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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
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.
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.
There are few more gastronomic delights, naturally apart from certain pies, than a finely smoked kipper.
The debates won't happen and whilst Cameron has clearly manipulated this situation to that end its the TV companies being too clever by half who would seem to be the fall guys.
It's because of their stupidity in pandering to Cameron's disingenuous demands by inviting minor parties selectively that has likely sunk the debates. Ofcom rules suggest that having invited Plaid (who nobody prompted the TV companies to invite) then the BBC and ITV need to invite the DUP, Sinn Fein and even the BNP (who were more successful either in terms of seats or votes than Plaid). The DUP already have a judicial review on the go and should they get the green light to be included as clearly they should then no doubt next up will be Sinn Fein with all the questions that raises for the TV companies. Then of course the BNP could come sniffing around. As soon as the TV companies fell for the 'Green's ruse' the debates were in trouble.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
To make a point. Being pushed around the way they are must be really galling. Normally they're the ones in control.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Cost of staging and promoting a single debate versus Advertising Revenues.
Why lose money on 1 x 90 minute show in a primetime slot when you could run a movie for a fraction of the price.
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Well certainly the view here is that The Game's Up for the debates;
Apparently whoever is excluded from the "sevensome" will launch legal action and the "hour glass" is about to run out of sand...
Debates are over for 2015. IMO.
If Boris get's the leadership after Cameron they may come back for next election tho. BoJo has never been reticent about thrusting himself into the public discourse has he?
Catching up on the Ashcroft Scottish polling, mostly it simply confirms what I had already expected: the SNP surging everywhere, and very much in accordance with the national polls. There's some new information in that he seems to be finding a similar swing in No-voting areas to that of the Yes-voting areas, but I'm not suprised by that.
However, the main piece of new information is the Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale poll. If you apply similar swings to Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, and to Dumfries and Galloway, it looks as though there could be three seats which end up as close contests involving the Scottish Conservatives. Anything from 0 to 3 Scottish Tory seats still looks plausible, but not including West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine on Ashcroft's figures.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Cost of staging and promoting a single debate versus Advertising Revenues.
Why lose money on 1 x 90 minute show in a primetime slot when you could run a movie for a fraction of the price.
A debate is very cheap to make, surely? And the broadcasters need to keep their own political journalists sweet too.
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
But it's all about expectations, and people's prior judgement. The public has largely decided that Ed is weird, especially with his persona as filtered by the news media. Why risk the chance that he might change that impression? For some people the debates will be about the only bit of the campaign they tune into at all.
DC-EM as a one-off is a complete non-starter legally anyway, surely?
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
'Debates' always end in draws. So the argument falls. Indeed as long as Ed stands upright he wins. The only one who might lose is Farage because he is actually meant to be a smart-arse. IWhichever party is in govt wants to concentrate on its achievements... Why would it want to gift an opportunity to opponents to carp and criticise? Only when as in 2010 you have a disaster to defend and want to share the pain of recovery with the opposition.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Apparently whoever is excluded from the "sevensome" will launch legal action and the "hour glass" is about to run out of sand...
With the closure of TVC and Teddington there's currently a shortage of TV studios big enough for the debates - no one is going to keep them 'pencilled in' for much longer when that space can be used for confirmed shows.
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.
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.
To help Mr Nigel's political sanity further, it's not a crime not to have a TV licence in Scotland as I understand it - merely a civil issue for the BBC.
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.
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.
There are few more gastronomic delights, naturally apart from certain pies, than a finely smoked kipper.
Indeed. But an Arbroath smokie, warmed in the oven with a knob of butter in the middle, and served with brown bread and butter, is also very fine. I had one the other evening.
Right now the Conservatives are seen as worse than Labour, and Miliband is seen as worse than Cameron.
The debates are a rare opportunity for Miliband to turn that round. The potential gain for Miliband is far greater than the potential gain for Cameron, who could lose a significant advantage the blues currently enjoy.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Cost of staging and promoting a single debate versus Advertising Revenues.
Why lose money on 1 x 90 minute show in a primetime slot when you could run a movie for a fraction of the price.
A debate is very cheap to make, surely? And the broadcasters need to keep their own political journalists sweet too.
See my post below. There aren't that many studios big enough for the debates, that aren't booked out. No one leaves them empty on the off chance of a debate, when they could be generating serious cash-flow.
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
'Debates' always end in draws. So the argument falls. Indeed as long as Ed stands upright he wins. The only one who might lose is Farage because he is actually meant to be a smart-arse. IWhichever party is in govt wants to concentrate on its achievements... Why would it want to gift an opportunity to opponents to carp and criticise? Only when as in 2010 you have a disaster to defend and want to share the pain of recovery with the opposition.
Or 1997 when the Conservative government wanted debates. As for carping, that is why the 7-way format is worst for the Conservatives. As to standing upright, that goes back to the question of whether CCHQ believes Cameron is better than Ed, or that Ed himself repels voters. If they do believe either of these things, let alone both, a head-to-head debate is in their interest.
Betfair have con markets back up, they have Edinburgh SW Lab 1.9 SNP 1.9
Lol Please smash that SW price into shape. No way Labour should be joint Favs there.
It's all about the tactical voting in the No areas. I can't think that the SNP score is going to change much up to the election, so the question is whether voters will vote tactically against the SNP. Or, perhaps, against the Tories? D&G and DC&T look very tough to call (as no doubt would BR&S if we had polling).
Has Labour announced any tax rises to plug the deficit, or has all announced tax measures been to increase spending?
As far as I can recall all the tax rises so far announced have been pre-spent several times over, so currently they are making the deficit worse. The bonus on bankers bonuses has been earmarked at least five times, and the mansion tax at least 2-3 times. By some miracle the new tax on poor Scottish pensioners has only been spent once so far to pay for rich English graduates, but I am sure its only a matter of time.
Has Labour announced any tax rises to plug the deficit, or has all announced tax measures been to increase spending?
Dunno. Maybe there should be a debate when the PM can challenge LOTO, and LOTO can ask about the PM's record national debt (as we don't call the magic money tree when it is George running up the bills).
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Cost of staging and promoting a single debate versus Advertising Revenues.
Why lose money on 1 x 90 minute show in a primetime slot when you could run a movie for a fraction of the price.
A debate is very cheap to make, surely? And the broadcasters need to keep their own political journalists sweet too.
See my post below. There aren't that many studios big enough for the debates, that aren't booked out. No one leaves them empty on the off chance of a debate, when they could be generating serious cash-flow.
You don't necessarily need a studio (though the production quality would doubtless be higher in one). There are plenty of civic venues that could be used.
Betfair have con markets back up, they have Edinburgh SW Lab 1.9 SNP 1.9
Lol Please smash that SW price into shape. No way Labour should be joint Favs there.
It's all about the tactical voting in the No areas. I can't think that the SNP score is going to change much up to the election, so the question is whether voters will vote tactically against the SNP. Or, perhaps, against the Tories? D&G and DC&T look very tough to call (as no doubt would BR&S if we had polling).
Those 3 are very tough to call, but it is Edi SW I can't see at 10-11 the pair
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.
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.
There are few more gastronomic delights, naturally apart from certain pies, than a finely smoked kipper.
Indeed. But an Arbroath smokie, warmed in the oven with a knob of butter in the middle, and served with brown bread and butter, is also very fine. I had one the other evening.
Betfair have con markets back up, they have Edinburgh SW Lab 1.9 SNP 1.9
Lol Please smash that SW price into shape. No way Labour should be joint Favs there.
It's all about the tactical voting in the No areas. I can't think that the SNP score is going to change much up to the election, so the question is whether voters will vote tactically against the SNP. Or, perhaps, against the Tories? D&G and DC&T look very tough to call (as no doubt would BR&S if we had polling).
Those 3 are very tough to call, but it is Edi SW I can't see at 10-11 the pair
Maybe. But the better value is to go around the constituencies not polled and back the SNP there! (with William Hill, for the most part).
Has Labour announced any tax rises to plug the deficit, or has all announced tax measures been to increase spending?
Dunno. Maybe there should be a debate when the PM can challenge LOTO, and LOTO can ask about the PM's record national debt (as we don't call the magic money tree when it is George running up the bills).
Its only the Magic Money Tree when paying off the parties own bills (including the Pensioner bribe Bonds), when you are paying off the other parties bills its "prudence" (copyright, G. Brown Esq).
Brown left a load of absurd structure deficit which he paid for off the Magic Money Tree, and Osborne has been exercising prudence in getting down halfway toward a sensible level.
nb. Magic Money Tree is typically associated with particularly idiotic policies like PFI
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
HuffPuff speculating on the Chancellor’s next budget. (rehash of a Times article)
The chancellor is expected to raise the level at which national insurance is paid in his Budget, in less than two weeks, according to the Times. This would amount to an income tax cut for many people and effectively hamper Labour's argument that poor families have failed to benefit under his economic management.
HuffPuff speculating on the Chancellor’s next budget. (rehash of a Times article)
The chancellor is expected to raise the level at which national insurance is paid in his Budget, in less than two weeks, according to the Times. This would amount to an income tax cut for many people and effectively hamper Labour's argument that poor families have failed to benefit under his economic management.
The only problem with this approach politically is I don't think people really see it or realise it. I bet loads of people have not really noticed the increase in IC threshold at the bottom, same way as they Osborne (and in particularly old Gordo fiscal drag) increased the taxes on middle income earners.
FARAGE: I have one simple question for the Prime Minister: will he campaign for Britain to remain in the European Union or will he campaign for our country to leave it?
STURGEON: Can I just interject here with a question about the Barnett formula?
BENNETT: The Green Party plans to built 7 billion social homes, one for every human being on the planet, at a cost of 674 trillion pounds…no wait, 23.6 billion pounds….my apologies, 18 grand….
WOOD: (begins singing “Land of My Fathers” at head-crushing volume, drowning out further debate for the next three minutes)
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
I don't think the background helps, but its not remotely the real issue, the real issue is as usual money. The pay rates for any sort of spooking appears to be laughably bad. A few years ago I was looking into working at GCHQ and the best pay rate they could offer me for a senior technical position was less that IBM paid me ten years before as a junior analyst. If you are paying substantially under 30K for senior people in decision making positions, you are screwed, all the best people and even the mediocre people can make more in private industry.
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 gonma shake it all about!
I think where we go next is that the broadcasters will pull the plug on the whole thing...
Why would they do that? 1 debate > 0 debates.
Cost of staging and promoting a single debate versus Advertising Revenues.
Why lose money on 1 x 90 minute show in a primetime slot when you could run a movie for a fraction of the price.
A debate is very cheap to make, surely? And the broadcasters need to keep their own political journalists sweet too.
See my post below. There aren't that many studios big enough for the debates, that aren't booked out. No one leaves them empty on the off chance of a debate, when they could be generating serious cash-flow.
You don't necessarily need a studio (though the production quality would doubtless be higher in one). There are plenty of civic venues that could be used.
Assuming there's OB available too. The BBC don't have any, so it's down to third parties having kit lying idle.
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
I don't think the background helps, but its not remotely the real issue, the real issue is as usual money. The pay rates for any sort of spooking appears to be laughably bad. A few years ago I was looking into working at GCHQ and the best pay rate they could offer me was less that IBM paid me ten years before as a junior analyst. If you are paying substantially under 30K for senior people in decision making positions, you are screwed, all the best people and even the mediocre people can make more in private industry.
That plus you are already fishing in a very small pond. Potential candidates have a fairly specialist skill set, plus no dodgy background or friends with ones, before we get onto money and interest in doing the job (which I guess for many is just trailing huge amount of data, which I bet will get pretty old pretty quickly).
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
I don't think the background helps, but its not remotely the real issue, the real issue is as usual money. The pay rates for any sort of spooking appears to be laughably bad. A few years ago I was looking into working at GCHQ and the best pay rate they could offer me was less that IBM paid me ten years before as a junior analyst. If you are paying substantially under 30K for senior people in decision making positions, you are screwed, all the best people and even the mediocre people can make more in private industry.
That plus you are already fishing in a very small pond. Potential candidates have a fairly specialist skill set, plus no dodgy background or friends with ones, before we get onto money and interest in doing the job (which I guess for many is just trailing huge amount of data, which I bet will get pretty old pretty quickly).
Indeed. There are a fair few big data specialist out there now, sadly for HMG any who are any good work for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, the big supermarkets etc for £100K+, its the most sought after skill around at the moment, fat chance of any of them taking a no-perks, low salary, cant tell your mates about your work job at spook central.
Has Labour announced any tax rises to plug the deficit, or has all announced tax measures been to increase spending?
Dunno. Maybe there should be a debate when the PM can challenge LOTO, and LOTO can ask about the PM's record national debt (as we don't call the magic money tree when it is George running up the bills).
Its only the Magic Money Tree when paying off the parties own bills (including the Pensioner bribe Bonds), when you are paying off the other parties bills its "prudence" (copyright, G. Brown Esq).
Brown left a load of absurd structure deficit which he paid for off the Magic Money Tree, and Osborne has been exercising prudence in getting down halfway toward a sensible level.
nb. Magic Money Tree is typically associated with particularly idiotic policies like PFI
PFI is indeed why Gordon Brown should be up against the wall but Tories prefer to blame him for the global financial crisis. Pb Tories generally use magic money tree as a general term of abuse, because they don't know or don't care what George has been up to.
I see that the prices in Ross Skye & Lochaber have shifted quite a bit. You can still get 5/4 on the SNP with Bet365. A lot of faith is still being put in the name "Charles Kennedy" by the bookies. Sceptical cat is sceptical here.
The 2/1 on the SNP in Edinburgh North & Leith looks very inviting given the poll result in Edinburgh South West, as Alistair noted yesterday evening.
In fact, it's hard to identify Scottish seats where the SNP shouldn't be favourites now. Jim Murphy can reasonably hope to squeeze the Tory vote to cling on, and the Lib Dems will fancy their chances in Orkney & Shetland. Michael Moore's seat still looks like a lucky dip. And Labour had a clear lead in Glasgow North East.
Any others that anyone feels the SNP shouldn't be favourites in now?
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
The first two would have been challenged in court certainly by the SNP, probably by the kippers.
@Tissue_Price I've actually gone and rebacked Charlie at 8-11, my betting strategy there was that in an unnamed poll the SNP would be ahead causing a price dip. I reckon if he's named he could be ahead tbh so perhaps deserves slight favouritism still. Can see him getting a few tactical tories too.
Wonder why more constituency hustings aren't streamed via a cam - costs aren't high. Don't need the BBC and their highly paid prances wearing cowboy outfits to maketh a broadcast.
HuffPuff speculating on the Chancellor’s next budget. (rehash of a Times article)
The chancellor is expected to raise the level at which national insurance is paid in his Budget, in less than two weeks, according to the Times. This would amount to an income tax cut for many people and effectively hamper Labour's argument that poor families have failed to benefit under his economic management.
The only problem with this approach politically is I don't think people really see it or realise it. I bet loads of people have not really noticed the increase in IC threshold at the bottom, same way as they Osborne (and in particularly old Gordo fiscal drag) increased the taxes on middle income earners.
From the political perspective, I quite agree – when it comes to a budget announcement ‘feel good factor’, knowing it will be cheaper the next time you go for a game of bingo and pint, will always appeal more than a benefit, eight months down the road – tis human nature I guess.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
You can't have debates broadcast in Scotland without the SNP, they are a major party and to provide coverage to major party opponents as your first two "suggestions" do would be undemocratic nonsense.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
6 debates between 4 broadcasters. No problem there...
If there was a simple, obvious, fair, legal format we would be having it. There isn't.
The broadcasters are currently enjoying talking about themselves, and filling airtime with people talking about why other people won't be filling airtime talking.
Wonder why more constituency hustings aren't streamed via a cam - costs aren't high. Don't need the BBC and their highly paid prances wearing cowboy outfits to maketh a broadcast.
I expect that Independence Live will stream quite a few in Scotland.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
The first two would have been challenged in court certainly by the SNP, probably by the kippers.
On what grounds? Foreign affairs and the economy are not devolved. Besides the first two debates happened in the same format last time around.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
6 debates between 4 broadcasters. No problem there...
If there was a simple, obvious, fair, legal format we would be having it. There isn't.
The broadcasters are currently enjoying talking about themselves, and filling airtime with people talking about why other people won't be filling airtime talking.
No debates was always favourite.
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
The first two would have been challenged in court certainly by the SNP, probably by the kippers.
On what grounds? Foreign affairs and the economy are not devolved. Besides the first two debates happened in the same format last time around.
Nonsense on stilts, the SNP need to be involved in every debate shown on a Scottish TV.
On the debates, the broadcasters messed up when they included the Greens. The broadcasters should have offered the following based on Ofcom's major party status:
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
The first two would have been challenged in court certainly by the SNP, probably by the kippers.
On what grounds? Foreign affairs and the economy are not devolved. Besides the first two debates happened in the same format last time around.
Two reasons. 1) The SNP weren't about to come third in the number of seats in parliament, the position the LDs were in last time. 2) UKIP weren't polling 15% with 2 MPs and more to the point with OFCOM having declared them a "major" party last time
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
I see that the prices in Ross Skye & Lochaber have shifted quite a bit. You can still get 5/4 on the SNP with Bet365. A lot of faith is still being put in the name "Charles Kennedy" by the bookies. Sceptical cat is sceptical here.
The 2/1 on the SNP in Edinburgh North & Leith looks very inviting given the poll result in Edinburgh South West, as Alistair noted yesterday evening.
In fact, it's hard to identify Scottish seats where the SNP shouldn't be favourites now. Jim Murphy can reasonably hope to squeeze the Tory vote to cling on, and the Lib Dems will fancy their chances in Orkney & Shetland. Michael Moore's seat still looks like a lucky dip. And Labour had a clear lead in Glasgow North East.
Any others that anyone feels the SNP shouldn't be favourites in now?
Hah you're probably right on Charlie tbh - nevertheless I've got a bet to nothing on the SNP to win £50 in this seat now effectively so I shan't tinker any more
People were counting on ofcom not giving Ukip major party status as a reason to keep them out of the debates... When they were awarded that status, Cameron had to create confusion and chaos so he wouldn't have to debate Farage
Just read the threads from last year...
The other parties and the broadcasters now will constantly play Cameron's words before the last election when he demanded debates, and place them alongside his promise to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, no top down reorganisation of the nhs etc etc etc
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
That's the point, If OFCOM has acted reasonably and within its powers, granted by parliament, and with due notice given to all parties, anyone could go to court, but they wouldn't win. If you wanted to make damn sure, get OFCOM to recommend the rules and parliament to pass it as an SI, the courts wouldn't overturn what parliament had decreed.
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
The US have a completely independent commission to oversee debates - neither politicians, nor the broadcasters have undue influence.
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
But it's all about expectations, and people's prior judgement. The public has largely decided that Ed is weird, especially with his persona as filtered by the news media. Why risk the chance that he might change that impression? For some people the debates will be about the only bit of the campaign they tune into at all.
DC-EM as a one-off is a complete non-starter legally anyway, surely?
Not if it takes place before the official campaign starts I think. I have to say the Tory fear on the debates doesn't suggest well for their campaign. You get the feeling they want to deny Miliband as much coverage as possible. It would be interesting to measure people's view of Ed Miliband depending on whether they are politics light or heavy. It's the light ones who you'd think are most likely to change their mind.
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
But it's all about expectations, and people's prior judgement. The public has largely decided that Ed is weird, especially with his persona as filtered by the news media. Why risk the chance that he might change that impression? For some people the debates will be about the only bit of the campaign they tune into at all.
DC-EM as a one-off is a complete non-starter legally anyway, surely?
Not if it takes place before the official campaign starts I think. I have to say the Tory fear on the debates doesn't suggest well for their campaign. You get the feeling they want to deny Miliband as much coverage as possible. It would be interesting to measure people's view of Ed Miliband depending on whether they are politics light or heavy. It's the light ones who you'd think are most likely to change their mind.
It's not "fear", it's just sensible. Don't give someone an advantage for free.
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
That's the point, If OFCOM has acted reasonably and within its powers, granted by parliament, and with due notice given to all parties, anyone could go to court, but they wouldn't win. If you wanted to make damn sure, get OFCOM to recommend the rules and parliament to pass it as an SI, the courts wouldn't overturn what parliament had decreed.
Whatever OFCOM decides is inevitably going to be a political judgement in its own right.
Better would be an agreed formula. Something like 15 current MPs or an average poll rating of 10%+ 2 months before the election. Obviously the latter would need some tying down and arguably puts too much power in the hands of pollsters.
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
I don't think the background helps, but its not remotely the real issue, the real issue is as usual money. The pay rates for any sort of spooking appears to be laughably bad. A few years ago I was looking into working at GCHQ and the best pay rate they could offer me was less that IBM paid me ten years before as a junior analyst. If you are paying substantially under 30K for senior people in decision making positions, you are screwed, all the best people and even the mediocre people can make more in private industry.
That plus you are already fishing in a very small pond. Potential candidates have a fairly specialist skill set, plus no dodgy background or friends with ones, before we get onto money and interest in doing the job (which I guess for many is just trailing huge amount of data, which I bet will get pretty old pretty quickly).
Indeed. There are a fair few big data specialist out there now, sadly for HMG any who are any good work for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, the big supermarkets etc for £100K+, its the most sought after skill around at the moment, fat chance of any of them taking a no-perks, low salary, cant tell your mates about your work job at spook central.
And it is hard to do anything because it is an accepted fact that civil servants are overpaid, featherbedded and have gold-plated pensions, not to mention the "paid more than the Prime Minister" test. Iirc Lord Sugar pointed out in one of the perennial debates about MoD procurement that a private sector specialist would command a 7-figure salary -- politically unacceptable for a civil servant.
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
That's the point, If OFCOM has acted reasonably and within its powers, granted by parliament, and with due notice given to all parties, anyone could go to court, but they wouldn't win. If you wanted to make damn sure, get OFCOM to recommend the rules and parliament to pass it as an SI, the courts wouldn't overturn what parliament had decreed.
Whatever OFCOM decides is inevitably going to be a political judgement in its own right.
Better would be an agreed formula. Something like 15 current MPs or an average poll rating of 10%+ 2 months before the election. Obviously the latter would need some tying down and arguably puts too much power in the hands of pollsters.
That's exactly what I was proposing, probably should have been clearer I just wanted OFCOM to decide what the rules were to be at arms length from politicians trying to gerrymander rules to disadvantage their opponents.
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
That's the point, If OFCOM has acted reasonably and within its powers, granted by parliament, and with due notice given to all parties, anyone could go to court, but they wouldn't win. If you wanted to make damn sure, get OFCOM to recommend the rules and parliament to pass it as an SI, the courts wouldn't overturn what parliament had decreed.
Whatever OFCOM decides is inevitably going to be a political judgement in its own right.
Better would be an agreed formula. Something like 15 current MPs or an average poll rating of 10%+ 2 months before the election. Obviously the latter would need some tying down and arguably puts too much power in the hands of pollsters.
Anyone with any sense can see that it should have been Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage... The nonsense around the rest is just game playing to skew the odds/avoid the debate
Politics is depressing at times. People are praised for manoeuvres that keep them in power with no regard for democracy
@Antifrank I've got into a "Need to be 10% ahead to make sure an Even money bet wins" type mentality with the whole Scottish thing :P
Which will probably cost me a few hundred profit on the night
Right now I'd say the over/under point for the SNP is at least 50. Even the bets on the SNP that I'd thought were looking iffy look decent now to me. And in my view there remains a lot of value backing the SNP almost everywhere.
Anyone with any sense can see that it should have been Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage... The nonsense around the rest is just game playing to skew the odds/avoid the debate
Politics is depressing at times. People are praised for manoeuvres that keep them in power with no regard for democracy
Anyone with any sense can see that it should have been Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage... a mix of participants and format that just happens to favour my preferred outcome
The whole thing is a complete clusterf*ck, who ever wins next time needs to task OFCOM with coming up with some concrete published rules on who gets into the debates and on what basis, early in the parliament, so that everyone knows what they are aiming for next time around. Something simple and measurable which the public (or at least the engaged part of the public) can understand.
Won't work.
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
That's the point, If OFCOM has acted reasonably and within its powers, granted by parliament, and with due notice given to all parties, anyone could go to court, but they wouldn't win. If you wanted to make damn sure, get OFCOM to recommend the rules and parliament to pass it as an SI, the courts wouldn't overturn what parliament had decreed.
Whatever OFCOM decides is inevitably going to be a political judgement in its own right.
Better would be an agreed formula. Something like 15 current MPs or an average poll rating of 10%+ 2 months before the election. Obviously the latter would need some tying down and arguably puts too much power in the hands of pollsters.
Anyone with any sense can see that it should have been Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage... The nonsense around the rest is just game playing to skew the odds/avoid the debate
Politics is depressing at times. People are praised for manoeuvres that keep them in power with no regard for democracy
UKIP, LD, CON, LAB in England
LD, CON, LAB, SNP in Scotland
Then another of UKIP, SNP, Plaid and the Greens to balance out the coverage UK wide. Such a debate would be weird but it'd give the "Big 6" a chance to put their case twice.
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
I don't think the background helps, but its not remotely the real issue, the real issue is as usual money. The pay rates for any sort of spooking appears to be laughably bad. A few years ago I was looking into working at GCHQ and the best pay rate they could offer me was less that IBM paid me ten years before as a junior analyst. If you are paying substantially under 30K for senior people in decision making positions, you are screwed, all the best people and even the mediocre people can make more in private industry.
That plus you are already fishing in a very small pond. Potential candidates have a fairly specialist skill set, plus no dodgy background or friends with ones, before we get onto money and interest in doing the job (which I guess for many is just trailing huge amount of data, which I bet will get pretty old pretty quickly).
Indeed. There are a fair few big data specialist out there now, sadly for HMG any who are any good work for Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, the big supermarkets etc for £100K+, its the most sought after skill around at the moment, fat chance of any of them taking a no-perks, low salary, cant tell your mates about your work job at spook central.
And it is hard to do anything because it is an accepted fact that civil servants are overpaid, featherbedded and have gold-plated pensions, not to mention the "paid more than the Prime Minister" test. Iirc Lord Sugar pointed out in one of the perennial debates about MoD procurement that a private sector specialist would command a 7-figure salary -- politically unacceptable for a civil servant.
Lots of long term place men undoubtedly are paid too much, also quite why we are paying quarter of a million quid a year for jobs like Finance Director of the Ordinance Survey is beyond me.
The problem is civil service pay scales, they try and recruit senior technical staff and pay them as HEO on about 28k since its outside London, which is laughable for IT people, but if you try and pay them as an SEO (a still laughable 32K) their supervisor will have a fit because that is his grade.
Tories are terrified Cameron will have one of his Flashman moments and blow it, can't say I blame them for ducking it to be honest. Doesn't take much to get under Dave's skin and then the rather unpleasant aspect of his personna slips out for all to see.
@Antifrank I've got into a "Need to be 10% ahead to make sure an Even money bet wins" type mentality with the whole Scottish thing :P
Which will probably cost me a few hundred profit on the night
Right now I'd say the over/under point for the SNP is at least 50. Even the bets on the SNP that I'd thought were looking iffy look decent now to me. And in my view there remains a lot of value backing the SNP almost everywhere.
I did plonk down cash in North & Leith, Aberdeenshire, Edi SW and Ayr Carrick last night. And the 8000 Ashcroft weekend poll points to a truly monstrous SNP vote share.
Like antifrank, I believe the debates should happen, they're good for our democracy, and Cameron is a cowardly varlet etc etc. However the Tory leader has played the politics well (by his standards) and will avoid any blame if the debates fail to happen, which is apparently his desire.
What's interesting is that this indicates Tory confidence that they will win. If Cameron was convinced he was likely to lose he would agree to the debates as a possible gamechanger. But he doesn't want to change the game. He scents victory.
Indeed.
Even though he may be as big an opportunistic sh*t as Ed The Younger I'm actually surprised at how well Cam is playing the game. Didn't know he had it in him, LOL!
@Antifrank I've got into a "Need to be 10% ahead to make sure an Even money bet wins" type mentality with the whole Scottish thing :P
Which will probably cost me a few hundred profit on the night
Right now I'd say the over/under point for the SNP is at least 50. Even the bets on the SNP that I'd thought were looking iffy look decent now to me. And in my view there remains a lot of value backing the SNP almost everywhere.
It all looks like grist to the Tories most seats mill, too.
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?
If Cameron has a clear debating advantage over Miliband, then he should seek to drive that home. CCHQ is not doing this, which is its first mistake. If Miliband himself is unattractive to viewers and voters, CCHQ should maximise this too. Its third blunder is insisting on the worst format for their man for the one debate that will take place.
DC-EM as a one-off is a complete non-starter legally anyway, surely?
Not if it takes place before the official campaign starts I think. I have to say the Tory fear on the debates doesn't suggest well for their campaign. You get the feeling they want to deny Miliband as much coverage as possible. It would be interesting to measure people's view of Ed Miliband depending on whether they are politics light or heavy. It's the light ones who you'd think are most likely to change their mind.
It's not "fear", it's just sensible. Don't give someone an advantage for free.
Or both. Seems ridiculous to suggest it's not fear when they're doing everything they can to prevent it. Matthew Taylor got ribbed on Newsnight yesterday because he had made sure Blair didn't do debates. However in 2005 we did have Blair's masochism strategy. Nothing similar to those two elections would leave a big hole.
Anyone with any sense can see that it should have been Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage... The nonsense around the rest is just game playing to skew the odds/avoid the debate
Politics is depressing at times. People are praised for manoeuvres that keep them in power with no regard for democracy
Anyone with any sense can see that it should have been Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage... a mix of participants and format that just happens to favour my preferred outcome
Comments
The debates won't happen and whilst Cameron has clearly manipulated this situation to that end its the TV companies being too clever by half who would seem to be the fall guys.
It's because of their stupidity in pandering to Cameron's disingenuous demands by inviting minor parties selectively that has likely sunk the debates. Ofcom rules suggest that having invited Plaid (who nobody prompted the TV companies to invite) then the BBC and ITV need to invite the DUP, Sinn Fein and even the BNP (who were more successful either in terms of seats or votes than Plaid). The DUP already have a judicial review on the go and should they get the green light to be included as clearly they should then no doubt next up will be Sinn Fein with all the questions that raises for the TV companies. Then of course the BNP could come sniffing around. As soon as the TV companies fell for the 'Green's ruse' the debates were in trouble.
Ofcom rules:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/elections/
(I believe Sections 6.9,6.10 & 6.13 seem to refer)
Why lose money on 1 x 90 minute show in a primetime slot when you could run a movie for a fraction of the price.
http://www.ukip.org/ukip_launches_immigration_policy
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/03/david-cameron-has-just-chickened-out-of-tv-debates-while-pretending-not-to/
Apparently whoever is excluded from the "sevensome" will launch legal action and the "hour glass" is about to run out of sand...
Debates are over for 2015. IMO.
If Boris get's the leadership after Cameron they may come back for next election tho. BoJo has never been reticent about thrusting himself into the public discourse has he?
A fine sight to be sure.
However, the main piece of new information is the Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale & Tweeddale poll. If you apply similar swings to Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, and to Dumfries and Galloway, it looks as though there could be three seats which end up as close contests involving the Scottish Conservatives. Anything from 0 to 3 Scottish Tory seats still looks plausible, but not including West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine on Ashcroft's figures.
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-uk-general-election/total-seats-snp
DC-EM as a one-off is a complete non-starter legally anyway, surely?
IWhichever party is in govt wants to concentrate on its achievements... Why would it want to gift an opportunity to opponents to carp and criticise? Only when as in 2010 you have a disaster to defend and want to share the pain of recovery with the opposition.
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.
To help Mr Nigel's political sanity further, it's not a crime not to have a TV licence in Scotland as I understand it - merely a civil issue for the BBC.
Right now the Conservatives are seen as worse than Labour, and Miliband is seen as worse than Cameron.
The debates are a rare opportunity for Miliband to turn that round. The potential gain for Miliband is far greater than the potential gain for Cameron, who could lose a significant advantage the blues currently enjoy.
Has Labour announced any tax rises to plug the deficit, or has all announced tax measures been to increase spending?
Brilliant debater and all round good egg soils his underwear at the thought of debating with a nerdy and unpopular geek?
That is bound to work.
Tsk ....
Even if 2/3rds of the Tory vote head off to Labour it's not enough !
Brown left a load of absurd structure deficit which he paid for off the Magic Money Tree, and Osborne has been exercising prudence in getting down halfway toward a sensible level.
nb. Magic Money Tree is typically associated with particularly idiotic policies like PFI
Suspected terrorists subjected to a Mumsnet online interrogation, that will definitely put the s##ts up them. I think that could be verging on "enhanced interrogation techniques" though, so probably ruled out on Human Rights grounds.
The chancellor is expected to raise the level at which national insurance is paid in his Budget, in less than two weeks, according to the Times. This would amount to an income tax cut for many people and effectively hamper Labour's argument that poor families have failed to benefit under his economic management.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/05/george-osborne-budget-ni-giveaway_n_6806244.html?1425550484&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067
STURGEON: Can I just interject here with a question about the Barnett formula?
BENNETT: The Green Party plans to built 7 billion social homes, one for every human being on the planet, at a cost of 674 trillion pounds…no wait, 23.6 billion pounds….my apologies, 18 grand….
WOOD: (begins singing “Land of My Fathers” at head-crushing volume, drowning out further debate for the next three minutes)
http://nicktyrone.com/hate-admit-cameron-played-blinder-tv-debates/
The 2/1 on the SNP in Edinburgh North & Leith looks very inviting given the poll result in Edinburgh South West, as Alistair noted yesterday evening.
In fact, it's hard to identify Scottish seats where the SNP shouldn't be favourites now. Jim Murphy can reasonably hope to squeeze the Tory vote to cling on, and the Lib Dems will fancy their chances in Orkney & Shetland. Michael Moore's seat still looks like a lucky dip. And Labour had a clear lead in Glasgow North East.
Any others that anyone feels the SNP shouldn't be favourites in now?
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on the economy and taxes - Con/Lab/LD
An England/Wales/Scotland debate on foreign policy - Con/Lab/LD
An England only debate on domestic issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP
A Wales only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Plaid
A Scotland only debate on devolved issues - Con/Lab/LD/SNP
A single Northern Ireland debate - DUP/UUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance
They then should have been legally secure enough to empty chair any leaders who wouldn't agree. Also by following Ofcom guidance it sets a precedent for 2020 and beyond.
Kept a chunk more profit on the SNP mind.
If there was a simple, obvious, fair, legal format we would be having it. There isn't.
The broadcasters are currently enjoying talking about themselves, and filling airtime with people talking about why other people won't be filling airtime talking.
No debates was always favourite.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/internet-argument-resolved-2014030584268
1) The SNP weren't about to come third in the number of seats in parliament, the position the LDs were in last time.
2) UKIP weren't polling 15% with 2 MPs and more to the point with OFCOM having declared them a "major" party last time
If the rules had been set in 2010 or 2011, the kippers would be defenestrated and heading for court.
In 5 years time the SNP might be the opposition...
Just read the threads from last year...
The other parties and the broadcasters now will constantly play Cameron's words before the last election when he demanded debates, and place them alongside his promise to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, no top down reorganisation of the nhs etc etc etc
A Slippery and evasive PR man, with no conviction
Which will probably cost me a few hundred profit on the night
Better would be an agreed formula. Something like 15 current MPs or an average poll rating of 10%+ 2 months before the election. Obviously the latter would need some tying down and arguably puts too much power in the hands of pollsters.
Matt Goodwin reckons UKIP have Clacton (Obviously), Thanet South (Farage effect), Thurrock and Rochester & Strood "In the bag"
Politics is depressing at times. People are praised for manoeuvres that keep them in power with no regard for democracy
Fixed it for you
LD, CON, LAB, SNP in Scotland
Then another of UKIP, SNP, Plaid and the Greens to balance out the coverage UK wide. Such a debate would be weird but it'd give the "Big 6" a chance to put their case twice.
Can he scent it over the aroma emanating from his trouser department?
The problem is civil service pay scales, they try and recruit senior technical staff and pay them as HEO on about 28k since its outside London, which is laughable for IT people, but if you try and pay them as an SEO (a still laughable 32K) their supervisor will have a fit because that is his grade.
Even though he may be as big an opportunistic sh*t as Ed The Younger I'm actually surprised at how well Cam is playing the game. Didn't know he had it in him, LOL!
But you are wrong
Why would I want Clegg there?
YouGov/Evening Standard (London)
CON 32 (-2)
LAB 44 (+2)
LIB 7 (-1)
UKIP 10 (+1)
GRN 5 (-1)
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-surges-in-london-election-battle-as-support-for-greens-slips-10087287.html