If the is a question on the spare room subsidy in the 6 person debate - all 6 will venehmently agree that taxpayers should cough up for spare rooms for those not working... Including Farage.
Yes Farage will say that a policy that led to old ladies throwing themselves under lorries was wrong..as will all the others..what heartless bstards eh?
By the way no such thing as the Spare Room Subsidy..just as there was no such thing as a Community Charge
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
It will probably enable me to shift serious money down my pub as they sound even more tedious than last time.
Thinking it through further a 6 way debate is ed's worst nightmare. That is 5 minor party leaders hungry, in the absence of cameron, to give ed a good shellacking. Odds on none of them succeeding? (This is ed miliband we are talking about).
Dim lefties in premature ejaculation shock.
edit: Hengist *snap* (but why four?)
For sure Ed is going to lose a lot of votes because he appears for the debate and Cameron is going to win loads more by hiding behind the sofa.
Yeah after all clearly the others will prefer to attack somebody who's there to defend himself rather than go for the open goal
Concept of "debate" too difficult for leftie shock.
Well it seems to be far too difficult a concept for Dave to get his head around
This debate will be a love in as the four members of the Rainbow Coalition to be gang up on Nigel while Ed sensibly does a Gordy and tries to cosy up to one of the three lovely leftie ladies (in political terms)
Plenty of "I agree with Nicola" on Austerity, Welfare Cuts, NHS, tax cuts for the rich, bankers bonuses, greedy energy companies and of course the weak embarassment of soon to be.booted out PM Daves miserable failure to defend his record
You think Sturgeon will let herself be "cosied up to" by Labour on prime time TV?
Thinking it through further a 6 way debate is ed's worst nightmare. That is 5 minor party leaders hungry, in the absence of cameron, to give ed a good shellacking. Odds on none of them succeeding? (This is ed miliband we are talking about).
Dim lefties in premature ejaculation shock.
edit: Hengist *snap* (but why four?)
OMG
I am beginning to think even cowardly Cameron will realize he has fooked up before you do
No idea if Cameron will do any debates, but if he wants to stay out of them I think he needs to do a big announcement of say, a 30 leg Town Hall style meeting circuit and offer for a couple to be televised. He can use the argument of wanting to focus on policy, meeting the people and not being stuck in a circus of televised debates where it will just be soundbites.
Sounds a very sensible idea. Which probably explains why he won't do that.
No idea if Cameron will do any debates, but if he wants to stay out of them I think he needs to do a big announcement of say, a 30 leg Town Hall style meeting circuit and offer for a couple to be televised. He can use the argument of wanting to focus on policy, meeting the people and not being stuck in a circus of televised debates where it will just be soundbites.
Ofcom rules indicate if. he turned the debates down there is no requirement for the TV stations to do a Quid Pro Quo and I can't see TV stations being particularly helpful in giving him a platform of his choice as compensation. Basically if Cameron opts out then he loses that airtime but in many ways its probably worth it.
Ofcom rules indicate if. he turned the debates down there is no requirement for the TV stations to do a Quid Pro Quo
That's not quite the line the broadcasters are spinning tonight
@faisalislam: Broadcasters united, will go on with debates, say impartiality means have to consider all parties' views... Perhaps not expected by no 10
How do you "consider a party's view" and not give them airtime?
No idea if Cameron will do any debates, but if he wants to stay out of them I think he needs to do a big announcement of say, a 30 leg Town Hall style meeting circuit and offer for a couple to be televised. He can use the argument of wanting to focus on policy, meeting the people and not being stuck in a circus of televised debates where it will just be soundbites.
Can any of the broadcasters place a cut-out of Cameron hiding behind the empty chair?
It's a great shame we don't have Spitting Image any longer. They wouldn't even need a script
coolagorna
I can only imagine Rees Mogg self selects
You don't get it, Roger.
Miliband has dug his own grave. He will get beasted in a 6-way debate - Farage or Sturgeon could eat him alive, and anyone else with a pulse would always be odds-on favourite against him. He has guaranteed himself a humiliating loss in the third division at the moment when he is trying to look like a serious championship contender.
Thinking it through further a 6 way debate is ed's worst nightmare. That is 5 minor party leaders hungry, in the absence of cameron, to give ed a good shellacking. Odds on none of them succeeding? (This is ed miliband we are talking about).
Dim lefties in premature ejaculation shock.
edit: Hengist *snap* (but why four?)
OMG
I am beginning to think even cowardly Cameron will realize he has fooked up before you do
The argument that "daddy knows what he's doing" is fraught with danger (see "Aliens") but I think we can take it Cameron has game-planned this, including the present scenario, and has a plan.
If the thought of Sturgeon going for ed's jugular doesn't chill you, perhaps there was too much sherry in Mrs BJ's birthday trifle.
No idea if Cameron will do any debates, but if he wants to stay out of them I think he needs to do a big announcement of say, a 30 leg Town Hall style meeting circuit and offer for a couple to be televised. He can use the argument of wanting to focus on policy, meeting the people and not being stuck in a circus of televised debates where it will just be soundbites.
Sounds like a reasonable response to the situation all things considered. When there were rumours of Cameron about to get his way again on the debates, I was ready to call his judgement sounder than mine and respect that he rang rings round them, even though I still didn't know why he thought the single debate (or none, if his intention was to wreck the whole business) would be better for him than the second broadcasters' proposals, but having something else he wants to do, rather than 'play politics' or something would blunt the impact, if any, of the attacks that will come his way on this.
All in all, it seems less risky to go along and bank on coming out a winner than having no personal impact on how the debates unfold without him, but it does seem right that it looks bad if he pretends he's happy to go along now. As others have said, if he is going to change his tune on that, he should do it sooner rather than later.
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
This is precisely why Dave can still turn round and take part, right now it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. If they go ahead and he is empty chaired the whole bloody country will notice. The pot is still small enough for him to "reluctantly" agree.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
Thinking it through further a 6 way debate is ed's worst nightmare. That is 5 minor party leaders hungry, in the absence of cameron, to give ed a good shellacking. Odds on none of them succeeding? (This is ed miliband we are talking about).
Dim lefties in premature ejaculation shock.
edit: Hengist *snap* (but why four?)
OMG
I am beginning to think even cowardly Cameron will realize he has fooked up before you do
The argument that "daddy knows what he's doing" is fraught with danger (see "Aliens") but I think we can take it Cameron has game-planned this, including the present scenario, and has a plan.
That doesn't mean what he has planned will work or be any good. I believe the LDs had a plan on how they would deal with persistent and terrible unpopularity through this parliament too, they expected a great deal of it, but it hasn't helped them mitigate it.
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
This is precisely why Dave can still turn round and take part, right now it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. If they go ahead and he is empty chaired the whole bloody country will notice. The pot is still small enough for him to "reluctantly" agree.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
I think that will rather depend on how the debates go.
If the candidates tear strips from each other then he sits back and looks prime ministerial
If they are dull as hell the candidates look like a bunch of losers
If it's a Tory slagfest it looks biased
The other 6 have to get the balance right, which isn't easy if there are six of them with very different views about the only thing they can agree on is they don't like Cameron.
Can any of the broadcasters place a cut-out of Cameron hiding behind the empty chair?
It's a great shame we don't have Spitting Image any longer. They wouldn't even need a script
coolagorna
I can only imagine Rees Mogg self selects
You don't get it, Roger.
Miliband has dug his own grave. He will get beasted in a 6-way debate - Farage or Sturgeon could eat him alive, and anyone else with a pulse would always be odds-on favourite against him. He has guaranteed himself a humiliating loss in the third division at the moment when he is trying to look like a serious championship contender.
Surely if there's one thing worse for Dave than Farage being in a prime time debate, it's Farage being in a prime time debate as effectively the standard bearer of the entire anti-EU right?
Farage is already the standard bearer for the anti-eu right. Farage will certainly benefit but Camerons calculation on this is that by staying away Farage does not get the opportunity to best him on a number of issues but does get the opportunity to best Miliband. The end result is that it is Miiliband who is at risk of being pictured being defeated not Cameron and of course if Nige doesn't best Miliband then Miliband is doing Dave's work for him as well be putting Farage back in his place.
The more I think about this the more I believe Cameron has much less to lose by sitting it out than taking part.
But one of Cameron's big pitches is to anti-EU voters to vote Tory to get a referendum. In thos debates Farage has possibly the best opportunity he'll ever get to make that case - no Cameron there, in effect proving his point by his absence.
If both are smart they partake in what you might call civilised hostilities - framing the debate as between the pro-EU Miliband and the anti-EU Farage. In particular it would be clever of Miliband to say something like, 'I disagree with everything Nigel says, but I'm really glad he's here to make his case as it's a debate we need to have. I've admitted the mistakes we made as a party on immigration, but I don't think the answer is leaving the EU and risking jobs, and that's why I'm prepared to stand up and make the case rather than pander and cower like the PM, I'll say one thing for Nigel - even though I think he's completely wrong, at least he has the courage of his convictions, and I'm here to say that if you think the same things as him, vote for him - if you disagree vote Labour, not for a Tory party who won't even debate with him or say what it wants'. Farage effectively does the same, accusing Miliband of talking rubbish but without being overly aggressive as he doesn't mind the framing of the debate that way. I can just see the Farage chuckle now; 'I've never said it before, and I'll never say it again but I agree with Ed on this one', before laying into Cameron, and then of course stating the anti-Labour case about transitional controls, the EU etc.
There's a nightmare scenario for Cameron, which is very possible that a strong argument between Miliband and Farage actually suits both down to the ground, as both are seen to have 'won' by their own sets of prospective supporters. UKIP are a marmite party, and so could provoke very different reactions among different groups.
Ofcom rules indicate if. he turned the debates down there is no requirement for the TV stations to do a Quid Pro Quo
How do you "consider a party's view" and not give them airtime?
By inviting the various parties along and if a party decided it didn't want to air its views in that particular format, that is the debates, then their views were 'considered' by giving them the option to air their views, which they turned down?
I don't know what the actual full reasoning is or will be, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard for them to craft a defence which stands up to reasonable scrutiny on that point.
The other consideration is whether Miliband would want to attend an empty chair debate because he would inevitably become the central protagonist that the others would want to take down. All five remaining parties would have big reasons to best Miliband if he becomes the main man in the debate and if they bested him surely that would damage both Labour but moreso his personal image as a potential future PM. Losing a debate to lesser parties when you are heir apparent could be significantly damaging.
Cameron's (a little damaged from copping out) sits back in Downing Street with a bag of popcorn to watch the mayhem......
Is this a PB Tory wet dream?
Cowardly Cameron in every answer IMO
i wouldn't know. You'd have to ask a PB Tory about that but I imagine they'd get the popcorn out to watch.
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
This is precisely why Dave can still turn round and take part, right now it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. If they go ahead and he is empty chaired the whole bloody country will notice. The pot is still small enough for him to "reluctantly" agree.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
I think that will rather depend on how the debates go.
If the candidates tear strips from each other then he sits back and looks prime ministerial
If they are dull as hell the candidates look like a bunch of losers
If it's a Tory slagfest it looks biased
The other 6 have to get the balance right, which isn't easy if there are six of them with very different views about the only thing they can agree on is they don't like Cameron.
One thing I wouldn't do is sell UKIP on the spreads right now...
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
Thinking it through further a 6 way debate is ed's worst nightmare. That is 5 minor party leaders hungry, in the absence of cameron, to give ed a good shellacking. Odds on none of them succeeding? (This is ed miliband we are talking about).
Dim lefties in premature ejaculation shock.
edit: Hengist *snap* (but why four?)
OMG
I am beginning to think even cowardly Cameron will realize he has fooked up before you do
The argument that "daddy knows what he's doing" is fraught with danger (see "Aliens") but I think we can take it Cameron has game-planned this, including the present scenario, and has a plan.
If the thought of Sturgeon going for ed's jugular doesn't chill you, perhaps there was too much sherry in Mrs BJ's birthday trifle.
Tiramisu I will have you.
Dave really really really has messed up here.
I am very surprised that a man of your obvious intellect cant see it.
Interesting to draw a contrast with Brown's election that wasn't. Cameron's debate that wasn't? Still a debate isn't really an election.
The election that never was would have resulted in, at best, a tiny Labour majority, and his party would have cursed him for throwing away their 56 seat majority.
That was always my view too. However for a long time the mainstream narrative was bottler Brown.
Foulkesy getting all worked up. Was it only weeks ago that we were told use of the word 'dodgy' was actionable?
George Foulkes @GeorgeFoulkes 9h9 hours ago Is @LordAshcroft playing a double game publishing dodgy polls showing SNP ahead to get @scottishlabour really motivated. If so it's working!
@FrankBooth His calculation is probably that the broadcasters will have to give his side of refusing the debates equal billing to those of the other side due to "impartiality" While most of the press who are under no such considerations will write "puff pieces" favourable to him. Either that or his spin doctors dropped a bollock.
@Flightpath No, their "job" was to reach an equitable deal with all the parties, not pander to Little Lord Flauntleroy.
What tripe. Why should broadcasters do 'deals' with anyone? Part of the deal they have offered is to sideline the LDs in one of the debates and to relegate them to minor status in the other two. I do not give a monkeys about the LDs but being objective (unlike the press), they have royally shafted the LDs who did after all get 24ish% at the last election. This is what happens when you let the press do 'deals'. The job of the press is to report news not make it or make it up.
Ofcom rules indicate if. he turned the debates down there is no requirement for the TV stations to do a Quid Pro Quo
That's not quite the line the broadcasters are spinning tonight
@faisalislam: Broadcasters united, will go on with debates, say impartiality means have to consider all parties' views... Perhaps not expected by no 10
How do you "consider a party's view" and not give them airtime?
Well the TV companies will spin whatever they think will benefit them the most (particularly being 'impartial' when it's clear from the start that they are not). You only have to look who they invited to the debates out of the smaller parties that arguably they should invite. They invited three left of centre parties none of which were next in line to be invited based on Ofcom criteria but ignored any parties who they view as of the right (e.g. DUP, BNP) who equally under the Ofcom rules should have qualified.
Anyway I digress. Ofcom's rules clearly suggest that the onus is on the TV companies to invite the parties. If the parties invited decline the opportunities that is there own lookout. I suspect if anything the TV companies are a little nervous about defying the Prime Minister and therefore might well offer some sort of alternative olive branch but that's up to them. Its not Ofcom as far as I can see.
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
This is precisely why Dave can still turn round and take part, right now it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. If they go ahead and he is empty chaired the whole bloody country will notice. The pot is still small enough for him to "reluctantly" agree.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
I think that will rather depend on how the debates go.
If the candidates tear strips from each other then he sits back and looks prime ministerial
If they are dull as hell the candidates look like a bunch of losers
If it's a Tory slagfest it looks biased
The other 6 have to get the balance right, which isn't easy if there are six of them with very different views about the only thing they can agree on is they don't like Cameron.
I think the idea that the perception of Cameron will become more prime ministerial by him skippibg the debates is dubious.
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
I think it's harder now. With the media and scrutiny the way things are. It's harder to control perception than in the past
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
This is precisely why Dave can still turn round and take part, right now it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. If they go ahead and he is empty chaired the whole bloody country will notice. The pot is still small enough for him to "reluctantly" agree.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
I think that will rather depend on how the debates go.
If the candidates tear strips from each other then he sits back and looks prime ministerial
If they are dull as hell the candidates look like a bunch of losers
If it's a Tory slagfest it looks biased
The other 6 have to get the balance right, which isn't easy if there are six of them with very different views about the only thing they can agree on is they don't like Cameron.
I think the idea that the perception of Cameron will become more prime ministerial by him skippibg the debates is dubious.
Mr C haven't seen you around for a while.
That will depend how the others contrast with him. About the only two who might know how to behave are Clegg and Sturgeon since they have sat in office. The rest will rabble rouse or flunk.
If the is a question on the spare room subsidy in the 6 person debate - all 6 will venehmently agree that taxpayers should cough up for spare rooms for those not working... Including Farage.
Awww whazza matter don't you like standing all alone on a piece of legislation that has always been decidedly dubious. Would you like us Kippers to hold you wittle hand and say its wonderful when it isn't?
PS It is however a very good example of why Dave would want to stay away from the debates because no question he would get beaten up on that issue.
I'd like to see Farage stick up for subsidising empty space at the taxpayers expense. Suspect it will be ditched in the manifesto,
Mikes called this the best value bet of last year at 40/1 I think
*seethe*
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) 06/03/2015 20:15 Interesting that Ukip holding big meeting in Camborne tonight, deep south west. Is just in top 100 most Ukip-friendly seats (98th).
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
I think it's harder now. With the media and scrutiny the way things are. It's harder to control perception than in the past
It's no harder than it was 5 years ago. And odd that if your claiming debates make life so much harder for policitians that so many leaders seem to want them.
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
That's a trolling question, Mr. Brooke! You are just trying to get me to say what I think of Cameron and then you will follow up by saying "Really? What do you think about Milliband then?" Then you will ask what I think about Clegg and I'll be forced to lie or get banned. Very naughty of you, sir.
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
That's a trolling question, Mr. Brooke! You are just trying to get me to say what I think of Cameron and then you will follow up by saying "Really? What do you think about Milliband then?" Then you will ask what I think about Clegg and I'll be forced to lie or get banned. Very naughty of you, sir.
What if I ask you about Osborne versus Balls ? ;-)
Can any of the broadcasters place a cut-out of Cameron hiding behind the empty chair?
It's a great shame we don't have Spitting Image any longer. They wouldn't even need a script
coolagorna
I can only imagine Rees Mogg self selects
They're bringing Spitting Image back (or rather some people who worked on it are doing a puppet satire show called Newzoids this spring, to feature Cameron and Clegg appearing on Jeremy Kyle)
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
I think it's harder now. With the media and scrutiny the way things are. It's harder to control perception than in the past
It's no harder than it was 5 years ago. And odd that if your claiming debates make life so much harder for policitians that so many leaders seem to want them.
Not necessarily. Perhaps they think they are harder, but the rewards are greater if they can pull it off. To become a political leader I assume they will have good self confidence, and most would probably think they can come out on top in such a situation, or at least boost things for their side, despite the risks.
Surely if there's one thing worse for Dave than Farage being in a prime time debate, it's Farage being in a prime time debate as effectively the standard bearer of the entire anti-EU right?
.d then Miliband is doing Dave's work for him as well be putting Farage back in his place.
The more I think about this the more I believe Cameron has much less to lose by sitting it out than taking part.
But one of Cameron's big pitches is to anti-EU voters to vote Tory to get a referendum. In thos debates Farage has possibly the best opportunity he'll ever get to make that case - no Cameron there, in effect proving his point by his absence.
If both are smart they partake in what you might call civilised hostilities - framing the debate as between the pro-EU Miliband and the anti-EU Farage. In particular it would be clever of Miliband to say something like, 'I disagree with everything Nigel says, but I'm really glad he's here to make his case as it's a debate we need to have. I've admitted the mistakes we made as a party on immigration, but I don't think the answer is leaving the EU and risking jobs, and that's why I'm prepared to stand up and make the case rather than pander and cower like the PM, I'll say one thing for Nigel - even though I think he's completely wrong, at least he has the courage of his convictions, and I'm here to say that if you think the same things as him, vote for him - if you disagree vote Labour, not for a Tory party who won't even debate with him or say what it wants'. Farage effectively does the same, accusing Miliband of talking rubbish but without being overly aggressive as he doesn't mind the framing of the debate that way. I can just see the Farage chuckle now; 'I've never said it before, and I'll never say it again but I agree with Ed on this one', before laying into Cameron, and then of course stating the anti-Labour case about transitional controls, the EU etc.
There's a nightmare scenario for Cameron, which is very possible that a strong argument between Miliband and Farage actually suits both down to the ground, as both are seen to have 'won' by their own sets of prospective supporters. UKIP are a marmite party, and so could provoke very different reactions among different groups.
No you go after the opponent in front of you. Yes as an aside 'Cameron's not here (chicken)', 'hes prevaricating about a negotiation' (that have already come to nought) and so forth but Miliband the aspiring PM candidate is there at his mercy. Furthermore Miliband's attitude to the EU is a far greater threat to UK sovereignty than the Tories. Farage has to go after him rather than someone who is buried deep in his Downing Street bunker out of sight.
Can any of the broadcasters place a cut-out of Cameron hiding behind the empty chair?
It's a great shame we don't have Spitting Image any longer. They wouldn't even need a script
coolagorna
I can only imagine Rees Mogg self selects
They're bringing Spitting Image back (or rather some people who worked on it are doing a puppet satire show called Newzoids this spring, to feature Cameron and Clegg appearing on Jeremy Kyle)
I suppose we'll get something comically original like Clegg tucked in Cameron's pocket ?
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
I think it's harder now. With the media and scrutiny the way things are. It's harder to control perception than in the past
It's no harder than it was 5 years ago. And odd that if your claiming debates make life so much harder for policitians that so many leaders seem to want them.
I don't mean debates so much as the news cycle, the constant tv reports etc. The greater the exposure the less sense there is of mystique or grandeur etc.
Evening all and I do hope Dave sticks to his guns. The debates ruined the 2010 General Election because they became the only game in town. Politicians seeking election should be meeting voters not the same group of London chatterati they surround themselves with all year round.
I will be chairing a candidates debate during the GE so in fairness to all the candidates in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I wont be making any further comments about the constituency until eve of poll. I am aware of at least 4 candidates debates arranged so far in either Danny Alexander's current seat or my home seat. I would expect the traditional eve of poll debate will take place in Dingwall Town Hall involving all the candidates in Charles Kennedy's current seat.
Based on initial research (i.e. asking Herself), which I fully expect to be confirmed by a focus group tomorrow lunchtime (i.e. the people in the saloon bar of the New Inn), the hoo-ha over the proposed debates has passed by the majority of normal, non-obsessive, voters and those few who have noticed could not, as you suggest, give a big rats arse. I think it likely that someone will have to make a much bigger deal of the issues, such as they are, before people will notice and an even bigger deal before it will shift a significant number of votes.
The question I ask of the denizens of this site is how much, if anything, the debates issue will shift money and therefore odds?
This is precisely why Dave can still turn round and take part, right now it's a bit of a storm in a teacup. If they go ahead and he is empty chaired the whole bloody country will notice. The pot is still small enough for him to "reluctantly" agree.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
I think that will rather depend on how the debates go.
If the candidates tear strips from each other then he sits back and looks prime ministerial
If they are dull as hell the candidates look like a bunch of losers
If it's a Tory slagfest it looks biased
The other 6 have to get the balance right, which isn't easy if there are six of them with very different views about the only thing they can agree on is they don't like Cameron.
I think the idea that the perception of Cameron will become more prime ministerial by him skippibg the debates is dubious.
I think he's already seen as Prime ministerial whether he deserves to or not. Nothing much will change there. Dilettantism has its benefits.
Ofcom rules indicate if. he turned the debates down there is no requirement for the TV stations to do a Quid Pro Quo
That's not quite the line the broadcasters are spinning tonight
@faisalislam: Broadcasters united, will go on with debates, say impartiality means have to consider all parties' views... Perhaps not expected by no 10
How do you "consider a party's view" and not give them airtime?
Well the TV companies will spin whatever they think will benefit them the most (particularly being 'impartial' when it's clear from the start that they are not). You only have to look who they invited to the debates out of the smaller parties that arguably they should invite. They invited three left of centre parties none of which were next in line to be invited based on Ofcom criteria but ignored any parties who they view as of the right (e.g. DUP, BNP) who equally under the Ofcom rules should have qualified.
Anyway I digress. Ofcom's rules clearly suggest that the onus is on the TV companies to invite the parties. If the parties invited decline the opportunities that is there own lookout. I suspect if anything the TV companies are a little nervous about defying the Prime Minister and therefore might well offer some sort of alternative olive branch but that's up to them. Its not Ofcom as far as I can see.
They only invited them once Cameron chickened out the first time. Cameron only wanted the Greens which the broadcasters legally could not do.
What is clear is this current farce is embarrassing and damaging to our electoral system.
The general public's view seems to be that politicians are an utter waste of space, being both duplicitous and self serving. Equally, they are cynical that anything substantial ever changes irrespective of who governs.
They'd rather watch Ant and Dec or Eastenders than listen to 99.9% of politicians.
How many 'normal' people are actually fazed by any of this?
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
I think it's harder now. With the media and scrutiny the way things are. It's harder to control perception than in the past
It's no harder than it was 5 years ago. And odd that if your claiming debates make life so much harder for policitians that so many leaders seem to want them.
Not necessarily. Perhaps they think they are harder, but the rewards are greater if they can pull it off. To become a political leader I assume they will have good self confidence, and most would probably think they can come out on top in such a situation, or at least boost things for their side, despite the risks.
No I'm buying some popcorn if Miliband wants to go presidential versus Cameron. He'll be chased by a bacon sandwich for 5 weeks.
@Flightpath Lighten up? The press might indeed have been about reporting news, but that was long ago in space and time. Now they will make stuff up for a headline that suits their narrative.
Can any of the broadcasters place a cut-out of Cameron hiding behind the empty chair?
It's a great shame we don't have Spitting Image any longer. They wouldn't even need a script
coolagorna
I can only imagine Rees Mogg self selects
They're bringing Spitting Image back (or rather some people who worked on it are doing a puppet satire show called Newzoids this spring, to feature Cameron and Clegg appearing on Jeremy Kyle)
I suppose we'll get something comically original like Clegg tucked in Cameron's pocket ?
And its all appearing on that worthless bit of tabloid trash the Jeremy Kyle Show. High end satire obviously.
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
I think it's harder now. With the media and scrutiny the way things are. It's harder to control perception than in the past
It's no harder than it was 5 years ago. And odd that if your claiming debates make life so much harder for policitians that so many leaders seem to want them.
I don't mean debates so much as the news cycle, the constant tv reports etc. The greater the exposure the less sense there is of mystique or grandeur etc.
They pander to it. It;s hard to feel sorry for people who create their own problems.
If the is a question on the spare room subsidy in the 6 person debate - all 6 will venehmently agree that taxpayers should cough up for spare rooms for those not working... Including Farage.
Awww whazza matter don't you like standing all alone on a piece of legislation that has always been decidedly dubious. Would you like us Kippers to hold you wittle hand and say its wonderful when it isn't?
PS It is however a very good example of why Dave would want to stay away from the debates because no question he would get beaten up on that issue.
I'd like to see Farage stick up for subsidising empty space at the taxpayers expense. Suspect it will be ditched in the manifesto,
I doubt it. From what I can see it was bad legislation and bad legislation should be scrapped. As I understand it in numerous cases those rooms were never empty and saying they were was just a rather malevolent piece of propaganda from Tory stooges but hey if you think banging on about it serves the Tory purposes carry on.
If the is a question on the spare room subsidy in the 6 person debate - all 6 will venehmently agree that taxpayers should cough up for spare rooms for those not working... Including Farage.
Awww whazza matter don't you like standing all alone on a piece of legislation that has always been decidedly dubious. Would you like us Kippers to hold you wittle hand and say its wonderful when it isn't?
PS It is however a very good example of why Dave would want to stay away from the debates because no question he would get beaten up on that issue.
I'd like to see Farage stick up for subsidising empty space at the taxpayers expense. Suspect it will be ditched in the manifesto,
I doubt it. From what I can see it was bad legislation and bad legislation should be scrapped. As I understand it in numerous cases those rooms were never empty and saying they were was just a rather malevolent piece of propaganda from Tory stooges but hey if you think banging on about it serves the Tory purposes carry on.
The government used the same room criteria and need as set down in the 2007 local housing allowances. If it is empty in the private sector, surely the social sector is the same?
Some people have bare faced cheek. Not only do they want me to pay for a roof over their head, they want a spare room in case Auntie June wants to visit.
I get that not everyone liked having the debates last time - for my part I enjoy the spectacle of them but I would not feel like I had been democratically robbed if they were not to happen this time - though I think the impact of them positive or negative has been magnified in peoples' memories, but there seems a little too much of people assuming that since they don't like the idea of the debates, Cameron can scupper them or not show up and all will be well as a matter of course.
It's possible he doesn't suffer as a result, but the alternative is very much a possibility as well and should he be risking that?
The idea that 3 x 90 minute sessions (or whatever it ends up being, if at all) has too great an impact is also pretty risible, for one because it suggests people think the public will pay apparently no attention to any other types of campaigning (or not enough to make a difference), which is hardly the fault of the debates but that of weaknesses in other campaigning methods if it is even true, and for another because if some minor comment by one of the leaders out on campaign or some silly poster went viral and ended up swaying people from an even more minute position and even less policy grounds (or at least contributed to swaying people more than any such minor event should) I am sure that would be seen as fine, just a part of campaigning, that you run the risk of something small having a significant impact.
But no no, this type of event alone is wrong and a step too far.
Can any of the broadcasters place a cut-out of Cameron hiding behind the empty chair?
It's a great shame we don't have Spitting Image any longer. They wouldn't even need a script
coolagorna
I can only imagine Rees Mogg self selects
You don't get it, Roger.
Miliband has dug his own grave. He will get beasted in a 6-way debate - Farage or Sturgeon could eat him alive, and anyone else with a pulse would always be odds-on favourite against him. He has guaranteed himself a humiliating loss in the third division at the moment when he is trying to look like a serious championship contender.
Yeah because why would Farage take the opportunity to criticise the Tories' EU referendum policy- something which will actually win him votes and which nobody there will argue back against? Obviously he'll solely go after the much smaller number of potential Lab-UKIP switchers, by spending all his time attacking somebody who's actually there to defend himself
Comeon,don`t you know what happens in PB Wonderland?
But why stop there? If Cameron isn't there Farage can go after Miliband for not offering the referendum and press him on things like ever closer union and where the Labour party would stop handing over sovereignty and as an aside have a pop at Cameron for not stating what his red lines are on EU reform negotiations (he doesn't need to go after the referendum commitment per se). Whether Cameron is there or not the EU is a win-win for Farage just as immigration is
Farage is primarily going to be going for Tory votes whether Cameron is there or not, it's clearly where the majority of UKIP sympathisers are and it is wishful thinking to believe that he somehow won't bother if Cameron isn't there.
If the is a question on the spare room subsidy in the 6 person debate - all 6 will venehmently agree that taxpayers should cough up for spare rooms for those not working... Including Farage.
Awww whazza matter don't you like standing all alone on a piece of legislation that has always been decidedly dubious. Would you like us Kippers to hold you wittle hand and say its wonderful when it isn't?
PS It is however a very good example of why Dave would want to stay away from the debates because no question he would get beaten up on that issue.
I'd like to see Farage stick up for subsidising empty space at the taxpayers expense. Suspect it will be ditched in the manifesto,
I doubt it. From what I can see it was bad legislation and bad legislation should be scrapped. As I understand it in numerous cases those rooms were never empty and saying they were was just a rather malevolent piece of propaganda from Tory stooges but hey if you think banging on about it serves the Tory purposes carry on.
The government used the same room criteria and need as set down in the 2007 local housing allowances. If it is empty in the private sector, surely the social sector is the same?
Some people have bare faced cheek. Not only do they want me to pay for a roof over their head, they want a spare room in case Auntie June wants to visit.
Why are Oldies spared this wonderful piece of legislation when they have the most spare rooms and receive more taxpayers money than any other section of society.
Clue because there would be uproar from people who mainly vote Tory
The game has changed for UKIP, aiming for tory votes in the north such as Yeywood and Middleton where they came so close last year, and labour votes in tory seats. Cameron may well think he's safer not taking part but Farage will be the star, he's slogged around for 20 years in a different way to the others in their safe seats and stage managed events. Kippers will be relishing the debates, ratings will definitely rise, look what he did to Clegg.
Hello all: I had a German economist in to see me today, and he shared something I thought was quite interesting about the Greek crisis. He said the Yanis Varoufakis (whom he described as very impressive) had fundamentally misunderstood how the EU worked. Apparently Yanis flew to Brussels to negotiate with Juncker, without realising that Juncker has no power. He said: "there are 18 countries in the EU and the IMF; he didn't need to convince Juncker, he needed to convince the Finns and the Danes and Dutch and the Germans and the rest."
I remain convinced that Syriza will end up splitting. There is simply no way the left wing of the party will accept the deal offered by the IMF/EU/ECB (not because the deal won't be good - it will be - but because it will require labour market reforms and continued privatisation).
"Media stories shift far fewer votes than is generally appreciated."
I can understand the straw clutching. Really. Not since the days of Hague can I remember the Tories looking so dishevelled. I'm starting to feel sorry for them
I hold no brief for Cameron. I'm happy to see him trip himself up. I just think this story is much smaller than media folk believe.
Plus Cameron is right. I hope he does stay out. What gives SKY BBC and ITV the right to dictate how a general election campaign should be run. Their job is to report not dictate offers.
Yes, heaven forbid we should get to hear our political leaders answer some questions before the election. Trying to spin this as the big bad media is ridiculous, of course the TV channels have a right to invite politicians to a debate before the election, Cameron has a right to decline (and take the consequences) but not have some a veto over the whole thing or the right to bully everyone into doing it the way he wants it done. This will not play well for the Tories whichever way they try to spin it, the advisors that got them to this mess need sacking.
The game has changed for UKIP, aiming for tory votes in the north such as Yeywood and Middleton where they came so close last year, and labour votes in tory seats. Cameron may well think he's safer not taking part but Farage will be the star, he's slogged around for 20 years in a different way to the others in their safe seats and stage managed events. Kippers will be relishing the debates, ratings will definitely rise, look what he did to Clegg.
Not sure about his tactics on this to be honest. On the one hand the self important pomposity of the broadcasters is extremely grating. On the other they are the broadcasters which set so much of the agenda in this country. Pissing them off by risking their ratings seems brave in the Yes Minister sense.
Common sense suggests a compromise by which Cameron does more than 1 debate but they are brought forward to earlier dates. I just fear that both sides have dug themselves into holes.
As I understand it in numerous cases those rooms were never empty and saying they were was just a rather malevolent piece of propaganda from Tory stooges but hey if you think banging on about it serves the Tory purposes carry on.
Under-occupancy is rife in UK housing. It is much more prevalent than overcrowding.
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
That's a trolling question, Mr. Brooke! You are just trying to get me to say what I think of Cameron and then you will follow up by saying "Really? What do you think about Milliband then?" Then you will ask what I think about Clegg and I'll be forced to lie or get banned. Very naughty of you, sir.
What if I ask you about Osborne versus Balls ? ;-)
That would be OK. Provided I was careful in my use of language I could tell the truth and not be in danger of a ban from this site.
Just between the two of us can I say that I despise Osborne even more than I do Cameron. I really would not piss in that man's ear of his brain was on fire.
The game has changed for UKIP, aiming for tory votes in the north such as Yeywood and Middleton where they came so close last year, and labour votes in tory seats. Cameron may well think he's safer not taking part but Farage will be the star, he's slogged around for 20 years in a different way to the others in their safe seats and stage managed events. Kippers will be relishing the debates, ratings will definitely rise, look what he did to Clegg.
The Cleggasm did not translate into votes.
I think Blackburn is pointing out that Farage monstered Clegg when they went head-to-head.
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
Re your earlier point isn't it odd that as we move more towards US style prersidential debates we have some of the least presidential material on the podium in living memory ?
That's a trolling question, Mr. Brooke! You are just trying to get me to say what I think of Cameron and then you will follow up by saying "Really? What do you think about Milliband then?" Then you will ask what I think about Clegg and I'll be forced to lie or get banned. Very naughty of you, sir.
What if I ask you about Osborne versus Balls ? ;-)
That would be OK. Provided I was careful in my use of language I could tell the truth and not be in danger of a ban from this site.
Just between the two of us can I say that I despise Osborne even more than I do Cameron. I really would not piss in that man's ear of his brain was on fire.
Evening all and I do hope Dave sticks to his guns. The debates ruined the 2010 General Election because they became the only game in town. Politicians seeking election should be meeting voters not the same group of London chatterati they surround themselves with all year round.
I will be chairing a candidates debate during the GE so in fairness to all the candidates in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I wont be making any further comments about the constituency until eve of poll. I am aware of at least 4 candidates debates arranged so far in either Danny Alexander's current seat or my home seat. I would expect the traditional eve of poll debate will take place in Dingwall Town Hall involving all the candidates in Charles Kennedy's current seat.
I agree totally, the idea that this could be the afternoon that Cameron lost the election is too pathetic for words.
What next, we put them all in the jungle and see which one is better at getting covered in spiders, or ask them to eat a kangaroo's dick before voting them off?
Perdix, Clegg challenged Farage to a head to head before the Euros, it was more one sided than anybody could have predicted. Several times a week Farage holds public meetings and hustings, he's been doing it for 20 years. The others are accustomed to stage managed PR events with planted questions.
I would love to know what the Tory Party are paying these advisers they have brought in. Backed into a corner over the TV debates and is now known as the Poultry PM. Then I assume to take the headlines off the TV debates, announces, Vote Tory bring back fox hunting. One word.....BRILLIANT!
Evening all and I do hope Dave sticks to his guns. The debates ruined the 2010 General Election because they became the only game in town. Politicians seeking election should be meeting voters not the same group of London chatterati they surround themselves with all year round.
I will be chairing a candidates debate during the GE so in fairness to all the candidates in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I wont be making any further comments about the constituency until eve of poll. I am aware of at least 4 candidates debates arranged so far in either Danny Alexander's current seat or my home seat. I would expect the traditional eve of poll debate will take place in Dingwall Town Hall involving all the candidates in Charles Kennedy's current seat.
I agree totally, the idea that this could be the afternoon that Cameron lost the election is too pathetic for words.
What next, we put them all in the jungle and see which one is better at getting covered in spiders, or ask them to eat a kangaroo's dick before voting them off?
Some may be using standard political hyperbole to describe the potential consequences, but that doesn't make the idea of the debates themselves ridiculous, particularly when we know Cameron does not share genuine antipathy for them (at least, not so much that could not be overcome if he thought he would benefit, as shown by his willingness to attend the debates last time). It doesn't automatically follow that the debates are a good thing of course, but the implied insistence from some corners that they have an undue influence that is wholly wrong, when other campaigning impacts are not, is far more pathetic as I see it than people engaging in hyperbole, which to bookend this paragraph, is entirely standard stuff.
Grubby, petty politics and manufactured debate and spin and soundbites are all a part of the political scene constantly. The only difference with the debates is that more people will probably see it. Those fearing great harm from them, or that the stageshow that it is is some terrible new happening, are engaging in just as much hyperbole it would seem.
Honestly, they are not that big a deal, or shouldn't be, but Cameron has been making them more each time he comes up with some new demand on them. Yes, he'll get by just fine even if personally I think he's missing an opportunity to score some points, if he didn't want to do them, or wanted them in a particular fashion, why didn't he just state it months or years ago so it seemed less like a last minute thought? He can overcome it sure enough, but why cause the issues now when it could have been dealt with long before?
Foulkesy getting all worked up. Was it only weeks ago that we were told use of the word 'dodgy' was actionable?
George Foulkes @GeorgeFoulkes 9h9 hours ago Is @LordAshcroft playing a double game publishing dodgy polls showing SNP ahead to get @scottishlabour really motivated. If so it's working!
Kezia Dugdale's twitter feed is quite telling - wouldn't have a clue she had been on Question Time.
All the big Labour twitter feeds have been really quiet for some reason in the last few days.
Evening all and I do hope Dave sticks to his guns. The debates ruined the 2010 General Election because they became the only game in town. Politicians seeking election should be meeting voters not the same group of London chatterati they surround themselves with all year round.
I will be chairing a candidates debate during the GE so in fairness to all the candidates in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I wont be making any further comments about the constituency until eve of poll. I am aware of at least 4 candidates debates arranged so far in either Danny Alexander's current seat or my home seat. I would expect the traditional eve of poll debate will take place in Dingwall Town Hall involving all the candidates in Charles Kennedy's current seat.
I agree totally, the idea that this could be the afternoon that Cameron lost the election is too pathetic for words.
What next, we put them all in the jungle and see which one is better at getting covered in spiders, or ask them to eat a kangaroo's dick before voting them off?
Some may be using standard political hyperbole to describe the potential consequences, but that doesn't make the idea of the debates themselves ridiculous, particularly when we know Cameron does not share genuine antipathy for them (at least, not so much that could not be overcome if he thought he would benefit, as shown by his willingness to attend the debates last time). It doesn't automatically follow that the debates are a good thing of course, but the implied insistence from some corners that they have an undue influence that is wholly wrong, when other campaigning impacts are not, is far more pathetic as I see it than people engaging in hyperbole, which to bookend this paragraph, is entirely standard stuff.
Comments
themselves under lorries was wrong..as will all the others..what
heartless bstards eh?
By the way no such thing as the Spare Room Subsidy..just as
there was no such thing as a Community Charge
# Just saying
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
You probably do.
I am beginning to think even cowardly Cameron will realize he has fooked up before you do
@faisalislam: Broadcasters united, will go on with debates, say impartiality means have to consider all parties' views... Perhaps not expected by no 10
How do you "consider a party's view" and not give them airtime?
If the thought of Sturgeon going for ed's jugular doesn't chill you, perhaps there was too much sherry in Mrs BJ's birthday trifle.
All in all, it seems less risky to go along and bank on coming out a winner than having no personal impact on how the debates unfold without him, but it does seem right that it looks bad if he pretends he's happy to go along now. As others have said, if he is going to change his tune on that, he should do it sooner rather than later.
If he does get empty chaired I can see it being nothing less than an unmitigated disaster. But the debates have not yet taken place. If he changes his mind and takes part this whole hoo har will be forgotten about.
I suspect it is Fargle that Dave is really frightened of debating with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8TQZBHszI4
Kind of reminds me of some of the posters on here.
If the candidates tear strips from each other then he sits back and looks prime ministerial
If they are dull as hell the candidates look like a bunch of losers
If it's a Tory slagfest it looks biased
The other 6 have to get the balance right, which isn't easy if there are six of them with very different views about the only thing they can agree on is they don't like Cameron.
If both are smart they partake in what you might call civilised hostilities - framing the debate as between the pro-EU Miliband and the anti-EU Farage. In particular it would be clever of Miliband to say something like, 'I disagree with everything Nigel says, but I'm really glad he's here to make his case as it's a debate we need to have. I've admitted the mistakes we made as a party on immigration, but I don't think the answer is leaving the EU and risking jobs, and that's why I'm prepared to stand up and make the case rather than pander and cower like the PM, I'll say one thing for Nigel - even though I think he's completely wrong, at least he has the courage of his convictions, and I'm here to say that if you think the same things as him, vote for him - if you disagree vote Labour, not for a Tory party who won't even debate with him or say what it wants'. Farage effectively does the same, accusing Miliband of talking rubbish but without being overly aggressive as he doesn't mind the framing of the debate that way. I can just see the Farage chuckle now; 'I've never said it before, and I'll never say it again but I agree with Ed on this one', before laying into Cameron, and then of course stating the anti-Labour case about transitional controls, the EU etc.
There's a nightmare scenario for Cameron, which is very possible that a strong argument between Miliband and Farage actually suits both down to the ground, as both are seen to have 'won' by their own sets of prospective supporters. UKIP are a marmite party, and so could provoke very different reactions among different groups.
I don't know what the actual full reasoning is or will be, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard for them to craft a defence which stands up to reasonable scrutiny on that point.
Dave really really really has messed up here.
I am very surprised that a man of your obvious intellect cant see it.
George Foulkes @GeorgeFoulkes 9h9 hours ago
Is @LordAshcroft playing a double game publishing dodgy polls showing SNP ahead to get @scottishlabour really motivated. If so it's working!
fresh new policy to the Indie..he wants to bring back Foxhunting
Yeah cos so many people in marginals votes hinge on that major policy
Mind you foxes do kill chickens so maybe hes not so daft after all
His calculation is probably that the broadcasters will have to give his side of refusing the debates equal billing to those of the other side due to "impartiality" While most of the press who are under no such considerations will write "puff pieces" favourable to him.
Either that or his spin doctors dropped a bollock.
The job of the press is to report news not make it or make it up.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-he-wants-to-repeal-the-fox-hunting-ban-10091571.html
Anyway I digress. Ofcom's rules clearly suggest that the onus is on the TV companies to invite the parties. If the parties invited decline the opportunities that is there own lookout. I suspect if anything the TV companies are a little nervous about defying the Prime Minister and therefore might well offer some sort of alternative olive branch but that's up to them. Its not Ofcom as far as I can see.
I can see hackney going blue.
"The job of the press is to report news not make it or make it up. "
Yes, I see where you are coming from.....but please go back there.
The padding is for your own good.
Grow up,how old are you ?
That blokes sat on it facing the right way..Dave couldnt
manage that without Lynton and Craig to advise him
which was the best way to face
And Rebeccas not there either
That will depend how the others contrast with him. About the only two who might know how to behave are Clegg and Sturgeon since they have sat in office. The rest will rabble rouse or flunk.
*seethe*
Matthew Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ)
06/03/2015 20:15
Interesting that Ukip holding big meeting in Camborne tonight, deep south west. Is just in top 100 most Ukip-friendly seats (98th).
I will be chairing a candidates debate during the GE so in fairness to all the candidates in Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, I wont be making any further comments about the constituency until eve of poll. I am aware of at least 4 candidates debates arranged so far in either Danny Alexander's current seat or my home seat. I would expect the traditional eve of poll debate will take place in Dingwall Town Hall involving all the candidates in Charles Kennedy's current seat.
44,444 seconds
They'd rather watch Ant and Dec or Eastenders than listen to 99.9% of politicians.
How many 'normal' people are actually fazed by any of this?
Lighten up? The press might indeed have been about reporting news, but that was long ago in space and time.
Now they will make stuff up for a headline that suits their narrative.
100k before next PMQs nailed on
https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-take-part-in-the-leaders-tv-debates?utm_source=action_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=255311&alert_id=aMmpRHpcVW_9EVXBrZZnFYhCTplW4dtHOaUG2D+8v+353Lh4eqluP4=
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2980942/Jihadi-John-kidnapped-two-schoolboys-revenge-gang-attack-brother.html
But he was such 'extremely kind, gentle, beautiful young man'...says CAGE...
Some people have bare faced cheek. Not only do they want me to pay for a roof over their head, they want a spare room in case Auntie June wants to visit.
It's possible he doesn't suffer as a result, but the alternative is very much a possibility as well and should he be risking that?
The idea that 3 x 90 minute sessions (or whatever it ends up being, if at all) has too great an impact is also pretty risible, for one because it suggests people think the public will pay apparently no attention to any other types of campaigning (or not enough to make a difference), which is hardly the fault of the debates but that of weaknesses in other campaigning methods if it is even true, and for another because if some minor comment by one of the leaders out on campaign or some silly poster went viral and ended up swaying people from an even more minute position and even less policy grounds (or at least contributed to swaying people more than any such minor event should) I am sure that would be seen as fine, just a part of campaigning, that you run the risk of something small having a significant impact.
But no no, this type of event alone is wrong and a step too far. Because we cannot have both apparently!
Clue because there would be uproar from people who mainly vote Tory
I remain convinced that Syriza will end up splitting. There is simply no way the left wing of the party will accept the deal offered by the IMF/EU/ECB (not because the deal won't be good - it will be - but because it will require labour market reforms and continued privatisation).
On the one hand the self important pomposity of the broadcasters is extremely grating. On the other they are the broadcasters which set so much of the agenda in this country. Pissing them off by risking their ratings seems brave in the Yes Minister sense.
Common sense suggests a compromise by which Cameron does more than 1 debate but they are brought forward to earlier dates. I just fear that both sides have dug themselves into holes.
Just between the two of us can I say that I despise Osborne even more than I do Cameron. I really would not piss in that man's ear of his brain was on fire.
The electorate choose their favourite party (political) pie.
What next, we put them all in the jungle and see which one is better at getting covered in spiders, or ask them to eat a kangaroo's dick before voting them off?
Constituencies where the SNP has out preformed the Area Yes Vote (in percentage points):
Cumbernauld (+0.9%)
Dundee West (+1.7%)
Gordon (+3.4%) **Alex Salmond Standing**
Inverness (+2.9%) Toast
I have heard rumours that a great many members have been close to, or indeed in Jack's ARSE
(sorry jack, I couldn't resist)
Grubby, petty politics and manufactured debate and spin and soundbites are all a part of the political scene constantly. The only difference with the debates is that more people will probably see it. Those fearing great harm from them, or that the stageshow that it is is some terrible new happening, are engaging in just as much hyperbole it would seem.
Honestly, they are not that big a deal, or shouldn't be, but Cameron has been making them more each time he comes up with some new demand on them. Yes, he'll get by just fine even if personally I think he's missing an opportunity to score some points, if he didn't want to do them, or wanted them in a particular fashion, why didn't he just state it months or years ago so it seemed less like a last minute thought? He can overcome it sure enough, but why cause the issues now when it could have been dealt with long before?
All the big Labour twitter feeds have been really quiet for some reason in the last few days.
Why? Jack might be many things, but he is usually witty, and is quite capable of verbally mincing me as a pie ingredient should he so wish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccM4wVgZN9o