those pesky videos of Cameron not only demanding them last time, but tying them into the basic democratic right of the country!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    Said Lance Price in 2001 when he was Director of Communications for the Labour Party, coordinating the Labour Party election campaign of 2001, and Blair was way ahead and didnt see the point in debating a floundering William Hague.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,133
    Tory lead in part-ELBOW for week's polls so far = 0.7% (down from 1.0 yesterday)

    Are we certain (or not) that Ashcroft 8,000 poll is definitely a national GB poll, not an aggregate of 8 x 1,000 sample marginal polls? Fieldwork dates, incidentally, 20-27th Feb, so belongs in last week's polling data.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Indigo said:

    Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

    No, its a composite question.

    Do you think there should be televised debates?
    Should they be between the party leaders ?
    Should it be during the general election campaign ?

    Otherwise you don't know which question they are really answering.
    But it's not Voodoo, is it?

    And the 70% response does reflect a fairly high level of support?

    And the level of support it reflects seems rather greater than you might surmise by reading this thread?

    It's not the world's greatest issue but I think the conclusion to draw is the obvious one.
    So obvious that there is an element of idiot cunning in drawing it. Again, look how things looked in 2001 when the desperate wannabes were the tories. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    That's politics.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    The punters voted with their remotes in 2010. They watched in huge numbers for a political programme.

    Those that do not wish to watch the debates may also exercise their choice.

  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664

    Tory lead in part-ELBOW for week's polls so far = 0.7% (down from 1.0 yesterday)

    Are we certain (or not) that Ashcroft 8,000 poll is definitely a national GB poll, not an aggregate of 8 x 1,000 sample marginal polls? Fieldwork dates, incidentally, 20-27th Feb, so belongs in last week's polling data.

    Don't know. Also don't know what the result was - do you?
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,300
    edited March 2015

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Sorry for the mistype.

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the search many hours before MSM.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Tory lead in part-ELBOW for week's polls so far = 0.7% (down from 1.0 yesterday)

    Are we certain (or not) that Ashcroft 8,000 poll is definitely a national GB poll, not an aggregate of 8 x 1,000 sample marginal polls? Fieldwork dates, incidentally, 20-27th Feb, so belongs in last week's polling data.

    Pretty sure it's a national poll, but there's no VI given by turnout weighting or DK adjustment. So including it as part of the Ashcroft series would be misleading without an asterisk of some kind. Probably a tie or 1% Labour lead with his usual methodology, I reckon.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    The punters voted with their remotes in 2010. They watched in huge numbers for a political programme.

    Those that do not wish to watch the debates may also exercise their choice.

    They voted for the proposition that Nick Clegg was not a duplicitous milksop. And it isn't a political programme any more than that awful bake off thing is a cookery programme, it's just light entertainment.
  • anotherDaveanotherDave Posts: 6,746

    UKIP supporters will be pleased with Telegraph's analysis of Matthew Goodwin's views on where their strength lies. Farage to win "convincingly" and 3 or 4 others in the bag.

    Looking at his predicted UKIP strongholds, I was interested to note that the area around Merthry Tydfil was very strong. We've not heard much about Welsh kippers as far as I am aware. Obviously this is Lab heartland territory, but could an upset be in the works?

    UKIP tied Labour in Wales in the 2014 EU Parliament elections.

    The Elections in Wales blog posted an analysis of 2009>2014 changes in support by local authority. UKIP's most improved areas were:

    Merthyr Tydfil 21.3
    Wrexham 18.3
    Newport 18.1

    "The 2014 European election was, of course, UKIP’s big breakthrough in Wales. Nowhere did their vote share increase by less than 10 percentage points. But if we look at the results above we can perhaps understand why both Labour and the Conservatives in north-east Wales have apparently been experiencing some concerns about UKIP’s challenge there."

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/23/898/
    I am interested. Are there any seats that would merit a further look?

    I am thinking Anglophone Labour heartland seats where Plaid is seen as too West Welsh, and where Tories are toxic.
    For UKIP? 0 welsh seats predicted.

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/02/887/

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/18/polling-matters-podcast-on-wales/
  • Indigo said:

    Indigo said:

    Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

    No, its a composite question.

    Do you think there should be televised debates?
    Should they be between the party leaders ?
    Should it be during the general election campaign ?

    Otherwise you don't know which question they are really answering.
    But it's not Voodoo, is it?

    And the 70% response does reflect a fairly high level of support?

    And the level of support it reflects seems rather greater than you might surmise by reading this thread?

    It's not the world's greatest issue but I think the conclusion to draw is the obvious one.
    No, I am being pedantic, I did psychometric test design at Uni and I learned to dislike this sort of question, you never know which part of it people think they are answering.

    either or both, and no one is going to be offended if the other is served.
    Yes, I understood that, and I agree it's not a technically sound question for the reasons you suggest.

    In a sense it is a bit Voodoo in that it's a bit of fun on a not particularly serious topic. It's nevertheless fair to say that most normal people (i.e. people who don't spend time obsessing on PB) would kind of prefer the debates to take place, though I imagine few will slit their wrists if they don't.

    The very abnormal posters on this Site reflect a wholly different attitude however and show a level of support for Dave's avoidance strategy way out of line with your average biscuit-eater.

    I very much prefer Rich Tea to Digestives, and am deeply offended when served the latter in preference to the former.

    So watch it.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    dr_spyn said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Sorry for the mistype.

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the search many hours before MSM.
    Tipped off by Plod?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited March 2015
    I think Cameron and Lynton (and probably Boy George) are a bit loopy in their reasoning that the debates cost the Tories a majority in 2010... The Con poll rating had been on the slide since November 2009 and the Lib-Dems actually lost seats when the ballots were counted.

    Ed and his supporters are also loopy to think that the debates are a "game changer" for them. Two things came through loud a clear in 2010:

    1. If a leaders a no-hopper, he's a no-hopper, with or without the debates.

    2. Even if we got a Milligasm, chances are it would make no difference to the final outcome. it certainly didn't with Clegg and the Lib-Dems. Remember all those silly predictions from the like's of Mark Senior and OGH that the Lib-Dems would get 100 seats, LOL! :smiley:
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    {snipped for space]

    I am delighted if the debates fall through. They completely dominated the 2010 election. I would rather see party leaders crisscrossing the country speaking to people in constituencies as John Major did in 1992 so effectively. Good to remind the TV companies that they are there to report the news, not shape it or create it.

    Indeed - I am firmly of the opinion that the reason TV broadcasters have been pushing so hard for the debates, is to ingratiate themselves further into the electoral process. – How convenient it would be for them if every GE, the ‘mountains came to Allah’, rather than they, trogging around the country following the various campaign trails. – much cheaper to I’d expect.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    The punters voted with their remotes in 2010. They watched in huge numbers for a political programme.

    Those that do not wish to watch the debates may also exercise their choice.

    They voted for the proposition that Nick Clegg was not a duplicitous milksop. And it isn't a political programme any more than that awful bake off thing is a cookery programme, it's just light entertainment.
    Very simple.

    Don't watch, others may choose to.

  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pretty obvious what's going on with DC and the debates so no real point spinning it either way.

    What's interesting will be the broadcasters' response. Do they accept the fait accompli and agree on DC's terms? If so, not a bad result at all for Dave.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456
    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Nick Clegg will turn up for the head to head #tvdebate with Ed Miliband if PM refuses says @paddyashdown @bbcr4today

    @BBCJLandale: Lord Ashdown says Nick Clegg would replace David Cameron in head to head debate with Ed Miliband if the PM refuses to turn up

    ROFLMAO

    is that Nick 5% Clegg vs Ed (is crap) geeky Miliband. I'd rather eat my own vomit than watch the debate of the two losers!
  • Ishmael_X said:

    Indigo said:

    Ricardo said:

    According to TSE's helpful link, 70% of the public want the debates.

    A quick scan down the thread suggests the percentage is the other way round amongst PB posters.

    Hmmmm.......

    You can ask a leading question and get any answer you want. Voodoo polling an occur with untested novelty questions as much as unsampled responses. Ask something this:

    'Do you agree or disagree that the TV debates take politicians from campaigning amongst real people and distract focus on the issues that really matter to you in your area.'

    And you'll get over 70% agreeing.
    You think YouGov's poll is Voodoo?

    The question asked was:

    "Do you think there should or should not be televised debates between the party leaders during the general election campaign?"

    Sounds fair enough to me.

    No, its a composite question.

    Do you think there should be televised debates?
    Should they be between the party leaders ?
    Should it be during the general election campaign ?

    Otherwise you don't know which question they are really answering.
    But it's not Voodoo, is it?

    And the 70% response does reflect a fairly high level of support?

    And the level of support it reflects seems rather greater than you might surmise by reading this thread?

    It's not the world's greatest issue but I think the conclusion to draw is the obvious one.
    So obvious that there is an element of idiot cunning in drawing it. Again, look how things looked in 2001 when the desperate wannabes were the tories. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    That's politics.
    Absolutely.

    It's blindingly obvious why Dave is avoiding them and you can't blame him. Nor can you blame the other Parties for making out of it whatever they can.

    The more important question is whether they can hold him to account for pledges he made in the 2010 debates. That will require skill and persistence but if they can, the absence of debates will be irrelevant.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Nick Clegg will turn up for the head to head #tvdebate with Ed Miliband if PM refuses says @paddyashdown @bbcr4today

    @BBCJLandale: Lord Ashdown says Nick Clegg would replace David Cameron in head to head debate with Ed Miliband if the PM refuses to turn up

    ROFLMAO

    is that Nick 5% Clegg vs Ed (is crap) geeky Miliband. I'd rather eat my own vomit than watch the debate of the two losers!
    Quite. On 5% Clegg has less right to be there than Farage or Bennett.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    The punters voted with their remotes in 2010. They watched in huge numbers for a political programme.

    Those that do not wish to watch the debates may also exercise their choice.

    They voted for the proposition that Nick Clegg was not a duplicitous milksop. And it isn't a political programme any more than that awful bake off thing is a cookery programme, it's just light entertainment.
    Very simple.

    Don't watch, others may choose to.

    Well actually they mayn't, the way things are going. Good thing too.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Tangentially, surely the way that DC has outmanoeuvred the broadcasters will give our resident Kippers great confidence in his ability to get Britain a good deal from his EU renegotiation? No?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Nick Clegg will turn up for the head to head #tvdebate with Ed Miliband if PM refuses says @paddyashdown @bbcr4today

    @BBCJLandale: Lord Ashdown says Nick Clegg would replace David Cameron in head to head debate with Ed Miliband if the PM refuses to turn up

    ROFLMAO

    is that Nick 5% Clegg vs Ed (is crap) geeky Miliband. I'd rather eat my own vomit than watch the debate of the two losers!
    Enjoy your meal.

    Others may choose a different menu.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    Tory lead in part-ELBOW for week's polls so far = 0.7% (down from 1.0 yesterday)

    Are we certain (or not) that Ashcroft 8,000 poll is definitely a national GB poll, not an aggregate of 8 x 1,000 sample marginal polls? Fieldwork dates, incidentally, 20-27th Feb, so belongs in last week's polling data.

    Pretty sure it's a national poll, but there's no VI given by turnout weighting or DK adjustment. So including it as part of the Ashcroft series would be misleading without an asterisk of some kind. Probably a tie or 1% Labour lead with his usual methodology, I reckon.
    Too many ABs and not enough C2s is the main issue I can see with the poll... having said that the tendency for UKIP to naturally have to be weighted down is not present in this poll so if these numbers are the actual state of play then they are moderately good news for Labour, excellent for the SNP and good for UKIP too.

    I reckon it points to Labour being ~ 0.5% ahead when you consider their turnout issues and so forth.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    Ukips latest immigration shambles

    'It is tough to admit, but Nigel Farage may be right about immigration

    Another Voice: He wants an Australian-style points system and welcomes the skilled. He believes that Britain is letting in too many people. I think he's right

    My name is Chris Maume, and I – no, I can’t say it. I’ll try again: my name is Chris Maume, and – no, no, I can’t. One last try: (deep breath) my name is Chris Maume, and I think I agree with Nigel Farage about immigration. There! It’s out. That wasn’t so difficult, was it?'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/it-is-tough-to-admit-but-nigel-farage-may-be-right-about-immigration-10086134.html
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    The punters voted with their remotes in 2010. They watched in huge numbers for a political programme.

    Those that do not wish to watch the debates may also exercise their choice.

    The first series of Big Brother got considerably more than this year's. Novelty a big factor.


    7 is too many - will be rubbish.
  • UKIP supporters will be pleased with Telegraph's analysis of Matthew Goodwin's views on where their strength lies. Farage to win "convincingly" and 3 or 4 others in the bag.

    Looking at his predicted UKIP strongholds, I was interested to note that the area around Merthry Tydfil was very strong. We've not heard much about Welsh kippers as far as I am aware. Obviously this is Lab heartland territory, but could an upset be in the works?

    UKIP tied Labour in Wales in the 2014 EU Parliament elections.

    The Elections in Wales blog posted an analysis of 2009>2014 changes in support by local authority. UKIP's most improved areas were:

    Merthyr Tydfil 21.3
    Wrexham 18.3
    Newport 18.1

    "The 2014 European election was, of course, UKIP’s big breakthrough in Wales. Nowhere did their vote share increase by less than 10 percentage points. But if we look at the results above we can perhaps understand why both Labour and the Conservatives in north-east Wales have apparently been experiencing some concerns about UKIP’s challenge there."

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/23/898/
    Labour did quite poorly in Merthyr last time with 44% of the vote (compared with 72% in 1992). The LD got 31%. Now some of that LD vote may go back to Labour but a lot is up for grabs. If UKIP can grab a chunk they can perhaps get to 15%.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    Indigo said:

    The problem for the Prime Minister with the 7-way debate is there will be 5 leaders slagging off the government (prop: D Cameron, Esq). If the blue team wanted only one debate, it should surely have chosen the head-to-head with Miliband where Cameron is perceived to have the upper hand.

    5 leftie parties, 2 righties, and the other rightie party wants Labour votes as well. Is there more votes for parties like UKIP and the Greens in attacking Cameron as PM, or Miliband because they need his voters ?

    Well, we shall see (unless this debate is kyboshed as well) but any opposition party must start from the proposition that HMG is crap.

    And the format means Cameron will not be able to rebut all of their criticisms -- he will not have the time, for a start, so three (say) of the parties will proclaim that Cameron had no answer to their devastating charge that free school milk is an attack on Wales/Scotland/Cornwall (delete as appropriate).
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787

    Tangentially, surely the way that DC has outmanoeuvred the broadcasters will give our resident Kippers great confidence in his ability to get Britain a good deal from his EU renegotiation? No?

    Hardly.

    Scoring a spectacular own goal doesn't presage a goal fest against the German team. English PM loses on penalties seems likely. :smile:

  • JWisemannJWisemann Posts: 1,082
    Where's the TNS?
    Also this site is a great laugh when the PB Tories tie themselves in knots trying to defend the indefensible, one of the finest places for cognitive dissonance on the planet
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    JackW said:

    Tangentially, surely the way that DC has outmanoeuvred the broadcasters will give our resident Kippers great confidence in his ability to get Britain a good deal from his EU renegotiation? No?

    Hardly.

    Scoring a spectacular own goal doesn't presage a goal fest against the German team. English PM loses on penalties seems likely. :smile:

    I must confess I didn't have you down as a Kipper - at least not in your JackW guise. More of an Arbroath smokie man, perhaps.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    Meanwhile, over on Twitter, tim is losing his mind. Must be a hot day over there.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,821
    I think I must have missed an episode of this soap opera, since the last I heard before this latest development was that the LibDems were going to pull out. When did that change?

    As for where things will go from here, I see lots of jostling for position, but it's not at all obvious what will actually happen next.
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,464
    edited March 2015

    UKIP supporters will be pleased with Telegraph's analysis of Matthew Goodwin's views on where their strength lies. Farage to win "convincingly" and 3 or 4 others in the bag.

    Looking at his predicted UKIP strongholds, I was interested to note that the area around Merthry Tydfil was very strong. We've not heard much about Welsh kippers as far as I am aware. Obviously this is Lab heartland territory, but could an upset be in the works?

    UKIP tied Labour in Wales in the 2014 EU Parliament elections.

    The Elections in Wales blog posted an analysis of 2009>2014 changes in support by local authority. UKIP's most improved areas were:

    Merthyr Tydfil 21.3
    Wrexham 18.3
    Newport 18.1

    "The 2014 European election was, of course, UKIP’s big breakthrough in Wales. Nowhere did their vote share increase by less than 10 percentage points. But if we look at the results above we can perhaps understand why both Labour and the Conservatives in north-east Wales have apparently been experiencing some concerns about UKIP’s challenge there."

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2015/02/23/898/
    I am interested. Are there any seats that would merit a further look?

    I am thinking Anglophone Labour heartland seats where Plaid is seen as too West Welsh, and where Tories are toxic.

    Can't see it. The Valleys tend to be quite socially conservative, and are amongst the least ethnically diverse parts of the UK, and yes UKIP did well in the Euros in Wales (in the NE in particular I seem to recall), and yes there's really no sign at all of any "Plaid surge" on the back of the SNP to siphon off votes, and yes Wales is getting less and less monolithically Labour as time goes on (relatively!), the memory of coal and steel dominating fades and the English born population grows (nearing 30% now according to the last census).

    However, for all the turmoil and fragmentation in the polls I'd predict a really old fashioned election result in Wales with a only a few seats swapping back and forth in a rather conventional swing sort of a way (Cardiff North and Central gains for Labour from Tory and Libs, Brecon and Radnor maybe going Tory from Lib Dem, with some close calls in a couple of others such as Vale of Glam between Lab/Con and Montgomery between Con/Lib - though I suspect the Tories will hang on in the latter as they have a sensible farmer type MP who pops up on TV every now and again here, who is something of a contrast shall we say to the "Lembit Opik show"). I suspect nobody in rUk will bother watching much as all the excitement will be in Midlands, Estuary England and above all Scotland.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411

    I think I must have missed an episode of this soap opera, since the last I heard before this latest development was that the LibDems were going to pull out. When did that change?

    As for where things will go from here, I see lots of jostling for position, but it's not at all obvious what will actually happen next.

    Personally I hope the SNP makes as much political capital out of the situation as possible whilst Dave loses credibility in England ;)
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Pretty obvious what's going on with DC and the debates so no real point spinning it either way.

    What's interesting will be the broadcasters' response. Do they accept the fait accompli and agree on DC's terms? If so, not a bad result at all for Dave.

    Dave will think it is a good result for Dave. Some of us, who think CCHQ has completely ballsed this up, think it will be a good result for Ed.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Meanwhile, over on Twitter, tim is losing his mind. Must be a hot day over there.

    tim has chosen to debate politics elsewhere. Perhaps we should just let him do that. Let sleeping Latvians lie, and all that?
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    TGOHF said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    JackW said:

    dr_spyn said:

    The fearless T Watson mentioned the arrest many hours before MSM.

    No arrest has been made - its a search.
    Whilst we discuss searches perhaps one should be made of No 10 to find David Cameron's previous huge enthusiasm for televised political debates that was ostentatiously on show during the Conservative leadership campaign and the three campaign election debates last time.

    I regret to say Cameron has lost his political nerve on the issue and he deserves all the criticism he is receiving. In contrast the broadcasters must hold their nerve and proceed with the campaign debates and empty chair him to ensure in the future no political leader is able to derail part of the political process for purely partisan advantage.

    Cameron has dodged, weaved and obfuscated and has been found out. It's a black mark on his premiership and profoundly disappointing.
    A rare and disappointing effusion of bollocks, JackW.

    If you don't remember it (and I would have thought it would seem like yesterday to you) read and savour this in all its lovely ironic irony:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm

    and reflect on the unsurprising principle that when the boot's on the other foot, it's on the other foot.
    I don't care whose boot is on whose foot as long as it is the electorate with their foot at the politicians throat especially at election time.

    Debates are here to stay with or without the absent Cameron.

    But this is the self-important meeja trying to get their foot on the politicians' throats. A General Election should not be a bumper edition of Britain's Got Politics!

    "We do not believe that TV debates between the leaders will significantly add to the public's interest in or understanding of the issues and indeed we fear that the media's focus on process not policy may lead such debates to have the opposite effect of that intended."

    Lance Price, 2001.
    The punters voted with their remotes in 2010. They watched in huge numbers for a political programme.

    Those that do not wish to watch the debates may also exercise their choice.

    The first series of Big Brother got considerably more than this year's. Novelty a big factor.


    7 is too many - will be rubbish.
    Debates every five years is hardly overkill and should retain the "novelty" value added to which the political gladiatorial blood lust potential will remain.

    I agree that seven in a ninety minute debate is too many but the weakness of that format shouldn't be used as an excuse to derail the overall value of the process.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,386
    edited March 2015

    I think I must have missed an episode of this soap opera, since the last I heard before this latest development was that the LibDems were going to pull out. When did that change?

    As for where things will go from here, I see lots of jostling for position, but it's not at all obvious what will actually happen next.

    The latest seems to be that Cam's out and Cleggs in... It's like the hokey cokey so Milli's gonna shake it all about! :astonished:

    I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...

  • Blue_rogBlue_rog Posts: 2,019
    kjohnw said:

    Scott_P said:

    @BBCNormanS: Nick Clegg will turn up for the head to head #tvdebate with Ed Miliband if PM refuses says @paddyashdown @bbcr4today

    @BBCJLandale: Lord Ashdown says Nick Clegg would replace David Cameron in head to head debate with Ed Miliband if the PM refuses to turn up

    ROFLMAO

    is that Nick 5% Clegg vs Ed (is crap) geeky Miliband. I'd rather eat my own vomit than watch the debate of the two losers!
    I think that could work quite well for Cameron. If they chew lumps out of each other it doesn't speak well for a yellow red coalition. If they chummy up together and both attack Cameron , there's no difference between yellow and blue and the red libs can vote lib in safety.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,411
    I know it's probably a CON hold but if Dave loses High Peak doubt very much he remains as PM - and it's on a knife edge.

    11-8 Lab
    8-11 Con would be a fair guess at the prices methinks.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039

    Pretty obvious what's going on with DC and the debates so no real point spinning it either way.

    What's interesting will be the broadcasters' response. Do they accept the fait accompli and agree on DC's terms? If so, not a bad result at all for Dave.

    Dave will think it is a good result for Dave. Some of us, who think CCHQ has completely ballsed this up, think it will be a good result for Ed.
    One "messy" debate, well before the election, would seem to be a reasonable outcome. What would you have had CCHQ do?

    The balls-up was in 2009, surely?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Pulpstar said:

    I know it's probably a CON hold but if Dave loses High Peak doubt very much he remains as PM - and it's on a knife edge.

    11-8 Lab
    8-11 Con would be a fair guess at the prices methinks.

    You can back 11-8 Lab with me if you want.
This discussion has been closed.