Nice to see Cameron running rings around the broadcasters. He has learnt the lessons from his ITV digital experiences.
And the broadcasters playing the lefty twonks like a cheap violin. Do they think Sky (prop. R Murdoch) want to broadcast to an audience of >10m. on April 30th as a selfless service to British democracy? Or might another consideration be at work?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
UKIP have actually told us they do not like immigrants. They cause traffic jams. They look funny and frightening. They talk funny on the tube. On the hand I'm told immigrant women are very good at cleaning behind the fridge.
You don't convince when you're trying to sound like Polly Toynbee criticising UKIP. The fact is that most current Conservative voters are very unhappy with current levels of immigration.
Let’s not forget, it was Nick Clegg who challenged Nigel Farage to a "public, open debate" on EU membership on his LBC radio slot
Clegg said “As the "leader of the party of 'in'," he was the right person to debate the issue with Mr Farage, the party leader of ‘out’. or word to that effect.
Ed and Cameron just left them to get on with it – cue lots of threads on how disastrous this will be for Ed & Cameron etc…!
Farage had everything to lose, Clegg was destined for 4th or 5th, but as he genuinely believed in what he was standing for he relished the opportunity and sealed the deal for UKIP
I believe Clegg and Farage are both ‘passionate’ about the EU, just from polar opposites. Clegg thought he could better Farage, complacency was Clegg’s undoing imho. - neither point was relevant to my original comment, however.
So it's going to end up in court? That surely puts a nail in that particular coffin. Now for the PM to wriggle out of the head to head which I think has already been successful with I agree with Nick challenging Miliband, a challenge that won't be met.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
I fully understand the point you are making, but if the position were to change a sudden debate would not be the answer. Cameron is doing us all a service by playing hardball over these debates. They are a waste of time under any circumstances. Additionally the falling back of the LDs and the rise in vote share of the Greens and UKIP and SNP blow the whole thing wide open. The whole plethora of regional parties would complain if only the SNP were included. Given the mess up of devolution then if there are any debates its quite essential that the SNP should be there to be quizzed over their Scottish Votes for English Legislation policy.
Last Thursday was the only Labour lead (by 1) with YouGov since 22nd February. Will tonight change that? Will Stephen Fisher have the Tories back in the lead tomorrow morning?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
NO They are told that they don't like immigrants.. the perception politicians give is that they are stealing the WWC's jobs. Of course its bollocks.. Immigrants do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do.
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
Last Thursday was the only Labour lead (by 1) with YouGov since 22nd February. Will tonight change that? Will Stephen Fisher have the Tories back in the lead tomorrow morning?
This is why I've struggling with tonight's prediction. If Lab is going to have a lead this week you would think it's going to be tonight!
Nevertheless I've decided to go for another tie...
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
OddlyCameron does quite well when he doesn't turn up. His lack of visibiliy in the Indyref was the correct approach.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
NO They are told that they don't like immigrants.. the perception politicians give is that they are stealing the WWC's jobs. Of course its bollocks.. Immigrants do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do.
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
OddlyCameron does quite well when he doesn't turn up. His lack of visibiliy in the Indyref was the correct approach.
The surprise is that so many fail to see the wood for the tree's.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope
You don't convince when you're trying to sound like Polly Toynbee criticising UKIP. The fact is that most current Conservative voters are very unhappy with current levels of immigration.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
UKIP have actually told us they do not like immigrants. They cause traffic jams. They look funny and frightening. They talk funny on the tube. On the hand I'm told immigrant women are very good at cleaning behind the fridge.
It's because of the childish tantrums regarding UKIP by people who should know better I am beginning to wonder if UKIP may do better than expected.
The polls to my mind are all over the place but UKIP seem settled at 13/14% and personally I thought they would poll at 10/11%, however I am seriously wondering how many don't say UKIP when prompted for fear of ridicule from smug fools like Flightpath.
Not to mention the pathetic TV programmes recently, then there is the possible damage to your career, even if you are a lowly foster parent in Rotherham.
I wouldn't be too shocked if come GE day they poll 16/20%, which may be bad news for Labour up North.
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
OddlyCameron does quite well when he doesn't turn up. His lack of visibiliy in the Indyref was the correct approach.
The surprise is that so many fail to see the wood for the tree's.
If Miliband keeps this up beyond the weekend he'll start to look desperate.
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
Didn't Christianity ultimately win out in the end?
@Alanbrooke The thing is, it is no longer just the party leaders that are stirring the mix. The media (tv) has decided it must take a stand about it as well, or give the impression that the prime minister can act like a spoiled brat and grab the ball if people don't allow him to pick the teams and set the rules.
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
Didn't Christianity ultimately win out in the end?
Only because they stopped putting them in with the Lions.
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
@Alanbrooke The thing is, it is no longer just the party leaders that are stirring the mix. The media (tv) has decided it must take a stand about it as well, or give the impression that the prime minister can act like a spoiled brat and grab the ball if people don't allow him to pick the teams and set the rules.
Then theyre wrong, it's a PM perogative to pick the team and act like a spoilt brat. Otherwise the spoilt brats are unelected people with names like Murdoch.
I think Cameron should say yes to a head-to-head and to do it after the manifestos come out. Notwithstanding the fact it would cause so much angst among Clegg and Farage and co it will get scrapped anyway, I think he would just plain win it against Miliband.
The Tory austerity/cutting/evil is factored in. People expect the Tories to balance the books. So Miliband won't win any votes by painting Cameron as an ideological cutter.
Miliband would need to offer an alternative. He'd need to lay out his spending plans; his hopes and ideas and aspirations and how he would pave the country in gold. All whilst balancing the deficit.
It would be a very, very, very difficult argument to win. To put together a new deal for Britain with no cash. I suspect he'd get pulled apart on just about every manifesto commitment. The words 'uncosted' and 'unsustainable' would be hurled at him.
And he's weird compared to Cameron. Weird looking, weird voice, weird mannerisms. Voters are shallow like me, they'll compare on stuff like that.
@Alanbrooke I am sure they will point that out just for you.....or possibly they will spin it so that it is the public being ignored and bullied. Who knows the mysteries of the media and it's arcane ways?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
NO They are told that they don't like immigrants.. the perception politicians give is that they are stealing the WWC's jobs. Of course its bollocks.. Immigrants do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do.
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
The view that native British people are lazy, compared to hardworking immigrants is as much a pernicious caricature as is the view that immigrants are scrounging criminals.
But, people who make that argument think they're being enlightened.
@Alanbrooke I am sure they will point that out just for you.....or possibly they will spin it so that it is the public being ignored and bullied. Who knows the mysteries of the media and it's arcane ways?
Oddly I could gain some respect for Cameron if he told the journos to sod off and go boil their heads for turnips.
But being a PR guy you know he'll crack in the end as the attraction of the stagelights takes over.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
NO They are told that they don't like immigrants.. the perception politicians give is that they are stealing the WWC's jobs. Of course its bollocks.. Immigrants do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do.
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
The view that native British people are lazy, compared to hardworking immigrants is as much a pernicious caricature as is the view that immigrants are scrounging criminals.
But, people who make that argument think they're being enlightened.
It's a cop out for we don't educate them, we don't train them and we underinvest in our human capital.
@Alanbrooke That is not a great option either, but the mistake seems to have been made in his spin room. It looks very much like they assumed both the papers (mostly) and the TV companies would spin his non appearance favourably.
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
I think Cameron should say yes to a head-to-head and to do it after the manifestos come out. Notwithstanding the fact it would cause so much angst among Clegg and Farage and co it will get scrapped anyway, I think he would just plain win it against Miliband.
The Tory austerity/cutting/evil is factored in. People expect the Tories to balance the books. So Miliband won't win any votes by painting Cameron as an ideological cutter.
Miliband would need to offer an alternative. He'd need to lay out his spending plans; his hopes and ideas and aspirations and how he would pave the country in gold. All whilst balancing the deficit.
It would be a very, very, very difficult argument to win. To put together a new deal for Britain with no cash. I suspect he'd get pulled apart on just about every manifesto commitment. The words 'uncosted' and 'unsustainable' would be hurled at him.
And he's weird compared to Cameron. Weird looking, weird voice, weird mannerisms. Voters are shallow like me, they'll compare on stuff like that.
None of the above would happen as there isn't a chairman who would hold their feet to the fire to get answers. Watch/listen to any political interview and that's what you are going to get from any debates but with knobs on.
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
Haven't you got some homework to get on with?
Yes...History tonight.
Im studying the last time the Tories won a majority in a UK General Election
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
Haven't you got some homework to get on with?
Yes...History tonight.
Im studying the last time the Tories won a majority in a UK General Election
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
NO They are told that they don't like immigrants.. the perception politicians give is that they are stealing the WWC's jobs. Of course its bollocks.. Immigrants do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do.
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
The view that native British people are lazy, compared to hardworking immigrants is as much a pernicious caricature as is the view that immigrants are scrounging criminals.
But, people who make that argument think they're being enlightened.
It's a cop out for we don't educate them, we don't train them and we underinvest in our human capital.
Lazy thinking almost :-)
The employment rate among British-born people of working age exceeds that of foreign-born people of working age.
There's been an interesting series on immigration in this week's Times. Yesterday, one pub chain owner was lamenting that while immigrants were content to remain bar staff, British-born people wanted to get promoted, and would leave for companies that offered better opportunities. They were demonstrating too much of a work ethic, rather than too little.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
NO They are told that they don't like immigrants.. the perception politicians give is that they are stealing the WWC's jobs. Of course its bollocks.. Immigrants do the jobs the Brits are too lazy to do.
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
The view that native British people are lazy, compared to hardworking immigrants is as much a pernicious caricature as is the view that immigrants are scrounging criminals.
But, people who make that argument think they're being enlightened.
I don't think it's the British in general but the poor who are often scorned as lazy by the better off. Ultimately it's about snobbery and self-interest disguised as enlightened thinking. However to my mind it's the kind of attitude that in the past has always sustained the Conservative party. Regrettably many of these middle class snobs now call themselves liberal.
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
Haven't you got some homework to get on with?
Yes...History tonight.
Im studying the last time the Tories won a majority in a UK General Election
So ....Ancient History then..
Certainly before you were born.
Medical homework too...examining an x ray of a Mr D Cameron to try and try and find any evidence of him possessing a backbone
Apparently when in the commons surrounded by a crowd of fellow right wing Riot Club braying yobboes he has one...but on his own in unfamiliar and strange environments like TV studios with lecterns and ordinary people in the audience he doesnt seem to
Smukesh .. you blithely call someone else a coward and you post as Smukesh.. how very brave...VCs all round.
He may be called S. Mukesh?
Comprehension test for dim lefties. Here is an article about Blair declining debates with Hague. It is entitled "Blair's 'blue funk' over TV debate". After reading the article carefully, do you think that
1. Blair was in fact in a "blue funk" at the time over this issue?
2. anyone genuinely thought at the time that he was in a "blue funk" over the issue?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
UKIP have actually told us they do not like immigrants. They cause traffic jams. They look funny and frightening. They talk funny on the tube. On the hand I'm told immigrant women are very good at cleaning behind the fridge.
You don't convince when you're trying to sound like Polly Toynbee criticising UKIP. The fact is that most current Conservative voters are very unhappy with current levels of immigration.
Yes but a lot of those are Cameron supporters and therefore beyond reproach as far as the bigoted Flightpath is concerned.
@Ishmael_X Is Tony standing for election again? Did he do endless amounts of TV and press appearances saying just how essential televised debates were? Your lot own it, just wear it!
Smukesh .. you blithely call someone else a coward and you post as Smukesh.. how very brave...VCs all round.
Lol!
Yes, it's a point that appears lost on many that bravery comes easily to those posting anonymously from behind the safety of their computer screens.
If it's Cameron we're talking about, cowardice isn't the issue. I'm sure he's as brave as he needs to be, and sometimes I reckon that's very brave, It's a question of political judgement.
Jury is out on that as far as the debate debate is concerned. And a few other things of course.
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
Haven't you got some homework to get on with?
Yes...History tonight.
Im studying the last time the Tories won a majority in a UK General Election
So ....Ancient History then..
And the last time Labour won an election without Blair at the helm, was 1974...
Labour lead up to 12 points in London..the best since last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight.. may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
Smukesh .. you blithely call someone else a coward and you post as Smukesh.. how very brave...VCs all round.
Lol!
Yes, it's a point that appears lost on many that bravery comes easily to those posting anonymously from behind the safety of their computer screens.
If it's Cameron we're talking about, cowardice isn't the issue. I'm sure he's as brave as he needs to be, and sometimes I reckon that's very brave, It's a question of political judgement.
Jury is out on that as far as the debate debate is concerned. And a few other things of course.
Political judgement and integrity. Five years ago (when it suited him) the debates were a vital part of our democracy. Not so much now.
@Ishmael_X Is Tony standing for election again? Did he do endless amounts of TV and press appearances saying just how essential televised debates were? Your lot own it, just wear it!
And the first dim leftie fails the test.
Actually read the article. Then I'll let you re-take.
We've been telling you for three years that crap ed was going to implode, so it's not as if you had no time to prepare. Running around squawking "liar liar pants on fire" doesn't look to me like an adequate response.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
Labour 12 ahead in London would represent a 5% swing since 2010. That's fairly in line with recent polling but not since the Tory surge of the last few weeks.
It's never going to happen because Ed needs Cam. He doesn't need Clegg and Farage. It's a no win situation for Ed if he can't get Cam to play. He will certainly bottle a three way with Clegg, Farage and an empty chair.
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
OddlyCameron does quite well when he doesn't turn up. His lack of visibiliy in the Indyref was the correct approach.
True if we did not see him again until the morning of Friday 8th of May. He would be a winner and he could prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr to her majesty again.
Remember as you watch the first of the great debates tonight, it didn't have to happen.
Watching will have all the ghoulish excitement of Roman games in the Coliseum. The only pleasure in a full hour and a half of stiffly regulated debate will be hoping for the car-crash moment, hunting for gaffes, jokes falling flat, sweaty brows, fluffed lines – anything, please, to break the torpor. The Grand National is only popular because there's always the hope the favourites will crash out at Becher's Brook. Where would Le Mans be without a smash or two?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
I fully understand the point you are making, but if the position were to change a sudden debate would not be the answer. Cameron is doing us all a service by playing hardball over these debates. They are a waste of time under any circumstances. Additionally the falling back of the LDs and the rise in vote share of the Greens and UKIP and SNP blow the whole thing wide open. The whole plethora of regional parties would complain if only the SNP were included. Given the mess up of devolution then if there are any debates its quite essential that the SNP should be there to be quizzed over their Scottish Votes for English Legislation policy.
Last Thursday was the only Labour lead (by 1) with YouGov since 22nd February. Will tonight change that? Will Stephen Fisher have the Tories back in the lead tomorrow morning?
Not true. Last night's YouGov actually had Labour ahead by 0.3% before rounding.
Smukesh .. you blithely call someone else a coward and you post as Smukesh.. how very brave...VCs all round.
This idea that posting on the internet with a screenname is somehow to be derided, or prevents someone from making judgmental comments about a public figure never ceases to be incredibly silly, particularly given the number of times people point out the ways in which it is perfectly reasonable, but clearly it is not worth the bother of rebutting it yet again.
For my part I've referred to Cameron's cowardice on the debates issue, but that's just colourful language not to be taken literally, as indeed I suspect most people's similar comments are unless they are a partisan stereotype, and I think most people can spot those and ignore them according;y. It is indeed about political judgement and in my case what I believe to be Cameron's lack of confidence on the issue.
If he thought he would do well out of the debates, he would defend them to the hilt. Therefore I must conclude he does not think he would do well out of them, which is a curious position for him to hold given the second proposal from the broadcasters seemed about as good as he could have hoped for, giving the opportunity for Ed M to have siphoned off support to the Greens/SNP/PC/UKIP in the first two, ready for Cameron to knock him down in the third.
Not without risks to Cameron, granted, but it is one of the areas I'd have expected him to be bolder in.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
UKIP have actually told us they do not like immigrants. They cause traffic jams. They look funny and frightening. They talk funny on the tube. On the hand I'm told immigrant women are very good at cleaning behind the fridge.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
UKIP have actually told us they do not like immigrants. They cause traffic jams. They look funny and frightening. They talk funny on the tube. On the hand I'm told immigrant women are very good at cleaning behind the fridge.
You don't convince when you're trying to sound like Polly Toynbee criticising UKIP. The fact is that most current Conservative voters are very unhappy with current levels of immigration.
It comes down to intellectual self-confidence.Cameron is aware on that score Ed wins by a mile.He is worried too by the possibility of him being seen as a Dr Jeckell and Mr Hyde when he goes reddy purple and turns into Eton school bully Flashman of the Bullingdon Club.Cameron is frit because he doesn't know which one will turn up..
Listening to the radio 5 phone in this morning on the leaders debate,noticed alot of the callers going to vote UKIP,most ex labour.
I think Labour could be in for quite a shock in the north where they considered themselves almost untouchable.
The Labour party's reaction to UKIP coming within 600 votes of winning in the by-election suggests they did not see it coming. The morning after Ed Milliband turned up gave a bizarre interview then literally ran off. Their faces said it all.
Remember as you watch the first of the great debates tonight, it didn't have to happen.
Watching will have all the ghoulish excitement of Roman games in the Coliseum. The only pleasure in a full hour and a half of stiffly regulated debate will be hoping for the car-crash moment, hunting for gaffes, jokes falling flat, sweaty brows, fluffed lines – anything, please, to break the torpor. The Grand National is only popular because there's always the hope the favourites will crash out at Becher's Brook. Where would Le Mans be without a smash or two?
Last Thursday was the only Labour lead (by 1) with YouGov since 22nd February. Will tonight change that? Will Stephen Fisher have the Tories back in the lead tomorrow morning?
Not true. Last night's YouGov actually had Labour ahead by 0.3% before rounding.
Gosh, the rounding's been going badly for Labour lately, hasn't it?
And not want to see the reintroduction of hanging. They BIT her. Before she died. She was eight.
Jesus wept. And they're merely convicted of "manslaughter"??
Hang them. We bomb innocents, yet they are spared?
It made me pretty sick when I heard the story yesterday. She looked such a sweet innocent little child. No doubt the social worker who was supervising her will be promoted!
Nobody is deriding the use of screen names, Kle4, but why would you say something to somebody across the internet which you would not be brave enough to say to their face?
Bad manners? Cowardice? Or just because you can get away with it?
Remember as you watch the first of the great debates tonight, it didn't have to happen.
Watching will have all the ghoulish excitement of Roman games in the Coliseum. The only pleasure in a full hour and a half of stiffly regulated debate will be hoping for the car-crash moment, hunting for gaffes, jokes falling flat, sweaty brows, fluffed lines – anything, please, to break the torpor. The Grand National is only popular because there's always the hope the favourites will crash out at Becher's Brook. Where would Le Mans be without a smash or two?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
Controls on immigration = For those who do not like immigrants. Unlimited immigration = For those who like immigrants.
In which case the vast majority of the world do not like immigrants.
UKIP have actually told us they do not like immigrants. They cause traffic jams. They look funny and frightening. They talk funny on the tube. On the hand I'm told immigrant women are very good at cleaning behind the fridge.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
12% in London is a bigger lead than Yougov have generally shown. But, it would be quite consistent with Labour under performing in the rest of the South East, for example.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
Ask yourself, how many of those who say they are voting Labour are actually registered to vote?
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
After yesterday I think that advantage that Farage had has been diminished considerably simply because the response is "well how many would you reduce immigration by?" If Farage then started waffling about not setting targets it would sound weak.
Yes Cameron still suffers because of his policy failure but by recommitting to it (with caveats about feasibility in light of the EU's attitude) would make it sound more like a genuine failure and less an intentional deception.
Unless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would now be better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
12% in London is a bigger lead than Yougov have generally shown. But, it would be quite consistent with Labour under performing in the rest of the South East, for example.
To be honest, given the property price insanity, and year-on-year demographic change, that doesn't surprise me.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
UKIP already took it and missed.. they have no idea what to tell us what they actually want. They had a public disagreement about totals. We do know for certain that they don't like immigrants
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
After yesterday I think that advantage that Farage had has been diminished considerably simply because the response is "well how many would you reduce immigration by?" If Farage then started waffling about not setting targets it would sound weak.
Yes Cameron still suffers because of his policy failure but recommitting to it (with caveats about feasibility in light of the EU's attitude) would make it sound more like a genuine failure and less an intentional deception.
Unless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would are now better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
Targets are stupid and pointless. Cameron was stupid to have a specific number as a target, particularly when he was not actually willing to do what was necessary to meet that target.
Far better to say that we will have an immigration policy which allows in the people we need and excludes those we do not. It is not so easy to use politically of course because there will always be those who attack the numbers as too many or too few but it is a coherent policy which gives real control over our borders whilst still allowing in those we need to benefit our businesses and our country as a whole.
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
12% in London is a bigger lead than Yougov have generally shown. But, it would be quite consistent with Labour under performing in the rest of the South East, for example.
To be honest, given the property price insanity, and year-on-year demographic change, that doesn't surprise me.
I can see London becoming pretty left wing. Just look at Bill De Blasio winning in New York.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
12% in London is a bigger lead than Yougov have generally shown. But, it would be quite consistent with Labour under performing in the rest of the South East, for example.
To be honest, given the property price insanity, and year-on-year demographic change, that doesn't surprise me.
I can see London becoming pretty left wing. Just look at Bill De Blasio winning in New York.
Bill over in NY will be allowing public schools to close on muslim holidays.
Every time I read a post of yours I imagine it's written by Grant Shapps. I can't help it. I imagine you humping his leg with that toothy grin and then out of the blue someone says something and the storm clouds turn to thunder......... .
......Then back to humping his leg till it happens again. My question is this; what is it about the well quilted Dave that inspires such loyalty? He always strikes me as too insincere to be really likable.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut.
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
nless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would are now better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
Targets are stupid and pointless. Cameron was stupid to have a specific number as a target, particularly when he was not actually willing to do what was necessary to meet that target.
Far better to say that we will have an immigration policy which allows in the people we need and excludes those we do not. It is not so easy to use politically of course because there will always be those who attack the numbers as too many or too few but it is a coherent policy which gives real control over our borders whilst still allowing in those we need to benefit our businesses and our country as a whole.
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
Having a number is absolutely ludicrous... I don't claim to speak for anyone else but I would have thought for most people, their concern about immigration is the lack of control we have over the numbers..
Of course there may be a shortage in a particular skillset that means we need to actively encourage immigration.. why wouldnt you prefer control and flexibility rather than rigid targets and helplessness?
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
12% in London is a bigger lead than Yougov have generally shown. But, it would be quite consistent with Labour under performing in the rest of the South East, for example.
To be honest, given the property price insanity, and year-on-year demographic change, that doesn't surprise me.
I can see London becoming pretty left wing. Just look at Bill De Blasio winning in New York.
Agreed. Boris may be the last Tory mayor for a very long time.
I find it difficult to comprehend David Cameron's position over these debates. It made perfect sense to demand the Greens' inclusion as a tactical ploy. But once he won that point, he should have jumped at the chance to appear. The Conservatives have a very positive story to tell on the economy, especially against a cabinet member in the previous government, so why is Cameron avoiding a one-on-one with Ed Miliband? It is difficult to sustain the narrative that Ed Miliband is weak, when Cameron is the one avoiding appearing alongside him in a neutral contest.
As a Conservative supporter, I find it all rather unappealing. The debates were watched by some 20 million people last time, so in a time of falling turnout we should be keen on any way we can reach more voters. What is particularly galling is how Downing Street is briefing that the process has been "chaos", when they know full well that they are the party responsible for causing disruption to the process.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fear.
The swapping of those hopes and fears seems to reflect a situation where EICINPM seems increasingly probable.
It isn't Miliband who has much to gain, Chestnut. .
that they don't like immigrants
, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
After yesterday I think that advantage that Farage had has been diminished considerably simply because the response is "well how many would you reduce immigration by?" If Farage then started waffling about not setting targets it would sound weak.
Yes Cameron still suffers because of his policy failure but recommitting to it (with caveats about feasibility in light of the EU's attitude) would make it sound more like a genuine failure and less an intentional deception.
Unless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would are now better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
Targets are stupid and pointless. Cameron was stupid to have a specific number as a target, particularly when he was not actually willing to do what was necessary to meet that target.
Far better to say that we will have an immigration policy which allows in the people we need and excludes those we do not. It is not so easy to use politically of course because there will always be those who attack the numbers as too many or too few but it is a coherent policy which gives real control over our borders whilst still allowing in those we need to benefit our businesses and our country as a whole.
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
Did you watch yesterday? It was a shambles. Whether targets are stupid or not you cannot get away with just making bland wishy washy promises that you will 'manage' immigration in the best interest of the nation when people want the influx of immigration to stop. In today's environment when people do not trust politicians they have got to make firm commitments and stick by them.
Worse you don't then invent a new piece of gravy train bureaucracy to subvert democratic accountability to do it (just imagine what Labour would do to it if they got their hands on it). It utterly reeks of the worst type of cop out and of much of what is wrong with Westminster.
Last Thursday was the only Labour lead (by 1) with YouGov since 22nd February. Will tonight change that? Will Stephen Fisher have the Tories back in the lead tomorrow morning?
Not true. Last night's YouGov actually had Labour ahead by 0.3% before rounding.
Gosh, the rounding's been going badly for Labour lately, hasn't it?
quite - you know lefties are desperate when they have to point to a 0.3% lead
Every time I read a post of yours I imagine it's written by Grant Shapps. I can't help it. I imagine you humping his leg with that toothy grin and then out of the blue someone says something and the storm clouds turn to thunder......... .
......Then back to humping his leg till it happens again. My question is this; what is it about the well quilted Dave that inspires such loyalty? He always strikes me as too insincere to be really likable.
And not want to see the reintroduction of hanging. They BIT her. Before she died. She was eight.
Jesus wept. And they're merely convicted of "manslaughter"??
Hang them. We bomb innocents, yet they are spared?
Did they plead insanity as a defence? Hopefully, they'll be detained indefinitely.
I think I am now officially persuaded (much as it matters) that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
It should be reserved for cases where the Judge decides the guilt is beyond doubt, and the cruelty and horror is especially deserving of the ultimate punishment. When the judge so decides, the case should then be referred to the Supreme Court, who then hand the capital punishment down, or not. And if they say Death, they should do it with scary black f*cking wigs on. The whole theatrical kaboodle.
This case fulfills all the criteria for me. They tortured an eight year old girl to death. They bit her.
And not want to see the reintroduction of hanging. They BIT her. Before she died. She was eight.
Jesus wept. And they're merely convicted of "manslaughter"??
Hang them. We bomb innocents, yet they are spared?
Did they plead insanity as a defence? Hopefully, they'll be detained indefinitely.
I think I am now officially persuaded (much as it matters) that we should reintroduce the death penalty.
It should be reserved for cases where the Judge decides the guilt is beyond doubt, and the cruelty and horror is especially deserving of the ultimate punishment. When the judge so decides, the case should then be referred to the Supreme Court, who then hand the capital punishment down, or not. And if they say Death, they should do it with scary black f*cking wigs on. The whole theatrical kaboodle.
This case fulfills all the criteria for me. They tortured an eight year old girl to death. They bit her.
Hang them.
I think a lifetime of solitary confinement with no prospect of release, being forced to endure a pointless, futile and wasted life, reflecting every day on what you've done and why you're there, with no escape, is a more serious punishment.
A while back EICIPM seemed inevitable, and TV debates were the Tories' great hope and Labour's great fe
It's Farage. The PM is most vulnerable on the immigration claims he made during the 2010 debates. That's a penalty kick for the purples, if they are ever given the chance to take it.
But UKIP didn't mislead anybody during the 2010 debates. Square.
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
nless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would are now better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
Having a number is absolutely ludicrous... I don't claim to speak for anyone else but I would have thought for most people, their concern about immigration is the lack of control we have over the numbers..
Of course there may be a shortage in a particular skillset that means we need to actively encourage immigration.. why wouldnt you prefer control and flexibility rather than rigid targets and helplessness?
You don't ditch the primary target, you talk about periodic adjustments, contingency arrangements and special Ministerial measures to address any critical shortages. What you don't do is weeks before an election on the hoof turn your most important policy on its head without it seems the full buy in of the person who is supposed to be implementing it. Its just bad politics.
Its clear the policy has not been thought through and its not fully developed. How on earth is that going to be communicated out to the 600 plus constituencies coherently in 8 weeks?
It doesn't even replicate the Australian system which does have caps and ministerial control built into it
Just thinking about the 7 way debates. One thing strikes me about the participants. Three men educated at very privileged London schools. One the son of a prominent north London marxist intellectual. One lady immigrant and one token representative for Scotland and Wales. Regional England completely unrepresented. I'm not saying there should be quotas or anything of the sort but can't help feeling it says something about modern Britain and its leadership.
Comments
Ovex? I know Cameron acts like a parasitical nematode, but assassination is taking it way too far.
Given the mess up of devolution then if there are any debates its quite essential that the SNP should be there to be quizzed over their Scottish Votes for English Legislation policy.
Tonight's YouGov Prediction
Con/Lad Tie
"Con/Lad Tie"
I hope your are not alluding to some sort of sordid tryst in the gentleman's toilets?
Immigration is not the problem, its the proliferation of benefits that is attracting so many. That needs addressing.
Nevertheless I've decided to go for another tie...
Ed v Farage is Christians v Lions.
And 77% of immigrants think there is too much immigration: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/sri-perceptions-and-reality-immigration-report-summary-2013.pdf
And weak.
The thing is, it is no longer just the party leaders that are stirring the mix. The media (tv) has decided it must take a stand about it as well, or give the impression that the prime minister can act like a spoiled brat and grab the ball if people don't allow him to pick the teams and set the rules.
However, it allowed them to register and contest The Eastleigh by-election.
Tried to make a complaint but response was unhelpful and full of jargon.
last May according to the Evening Standard tonight
Ed on course to win 7 out of 12 target seats in the Capital
including Croydon Central and Brentford and Isleworth
Lib Dem Lynne Featherstone also trails Labour in her seat
Hughes just hanging on from Labour but still vulnerable but Burstow is
comfortably holding off a weak Tory challenge in his seat
Cross back over to regular national Labour leads may come tonight..
may be the weekend...but make no mistake after Cowardly
Camerons horror show last 24 hours...Cross back over IS coming
The Tory austerity/cutting/evil is factored in. People expect the Tories to balance the books. So Miliband won't win any votes by painting Cameron as an ideological cutter.
Miliband would need to offer an alternative. He'd need to lay out his spending plans; his hopes and ideas and aspirations and how he would pave the country in gold. All whilst balancing the deficit.
It would be a very, very, very difficult argument to win. To put together a new deal for Britain with no cash. I suspect he'd get pulled apart on just about every manifesto commitment. The words 'uncosted' and 'unsustainable' would be hurled at him.
And he's weird compared to Cameron. Weird looking, weird voice, weird mannerisms. Voters are shallow like me, they'll compare on stuff like that.
I am sure they will point that out just for you.....or possibly they will spin it so that it is the public being ignored and bullied.
Who knows the mysteries of the media and it's arcane ways?
But, people who make that argument think they're being enlightened.
But being a PR guy you know he'll crack in the end as the attraction of the stagelights takes over.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband-surges-in-london-election-battle-as-support-for-greens-slips-10087287.html
Lazy thinking almost :-)
Con 34
Lab 33
UKIP 14
Lib Dem 7
Labour ahead in unweighted
That is not a great option either, but the mistake seems to have been made in his spin room.
It looks very much like they assumed both the papers (mostly) and the TV companies would spin his non appearance favourably.
Im studying the last time the Tories won a majority in a UK
General Election
So ....Ancient History then..
They have of course pointed out many times since that Cameron is not to be trusted in the matter of immigration. Nothing would drum it home so much though as to point out from a debate podium that five years ago on a debate podium Cameron thoroughly misled the electorate. It would undermine his credibility on this subject, and by implication on everything elese.
Would be difficult for him to wriggle out of that, hence his determination to avoid a television debate.
There's been an interesting series on immigration in this week's Times. Yesterday, one pub chain owner was lamenting that while immigrants were content to remain bar staff, British-born people wanted to get promoted, and would leave for companies that offered better opportunities. They were demonstrating too much of a work ethic, rather than too little.
try and find any evidence of him possessing a backbone
Apparently when in the commons surrounded by a crowd of fellow right wing Riot
Club braying yobboes he has one...but on his own in unfamiliar and
strange environments like TV studios with lecterns and ordinary
people in the audience he doesnt seem to
A most puzzling case?
Comprehension test for dim lefties. Here is an article about Blair declining debates with Hague. It is entitled "Blair's 'blue funk' over TV debate". After reading the article carefully, do you think that
1. Blair was in fact in a "blue funk" at the time over this issue?
2. anyone genuinely thought at the time that he was in a "blue funk" over the issue?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1122468.stm
Can`t be nice defending a hairy cat.
Is Tony standing for election again? Did he do endless amounts of TV and press appearances saying just how essential televised debates were?
Your lot own it, just wear it!
Yes, it's a point that appears lost on many that bravery comes easily to those posting anonymously from behind the safety of their computer screens.
If it's Cameron we're talking about, cowardice isn't the issue. I'm sure he's as brave as he needs to be, and sometimes I reckon that's very brave, It's a question of political judgement.
Jury is out on that as far as the debate debate is concerned. And a few other things of course.
Actually read the article. Then I'll let you re-take.
We've been telling you for three years that crap ed was going to implode, so it's not as if you had no time to prepare. Running around squawking "liar liar pants on fire" doesn't look to me like an adequate response.
London's a fairly big straw to clutch at.
When I read the Standard tonite I was quite surprised at some of the seats that appear to be 'in play'. I'm even beginning to worry for young Sunil in Ilford North.
That's got to be about 80 or so seats down in the target list. Spooky.
Yes dear.
He would be a winner and he could prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr to her majesty again.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/15/leaders-debates-gordon-brown-car-crash
For my part I've referred to Cameron's cowardice on the debates issue, but that's just colourful language not to be taken literally, as indeed I suspect most people's similar comments are unless they are a partisan stereotype, and I think most people can spot those and ignore them according;y. It is indeed about political judgement and in my case what I believe to be Cameron's lack of confidence on the issue.
If he thought he would do well out of the debates, he would defend them to the hilt. Therefore I must conclude he does not think he would do well out of them, which is a curious position for him to hold given the second proposal from the broadcasters seemed about as good as he could have hoped for, giving the opportunity for Ed M to have siphoned off support to the Greens/SNP/PC/UKIP in the first two, ready for Cameron to knock him down in the third.
Not without risks to Cameron, granted, but it is one of the areas I'd have expected him to be bolder in.
The Labour party's reaction to UKIP coming within 600 votes of winning in the by-election suggests they did not see it coming. The morning after Ed Milliband turned up gave a bizarre interview then literally ran off. Their faces said it all.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/15/leaders-debates-gordon-brown-car-crash
"The Grand National is only popular because there's always the hope the favourites will crash out at Becher's Brook"
Really?
You off to Cheltenham next week in the hope of seeing Hurricane Fly put down after falling at the last?
Nobody is deriding the use of screen names, Kle4, but why would you say something to somebody across the internet which you would not be brave enough to say to their face?
Bad manners? Cowardice? Or just because you can get away with it?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/15/leaders-debates-gordon-brown-car-crash
Scott p
Do you get asked about your fantasies for Cameron.
In the same way Cameron was asked about Thatcher by Jonathon Ross.
Yes Cameron still suffers because of his policy failure but by recommitting to it (with caveats about feasibility in light of the EU's attitude) would make it sound more like a genuine failure and less an intentional deception.
Unless Farage does some sort of mea culpa for yesterday the Tories immigration fox has got away with its tail rather singed. Labour and Libdems would now be better positioned to attack the Tories over immigration because it was such an abject failure and poor judgement.
Far better to say that we will have an immigration policy which allows in the people we need and excludes those we do not. It is not so easy to use politically of course because there will always be those who attack the numbers as too many or too few but it is a coherent policy which gives real control over our borders whilst still allowing in those we need to benefit our businesses and our country as a whole.
I am hoping that by dropping an arbitrary number Farage is moving in this direction.
Every time I read a post of yours I imagine it's written by Grant Shapps. I can't help it. I imagine you humping his leg with that toothy grin and then out of the blue someone says something and the storm clouds turn to thunder......... .
......Then back to humping his leg till it happens again. My question is this; what is it about the well quilted Dave that inspires such loyalty? He always strikes me as too insincere to be really likable.
Of course there may be a shortage in a particular skillset that means we need to actively encourage immigration.. why wouldnt you prefer control and flexibility rather than rigid targets and helplessness?
As a Conservative supporter, I find it all rather unappealing. The debates were watched by some 20 million people last time, so in a time of falling turnout we should be keen on any way we can reach more voters. What is particularly galling is how Downing Street is briefing that the process has been "chaos", when they know full well that they are the party responsible for causing disruption to the process.
Worse you don't then invent a new piece of gravy train bureaucracy to subvert democratic accountability to do it (just imagine what Labour would do to it if they got their hands on it). It utterly reeks of the worst type of cop out and of much of what is wrong with Westminster.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/nearly-half-of-londoners-support-death-penalty-for-terrorist-murders-9994720.html