Funny that Ed and Tony had a quiet chat and then we get this announcement....R5 was going massive on NHS AGAIN, it is a daily thing now (but don't mention Labour running Welsh NHS)..again funny that.
But Cameron has a big decision now of his own making, does he blink? I also wonder what the hell that Oliver does and does he have a brain, he seems to have totally misjudged how this will play out and he is supposedly the inside man to how the likes of the BBC will play things.
No way Cameron changes his view. He may do the first one, even thought its later than he wants.
Miliband on his own will get no viewers so what's the point for the broadcasters.
Broadcasters getting too big for their boots trying to order Cameron around.
Radio 5 left wing disgrace as they are most of the time.
Miliband showing his "stand" against the evil Rupert was basically ongoing revenge for The Sun dropping Labour before 2010.
Mr. Stodge, there's an off-chance that might happen.
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
If it looks like six squabbling idiots, then there may be a view that Cameron was better off out of it.
"Meanwhile on a campaign stop at Marginalville, West Midlands, the prime minister gave a speech discussing the income tax cuts announced in the budget and said he was focussing on the important business of running the country...."
Etc etc..
The latter is news and no one, apart from loyal Tories and political wonks, nerds and anoraks like us will even notice.
As I said this morning, the debates form a fixed point, known in advance, when people can listen to the arguments in a single defined format. They are far more menaingful and significant to those who are less interested in politics than to those of us who are who deride them for reasons I'm not too clear about.
Public debate goes back to Athenian democracy and it's the public exchange of opinion and argument that makes the thing function. Having a Prime Minister cowering away muttering platitudes to hand-picked audiences of vetted CCHQ drones says far more about the weakness of the Prime Minister than those debating openly.
As always, the Tories on here castigate someone else and blame "the media" for wanting to control the democratic process. How much more perverse is it to have a Prime Minister who tries to subvert the media by setting terms - quite rightly the broadcast media are calling his bluff and they know, as I know, that the real entertainment would be to see Cameron facing hostile questionning on immigration from a public audience.
Incidentally, the exclusion of the DUP/Sinn Fein is intellectually indefensible.
DUP/Sinn Fein don't run against any of the UK parties in NI so neither are being disadvantaged by not taking part.
Yes they do and yes they are.
They are clearly not being disadvantaged.
Backtracking from your claim that they are not running against any of the parties in the debates I see. Still wrong though.
Not backtracking but with the future of the UK at stake in the next few weeks don't have time to argue over the handful of votes the UK wide's NI operations obtain. Suffice to say it's obvious to everyone (including the broadcasters legal departments unfortunately for you) that NI is a special case and are rightly being excluded from the debates.
Have a coloured Excel version which is better than the Google Docs
I have the local results here already
(Not that I think the local results are all that. I'd expect the Greens to conduct a poll here and to release the results if they are anyway favourable.)
Even if ITV go ahead, what would be to stop the other two broadcasters holding their debates and empty chairing David Cameron? The second debate would be the easiest to go ahead here as they could just use the other six. The one-on-one could go ahead with either Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage or both being invited in Cameron's stead.
I fear the Conservatives have dramatically overplayed their hand here. We were in a winning position when we got the 7-7-2 format. Both UKIP and the Lib Dems were downplayed to being as minor as Plaid Cymru, and the Greens were in every debate that UKIP were. The final one-on-one played to the Conservatives' argument that this was an Ed versus David choice and third party votes were wasted.
Now we are in serious danger of pushing things too far. If an invite for the third debate goes out to the other major parties, as designated by Ofcom, then they won't be able to be rescinded. And this after weeks of David Cameron looking 'frit', to use Maggie's turn of phrase. That will turn a victory into a bad defeat. And for what purpose? To avoid Ed Miliband? It seems a completely unnecessary risk.
Well I'm a Con supporter and I also agree with you.
Indeed I posted yesterday that the broadcasters would go ahead.
People always over analyse things - keep it simple. The broadcasters said last month that the debates would go ahead even if someone didn't turn up. A very simple statement - very easy to understand. And they have simply stuck to it.
I'm absolutely sure the debates will go ahead. It will now be down to Cameron whether he attends. I would have thought he would be completely mad not to.
Incidentally, the exclusion of the DUP/Sinn Fein is intellectually indefensible.
DUP/Sinn Fein don't run against any of the UK parties in NI so neither are being disadvantaged by not taking part.
Yes they do and yes they are.
They are clearly not being disadvantaged.
Backtracking from your claim that they are not running against any of the parties in the debates I see. Still wrong though.
Not backtracking but with the future of the UK at stake in the next few weeks don't have time to argue over the handful of votes the UK wide's NI operations obtain.
What an interesting definition of "not backtracking" you have there.
Interesting scenario now. Cameron seems to have backed himself into a corner. Either he a) Stands firm and is empty chaired b) Is seen to be faced down by the TV companies
Whilst the first is undesirable I really cannot see how the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can be seen to back down to mere TV Companies?
Here's another fine mess Heywood and Oliver have got him in
Mr. Stodge, there's an off-chance that might happen.
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
If it looks like six squabbling idiots, then there may be a view that Cameron was better off out of it.
"Meanwhile on a campaign stop at Marginalville, West Midlands, the prime minister gave a speech discussing the income tax cuts announced in the budget and said he was focussing on the important business of running the country...."
Etc etc..
The latter is news and no one, apart from loyal Tories and political wonks, nerds and anoraks like us will even notice.
As I said this morning, the debates form a fixed point, known in advance, when people can listen to the arguments in a single defined format. They are far more menaingful and significant to those who are less interested in politics than to those of us who are who deride them for reasons I'm not too clear about.
Public debate goes back to Athenian democracy and it's the public exchange of opinion and argument that makes the thing function. Having a Prime Minister cowering away muttering platitudes to hand-picked audiences of vetted CCHQ drones says far more about the weakness of the Prime Minister than those debating openly.
As always, the Tories on here castigate someone else and blame "the media" for wanting to control the democratic process. How much more perverse is it to have a Prime Minister who tries to subvert the media by setting terms - quite rightly the broadcast media are calling his bluff and they know, as I know, that the real entertainment would be to see Cameron facing hostile questionning on immigration from a public audience.
So the Cons should be able to send Boris along then ?
Mr. Hopkins, indeed, the idea that journalists should have the whip hand and be able to dictate the process of an electoral campaign is despicable and indefensible.
The media are acting like players in the game, rather than neutral observers.
Shouldn't the electorate have the whip hand? The broadcasters wouldn't be overly interested if the election debates had delivered Daily Politics audience levels. Inviting politicians to a debate (and being willing to hold it if one doesn't choose to take part) is hardly acting as a non-neutral player unless you suspect they doing it because they feel a certain party would benefit/lose as a result.
Have a coloured Excel version which is better than the Google Docs
I have the local results here already
(Not that I think the local results are all that. I'd expect the Greens to conduct a poll here and to release the results if they are anyway favourable.)
Mr. Stodge, there's an off-chance that might happen.
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
If it looks like six squabbling idiots, then there may be a view that Cameron was better off out of it.
"Meanwhile on a campaign stop at Marginalville, West Midlands, the prime minister gave a speech discussing the income tax cuts announced in the budget and said he was focussing on the important business of running the country...."
Etc etc..
The latter is news and no one, apart from loyal Tories and political wonks, nerds and anoraks like us will even notice.
As I said this morning, the debates form a fixed point, known in advance, when people can listen to the arguments in a single defined format. They are far more menaingful and significant to those who are less interested in politics than to those of us who are who deride them for reasons I'm not too clear about.
Public debate goes back to Athenian democracy and it's the public exchange of opinion and argument that makes the thing function. Having a Prime Minister cowering away muttering platitudes to hand-picked audiences of vetted CCHQ drones says far more about the weakness of the Prime Minister than those debating openly.
As always, the Tories on here castigate someone else and blame "the media" for wanting to control the democratic process. How much more perverse is it to have a Prime Minister who tries to subvert the media by setting terms - quite rightly the broadcast media are calling his bluff and they know, as I know, that the real entertainment would be to see Cameron facing hostile questionning on immigration from a public audience.
Your last sentence explains your real motives which are clearly sfa to do with the democratic process.
Let's suppose neither side backs down, the dates don't shift and we get two six-man debates (Cameron at neither). And they're rubbish. 90 minutes, 6 leaders, 15 minutes each, including opening and closing statements. Plaid and the SNP are of no real interest to most viewers, the Greens are a bonkers minority, Miliband can't really attack Cameron beyond 'he's not here' and Clegg becomes the lightning rod for dissatisfaction [which may help him as he becomes the Government's representative and he's fairly good at debates].
What of Farage drawing a stark contrast with the other five participants?
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
But that is what is happening, 6 of the party leaders want to debate with each other on TV, Cameron doesn't and isn't. Nobody is being forced to do anything.
This all serves David Cameron right though. At 7:7:2 he had got a format that was about as favourable as he could possibly have hoped for. He should not have turned it down.
There are separate debates on BBC Ireland and UTV for the NI parties.. whats the problem?
So the Scots and Welsh get to debate the economy and foreign policy with the Prime Minister and Leader of the HM Opposition but the Northern Irish parties (one who has more seats than either Plaid or the SNP currently) don't? Just what have Northern Ireland done to be excluded from the debate? It's wrong. Either it should solely be those parties with major party status or they should open it up to every party with more support than Plaid (which is basically what Ofcom says).
Your last sentence explains your real motives which are clearly sfa to do with the democratic process.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
What is wrong with an audience of the general public asking David Cameron some searching questions ? What is wrong with David Cameron being asked about immigration totals and targets ?
Like some Conservatives, you are terrified of your brittle leader having to respond to questions he doesn't like so to avoid that you keep him away from the electorate.
This all serves David Cameron right though. At 7:7:2 he had got a format that was about as favourable as he could possibly have hoped for. He should not have turned it down.
This all serves David Cameron right though. At 7:7:2 he had got a format that was about as favourable as he could possibly have hoped for. He should not have turned it down.
Its hardly over - infact things are just warming up
Your last sentence explains your real motives which are clearly sfa to do with the democratic process.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
What is wrong with an audience of the general public asking David Cameron some searching questions ? What is wrong with David Cameron being asked about immigration totals and targets ?
Like some Conservatives, you are terrified of your brittle leader having to respond to questions he doesn't like so to avoid that you keep him away from the electorate.
Your last sentence implied the broadcasters were holding the debates ONLY so that Cameron could face questioning, because (as you said) that's where the real entertainment would be. I had a similar reaction to felix when I read it.
If Antigonus Monopthalmus could contest the mastery of the world in his eighties, I cannot believe you are so ancient that it is beyond you and your lady wife to have a happy birthday.
I heard the other day that Manchester was the first nuclear free zone in the UK. If only they had realised what a style icon they were turning down
London was expected to be devastated by two to four bombs of up to five megatons each exploding over the city. Glasgow, Birmingham and Manchester were each said to be in line for one or two "airbursts" of up to five megatons.
and scare yourself about how big the blast radius is, 5mt on Big Ben for example would reach Watford with the thermal radiation flash.
More important, go to Moscow and see how little damage a 100kt W76 actually does to a country the size of Russia. We have 32 available and 64 max even with extra missiles we only have around 120 warheads.
That's not a lot of damage. It is not even viable as a "deterent".
One dropped on the centre of Moscow appears to kill a quarter of a million people. Might put me off a bit.
That would not be in line with Russian military history. The phrase "Acceptable Casualties" could have been invented there.
40 warheads+, upwards of 10 million dead, and 30-40 million injured or dying. Not even Russia would consider that acceptable.
The UK has the ability to launch a maximum of 32 missiles at any enemy.
Which have multiple warheads. The current best guestimate is about 160.....of 80-100 kilotons.
One of which would kill a quarter of a million Muscovites and injure over a million.....
It seems we don't have two boats in operation any more, only one. And they only carry 14 missiles and 48 warheads. They do not carry them in an operational "ready" status. In effect, were they to fire after an attack by Russia, they would be firing hours after the event with no country left to defend.
Trying to put some charts together from Ashcroft data and am now getting blocked. Must think I am a bot the way I'm systematically going through the pages!
Just about the only thing he has is that ITV would prefer a 7 person debate with Cameron on 25 March than a 6 person debate without Cameron on 2 April.
So he will hope that ITV breaks ranks and moves its debate to 25 March.
But even if ITV does that, it's hardly a huge win.
As a Con supporter I feel Cameron has made a very bad mess of this and his chances of victory have gone down today.
Finally the last thing he needs is another 3 weeks of every TV news programme asking "is he frightened?" He really needs to close the whole thing down right now.
@Neil According to the rules, it would be permissible to appoint a proxy, though how the general public would react is difficult to say. (I can make a decent guess though)
'Like some Conservatives, you are terrified of your brittle leader having to respond to questions he doesn't like so to avoid that you keep him away from the electorate.'
If you kept Clegg away it might do wonders for the Lib Dems fortunes.
If Antigonus Monopthalmus could contest the mastery of the world in his eighties, I cannot believe you are so ancient that it is beyond you and your lady wife to have a happy birthday.
Just about the only thing he has is that ITV would prefer a 7 person debate with Cameron on 25 March than a 6 person debate without Cameron on 2 April.
So he will hope that ITV breaks ranks and moves its debate to 25 March.
But even if ITV does that, it's hardly a huge win.
As a Con supporter I feel Cameron has made a very bad mess of this and his chances of victory have gone down today.
Finally the last thing he needs is another 3 weeks of every TV news programme asking "is he frightened?" He really needs to close the whole thing down right now.
Courage and shuffle the cards - this game has a few more rounds yet !
Your last sentence explains your real motives which are clearly sfa to do with the democratic process.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
What is wrong with an audience of the general public asking David Cameron some searching questions ? What is wrong with David Cameron being asked about immigration totals and targets ?
Like some Conservatives, you are terrified of your brittle leader having to respond to questions he doesn't like so to avoid that you keep him away from the electorate.
Try reading your last sentence again, then take your silly party hat off and maybe your head will clear and you'll begin to get it. I won't hold my breath.
They won't be when the first serviceman appears on You Tube burning in a cage, or being disembowelled or whatever else those backward savages can conjure up.
You might be surprised. The problem with the US is that they don't leave the fighting to soldiers/ generals - they leave it to the politicians and the TV News reporters (even if they do occasionally overstate their involvement). A wake up to the horrors of law would probably persuade even Obama to leave the fighting to the professionals. (Especially as the GOP would almost certainly get a boost in the OPs during military conflict given Obama's Benghazi moment)
If the debates really don't happen then imo it's highly likely we'll get the lowest turnout ever for an election. A campaign consisting solely of party leaders doing photo-ops in supermarkets is just not going to catch the public imagination.
Mechanical problem, returning to Heathrow where BA Engineering are based?
Ah, not like the 'good old days' when sometimes they had to turn back because of stronger than anticipated headwinds and wouldn't have made it across...
Once had a 747 engine blow taking off from Singapore (so pretty near max payload), circled a bit, dumped fuel (only got slightly nervous when I saw a TV mast we'd obviously turned to avoid sail past), back on the ground and off again (new plane) in under 90 minutes.....only later, viewing the video I'd been taking as we took off, did I see how much the wing had dipped.....
Funniest one was Delta Tristar into Frankfurt.
Pilot: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, we won't be immediately landing, but making a low pass over the airfield....(leave mike on).....well, they can see its down, but they can't tell if its locked'
Stewardess runs up to cockpit...
Pilot: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, you'll have gathered we've got a problem...'
Just about the only thing he has is that ITV would prefer a 7 person debate with Cameron on 25 March than a 6 person debate without Cameron on 2 April.
So he will hope that ITV breaks ranks and moves its debate to 25 March.
But even if ITV does that, it's hardly a huge win.
As a Con supporter I feel Cameron has made a very bad mess of this and his chances of victory have gone down today.
Finally the last thing he needs is another 3 weeks of every TV news programme asking "is he frightened?" He really needs to close the whole thing down right now.
Quite agree - Cameron really comes out of this very badly indeed. God help the Tories if this is typical of the type of hide away strategy they are intending to adopt throughout the campaign.
Surely Cameron has to turn up now? The downside of not debating Ed Miliband is surely greater than debating him and even a narrow loss or draw, which even if you think Miliband underrated and Cameron vastly overrated is the most likely outcome. Neither is Cicero, and any debate 'result' is likely to just reconfirm previous prejudices, with at best a narrow boost for Ed among those who see that he's actually capable of standing up straight if they've read the Mail (and that may not translate into many votes, just a bit more respect and civility). Plus The Sun will declare him the winner unless he actively shoots a peasant from his lecturn.
The only reason I can think not to is if the Tories have a really vicious personal campaign against Ed to unleash, as debates are the ultimate opportunity to demand that a smear campaign is repudiated - that would also explain Cameron's desire to have one before the campaign - have the debate, then pour mounds of ordure on your opponent after he's able to directly respond (bleating to the press about it looks like whinging and merely repeats any smear and you can stay above the fray and maintain plausible deniability).
Comments
If NI wants to be included in UK wide debates they better open up and start voting for UK wide political parties.
http://www.flightradar24.com/BAW49/5af9986
Or still played a blinder?
Miliband on his own will get no viewers so what's the point for the broadcasters.
Broadcasters getting too big for their boots trying to order Cameron around.
Radio 5 left wing disgrace as they are most of the time.
Miliband showing his "stand" against the evil Rupert was basically ongoing revenge for The Sun dropping Labour before 2010.
Have a coloured Excel version which is better than the Google Docs
Re. NI Parties. Why include SNP and Plaid? They aren't "UK wide political parties" either?
If your going to include Scot and Welsh Nats it seems mean to exclude the Irish, IMO.
As I said this morning, the debates form a fixed point, known in advance, when people can listen to the arguments in a single defined format. They are far more menaingful and significant to those who are less interested in politics than to those of us who are who deride them for reasons I'm not too clear about.
Public debate goes back to Athenian democracy and it's the public exchange of opinion and argument that makes the thing function. Having a Prime Minister cowering away muttering platitudes to hand-picked audiences of vetted CCHQ drones says far more about the weakness of the Prime Minister than those debating openly.
As always, the Tories on here castigate someone else and blame "the media" for wanting to control the democratic process. How much more perverse is it to have a Prime Minister who tries to subvert the media by setting terms - quite rightly the broadcast media are calling his bluff and they know, as I know, that the real entertainment would be to see Cameron facing hostile questionning on immigration from a public audience.
More to the point, you're raising another argument against the debates being fair. As someone who dislikes the debates, that's fine by me.
Perhaps TSE will stop writing thread headers based on info from Tom in the future.
(Not that I think the local results are all that. I'd expect the Greens to conduct a poll here and to release the results if they are anyway favourable.)
Indeed I posted yesterday that the broadcasters would go ahead.
People always over analyse things - keep it simple. The broadcasters said last month that the debates would go ahead even if someone didn't turn up. A very simple statement - very easy to understand. And they have simply stuck to it.
I'm absolutely sure the debates will go ahead. It will now be down to Cameron whether he attends. I would have thought he would be completely mad not to.
a) Stands firm and is empty chaired
b) Is seen to be faced down by the TV companies
Whilst the first is undesirable I really cannot see how the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can be seen to back down to mere TV Companies?
Here's another fine mess Heywood and Oliver have got him in
Although I did see The Doors with Ian Astbury on vocals
Genesis probably the only band that can claim to have improved for the main man leaving?
Oh and Pink Floyd!
Come on @David_Cameron you haven't got your own way so accept it and take part. #tvdebates
The prefects are getting very lippy these days....
The git
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_8Qi8HVXwA
Must be infiltrated or are they just incompetent?
Talking of Gits (old ones)
I am on a break from Mrs BJs birthday celebrations which resume shortly.
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/74509000/jpg/_74509499_img_2479.jpg
proves more popular than the real one in their Head to Head?
What is wrong with an audience of the general public asking David Cameron some searching questions ? What is wrong with David Cameron being asked about immigration totals and targets ?
Like some Conservatives, you are terrified of your brittle leader having to respond to questions he doesn't like so to avoid that you keep him away from the electorate.
Or as some pronounce it Guacamole
Breaking: No10 also stands firm on debates. Craig Oliver says broadcasters' response "disappointing",and will only talk about March 23 offer
(being a shy little wall flower is optional)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnfKmNRfLYU
If Antigonus Monopthalmus could contest the mastery of the world in his eighties, I cannot believe you are so ancient that it is beyond you and your lady wife to have a happy birthday.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html
It seems we don't have two boats in operation any more, only one. And they only carry 14 missiles and 48 warheads. They do not carry them in an operational "ready" status. In effect, were they to fire after an attack by Russia, they would be firing hours after the event with no country left to defend.
Getting hard to follow isn't it?
He really hasnt thought this through has he?
Just about the only thing he has is that ITV would prefer a 7 person debate with Cameron on 25 March than a 6 person debate without Cameron on 2 April.
So he will hope that ITV breaks ranks and moves its debate to 25 March.
But even if ITV does that, it's hardly a huge win.
As a Con supporter I feel Cameron has made a very bad mess of this and his chances of victory have gone down today.
Finally the last thing he needs is another 3 weeks of every TV news programme asking "is he frightened?" He really needs to close the whole thing down right now.
According to the rules, it would be permissible to appoint a proxy, though how the general public would react is difficult to say.
(I can make a decent guess though)
'Like some Conservatives, you are terrified of your brittle leader having to respond to questions he doesn't like so to avoid that you keep him away from the electorate.'
If you kept Clegg away it might do wonders for the Lib Dems fortunes.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4505824/shit-hits-the-fan-o.gif
Practicing my smiling as we speak
This thread has made that easier
Bye for now
The broadcasters made a very simple statement a few weeks ago and they've made another very simple statement today.
Take what they say at face value. They will go ahead as planned.
Which should add to the hopelessness of proceedings.
Once had a 747 engine blow taking off from Singapore (so pretty near max payload), circled a bit, dumped fuel (only got slightly nervous when I saw a TV mast we'd obviously turned to avoid sail past), back on the ground and off again (new plane) in under 90 minutes.....only later, viewing the video I'd been taking as we took off, did I see how much the wing had dipped.....
Funniest one was Delta Tristar into Frankfurt.
Pilot: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, we won't be immediately landing, but making a low pass over the airfield....(leave mike on).....well, they can see its down, but they can't tell if its locked'
Stewardess runs up to cockpit...
Pilot: 'Ladies and Gentlemen, you'll have gathered we've got a problem...'
Really am off now
The only reason I can think not to is if the Tories have a really vicious personal campaign against Ed to unleash, as debates are the ultimate opportunity to demand that a smear campaign is repudiated - that would also explain Cameron's desire to have one before the campaign - have the debate, then pour mounds of ordure on your opponent after he's able to directly respond (bleating to the press about it looks like whinging and merely repeats any smear and you can stay above the fray and maintain plausible deniability).