Former TV news executive David Elstein said the game David Cameron and broadcasters were playing was "somewhere between tennis and chess". He said: "Even as the broadcasters put out their fairly defiant statement, Sky and Channel 4 completely undercut it, by saying they were willing to move the head-to-head with Ed Miliband anywhere from 30 April right through to next week, that puts the ball back in David Cameron's court because what he has insisted is he is not going to do anything after 30 March. "My guess is the way it will play out is this. The Conservatives will now try and unwrap the broadcasting cabal by going direct to ITV - who are scheduled to do the first seven-way debate on 2 April - and say look 'I'm willing to do it before 30 March you're trying to do it on 2 April why don't we compromise?' And given that the chairman of ITV happens to be a former chairman of the Conservative party you would have thought that was a conversation that might go reasonably well."
Cameron is playing a game, and the broadcasters are already beginning to blink, once itv compromise, and then the date of the head to head is brought forward with Sky, Cameron will not only have seen to have won the argument, He will then have time after the debates for the tory machine to unleash all hells fury on miliband, with little opportunity for Ed to directly respond
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Former TV news executive David Elstein said the game David Cameron and broadcasters were playing was "somewhere between tennis and chess". He said: "Even as the broadcasters put out their fairly defiant statement, Sky and Channel 4 completely undercut it, by saying they were willing to move the head-to-head with Ed Miliband anywhere from 30 April right through to next week, that puts the ball back in David Cameron's court because what he has insisted is he is not going to do anything after 30 March. "My guess is the way it will play out is this. The Conservatives will now try and unwrap the broadcasting cabal by going direct to ITV - who are scheduled to do the first seven-way debate on 2 April - and say look 'I'm willing to do it before 30 March you're trying to do it on 2 April why don't we compromise?' And given that the chairman of ITV happens to be a former chairman of the Conservative party you would have thought that was a conversation that might go reasonably well."
Cameron is playing a game, and the broadcasters are already beginning to blink, once itv compromise, and then the date of the head to head is brought forward with Sky, Cameron will not only have seen to have won the argument, He will then have time after the debates for the tory machine to unleash all hells fury on miliband, with little opportunity for Ed to directly respond
But what happens to the BBC's sevensome?
i would have thought if itv and sky are willing to bend then the bbc will follow too
From Tom Newton Tory much earlier today "I hear ITV contemplating going unilateral and hosting a 7 way debate as per No10 offer, as they have 1st one. Would send BBC/Sky apoplectic."....then the joint media statement. Even the Tory spin machine seems to be faltering.
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
It is remarkable that it is Hillary's erstwhile allies who are at the forefront of holding her feet to the fire on the emails issue. Here is a piece from Ruth Marcus at the Post, a very Dem-friendly journalist in a Dem-leaning paper, asking Hillary 13 questions that need to be answered re the emails. The last is a real humdinger.
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Correct. A lot of people seem to be re-fighting previous elections. If the SNP do what it looks like they are going to do then the Tories probably get most seats on equal vote shares. That doesn't mean DC stays as PM, of course.
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Correct. A lot of people seem to be re-fighting previous elections. If the SNP do what it looks like they are going to do then the Tories probably get most seats on equal vote shares. That doesn't mean DC stays as PM, of course.
Dave's problem is that he may well be a big Billy no mates after the GE whereas Ed will look like a very attractive doormat to the other parties !
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Correct. A lot of people seem to be re-fighting previous elections. If the SNP do what it looks like they are going to do then the Tories probably get most seats on equal vote shares. That doesn't mean DC stays as PM, of course.
Dave's problem is that he may well be a big Billy no mates after the GE whereas Ed will look like a very attractive doormat to the other parties !
I wonder if there is a Goldilocks zone (290-295ish) where DC can stay on as Tory leader for a while and reclaim the Premiership 6-12 months later? Doubtful.
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Correct. A lot of people seem to be re-fighting previous elections. If the SNP do what it looks like they are going to do then the Tories probably get most seats on equal vote shares. That doesn't mean DC stays as PM, of course.
Dave's problem is that he may well be a big Billy no mates after the GE whereas Ed will look like a very attractive doormat to the other parties !
Basically.
Put another way; If the country doesn't vote for a right wing government, they won't get one.
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Correct. A lot of people seem to be re-fighting previous elections. If the SNP do what it looks like they are going to do then the Tories probably get most seats on equal vote shares. That doesn't mean DC stays as PM, of course.
Dave's problem is that he may well be a big Billy no mates after the GE whereas Ed will look like a very attractive doormat to the other parties !
I wonder if there is a Goldilocks zone (290-295ish) where DC can stay on as Tory leader for a while and reclaim the Premiership 6-12 months later? Doubtful.
At 295 he may be able to cobble together a deal.
But at 290 if Ed can form some sort of Nat Gov't then Dave will be out on his ear. The Conservative party does not take kindly to electoral failure.
@Pong "Put another way; If the country doesn't vote for a right wing government, they won't get one."
In an ideal world, the "Cons." need to woo the oldies, not piss off the "middlies" , and disenfranchise the young as much as possible. But that would need a cunning strategy of course.
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Correct. A lot of people seem to be re-fighting previous elections. If the SNP do what it looks like they are going to do then the Tories probably get most seats on equal vote shares. That doesn't mean DC stays as PM, of course.
Dave's problem is that he may well be a big Billy no mates after the GE whereas Ed will look like a very attractive doormat to the other parties !
Basically.
Put another way; If the country doesn't vote for a right wing government, they won't get one.
Lib Dems sound well up for another term of coalition judging by their recent outings tbh.
It is remarkable that it is Hillary's erstwhile allies who are at the forefront of holding her feet to the fire on the emails issue. Here is a piece from Ruth Marcus at the Post, a very Dem-friendly journalist in a Dem-leaning paper, asking Hillary 13 questions that need to be answered re the emails. The last is a real humdinger.
Yes, the Democratic left are starting to get cold feet about Hillary. The Clintons have always had a reputation for sailing close to the wind on legality and their actions passing the smell test of rectitude.
The long series of scandals, from Whitewater to billing records at the Rose law firm, to accepting foreign government contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was at State, to Benghazi, to the almost unbelievable establishment of a server in her own home to avoid using the State email system when she was running the department - and let's not forget Bill splashing out on that dress of Monica's, and then saying it depends on what you think the meaning of the word IS is - it looks like early onset Clinton fatigue in the Democratic Party is with us already.
Ouch!! I missed this story from politico.com from earlier in the day. This is not getting any better for Hillary. Again, the source of the story is not a rabid Republican attack dog, but a left-of-centre political news and analysis flagship:
Ouch!! I missed this story from politico.com from earlier in the day. This is not getting any better for Hillary. Again, the source of the story is not a rabid Republican attack dog, but a left-of-centre political news and analysis flagship:
It was the NY Times - a liberal bastion if ever there was one - that broke the story. It was Gowdy's Benghazi committee that originally found out last August about the email server and the email address she was using - HDR22@emailclinton.com. There were other addresses too, HDR 18 thru 21, and there is conjecture that they were for aides.
The bad news for Hillary is that this is not just a Fox News story. All the network news programs are reporting this, and it is getting good press coverage.
The last couple of Clinton scandals - the email server and the foreign government bungs to the Clinton Foundation while she was SOS - have seen her under under attack by Democrats.
Ouch!! I missed this story from politico.com from earlier in the day. This is not getting any better for Hillary. Again, the source of the story is not a rabid Republican attack dog, but a left-of-centre political news and analysis flagship:
It was the NY Times - a liberal bastion if ever there was one - that broke the story. It was Gowdy's Benghazi committee that originally found out last August about the email server and the email address she was using - HDR22@emailclinton.com. There were other addresses too, HDR 18 thru 21, and there is conjecture that they were for aides.
The bad news for Hillary is that this is not just a Fox News story. All the network news programs are reporting this, and it is getting good press coverage.
Actually, I think she is the 21st clone of Hilary.....
It is remarkable that it is Hillary's erstwhile allies who are at the forefront of holding her feet to the fire on the emails issue. Here is a piece from Ruth Marcus at the Post, a very Dem-friendly journalist in a Dem-leaning paper, asking Hillary 13 questions that need to be answered re the emails. The last is a real humdinger.
Yes, the Democratic left are starting to get cold feet about Hillary. The Clintons have always had a reputation for sailing close to the wind on legality and their actions passing the smell test of rectitude.
The long series of scandals, from Whitewater to billing records at the Rose law firm, to accepting foreign government contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was at State, to Benghazi, to the almost unbelievable establishment of a server in her own home to avoid using the State email system when she was running the department - and let's not forget Bill splashing out on that dress of Monica's, and then saying it depends on what you think the meaning of the word IS is - it looks like early onset Clinton fatigue in the Democratic Party is with us already.
The other notable thing about this is how slow and dozy the damage-limitation was. Hillary isn't very good at politics, and doesn't seem to have a particularly good team.
OTOH it'll take something much bigger than this to make a challenge from the left viable. The basic problem is that Obama could only just beat her with a coalition of young+left-wing+black, and whoever tries to repeat the trick won't be able to count on black.
Ouch!! I missed this story from politico.com from earlier in the day. This is not getting any better for Hillary. Again, the source of the story is not a rabid Republican attack dog, but a left-of-centre political news and analysis flagship:
It was the NY Times - a liberal bastion if ever there was one - that broke the story. It was Gowdy's Benghazi committee that originally found out last August about the email server and the email address she was using - HDR22@emailclinton.com. There were other addresses too, HDR 18 thru 21, and there is conjecture that they were for aides.
The bad news for Hillary is that this is not just a Fox News story. All the network news programs are reporting this, and it is getting good press coverage.
Actually, I think she is the 21st clone of Hilary.(sic)....
So there are 5 clones of Hillary operating at the same time?? Bill must be having a great time in the sack!! You know what they say - between two it's great, but between six it's incredible :-)
It is remarkable that it is Hillary's erstwhile allies who are at the forefront of holding her feet to the fire on the emails issue. Here is a piece from Ruth Marcus at the Post, a very Dem-friendly journalist in a Dem-leaning paper, asking Hillary 13 questions that need to be answered re the emails. The last is a real humdinger.
Yes, the Democratic left are starting to get cold feet about Hillary. The Clintons have always had a reputation for sailing close to the wind on legality and their actions passing the smell test of rectitude.
The long series of scandals, from Whitewater to billing records at the Rose law firm, to accepting foreign government contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was at State, to Benghazi, to the almost unbelievable establishment of a server in her own home to avoid using the State email system when she was running the department - and let's not forget Bill splashing out on that dress of Monica's, and then saying it depends on what you think the meaning of the word IS is - it looks like early onset Clinton fatigue in the Democratic Party is with us already.
The other notable thing about this is how slow and dozy the damage-limitation was. Hillary isn't very good at politics, and doesn't seem to have a particularly good team.
OTOH it'll take something much bigger than this to make a challenge from the left viable. The basic problem is that Obama could only just beat her with a coalition of young+left-wing+black, and whoever tries to repeat the trick won't be able to count on black.
This couldn't have come at a worse time for her. She has not announced, and the campaign team is not yet up and running as a result.
There is something of a feeling of Clinton entitlement and presumed inevitability about this campaign. She does seem to have feet of clay and she is not a good speech maker.
There is a rumor that the reason she wears such thick spectacle lenses is that she rubs viagra into her eyes to make her look hard. :-)
The charity with no shame: Founded to promote peace, a wealthy Rowntree trust now funds Muslim fanatics, former Irish terrorists and anti-Semitics. How CAN it justify its charitable status?
The charity with no shame: Founded to promote peace, a wealthy Rowntree trust now funds Muslim fanatics, former Irish terrorists and anti-Semitics. How CAN it justify its charitable status?
Regarding the Clinton email scandal, it's intriguing that the Republicans - very wisely - are keeping very quiet about this. The liberal press and lefties in the Democratic party are going after her. The voices defending her are calling this a 'manufactured scandal', which is weak at best.
The charity with no shame: Founded to promote peace, a wealthy Rowntree trust now funds Muslim fanatics, former Irish terrorists and anti-Semitics. How CAN it justify its charitable status?
The charity with no shame: Founded to promote peace, a wealthy Rowntree trust now funds Muslim fanatics, former Irish terrorists and anti-Semitics. How CAN it justify its charitable status?
It is remarkable that it is Hillary's erstwhile allies who are at the forefront of holding her feet to the fire on the emails issue. Here is a piece from Ruth Marcus at the Post, a very Dem-friendly journalist in a Dem-leaning paper, asking Hillary 13 questions that need to be answered re the emails. The last is a real humdinger.
Yes, the Democratic left are starting to get cold feet about Hillary. The Clintons have always had a reputation for sailing close to the wind on legality and their actions passing the smell test of rectitude.
The long series of scandals, from Whitewater to billing records at the Rose law firm, to accepting foreign government contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was at State, to Benghazi, to the almost unbelievable establishment of a server in her own home to avoid using the State email system when she was running the department - and let's not forget Bill splashing out on that dress of Monica's, and then saying it depends on what you think the meaning of the word IS is - it looks like early onset Clinton fatigue in the Democratic Party is with us already.
The other notable thing about this is how slow and dozy the damage-limitation was. Hillary isn't very good at politics, and doesn't seem to have a particularly good team.
OTOH it'll take something much bigger than this to make a challenge from the left viable. The basic problem is that Obama could only just beat her with a coalition of young+left-wing+black, and whoever tries to repeat the trick won't be able to count on black.
This couldn't have come at a worse time for her. She has not announced, and the campaign team is not yet up and running as a result.
There is something of a feeling of Clinton entitlement and presumed inevitability about this campaign. She does seem to have feet of clay and she is not a good speech maker.
There is a rumor that the reason she wears such thick spectacle lenses is that she rubs viagra into her eyes to make her look hard. :-)
LOL at the viagra. It is the feet of clay that is incredible, but not just from her, but also the White House. While I can see delaying lancing the boil until the mid-terms were over, i.e. delaying 2-3 months, why then wait until someone else broke the story?! They had 4 months to get it out there after the mid-terms.
This story is now a lot more than just why she used a private email server and address for all her official work and her decision-making at the time, but it's now because of this awfully shoddy response becoming about her ability to lead and respond to crises as they arise, i.e. her ability to be presidential.
Regarding the Clinton email scandal, it's intriguing that the Republicans - very wisely - are keeping very quiet about this. The liberal press and lefties in the Democratic party are going after her. The voices defending her are calling this a 'manufactured scandal', which is weak at best.
David Brock is particularly hilarious in his denial that Hillary broke any regulations. Even when read the 2009 version of the State Dept regs verbatim, which require that copies of all emails about official business sent from private accounts be stored in official archives, he denied that Hillary had broken any of the rules.
Regarding the Clinton email scandal, it's intriguing that the Republicans - very wisely - are keeping very quiet about this. The liberal press and lefties in the Democratic party are going after her. The voices defending her are calling this a 'manufactured scandal', which is weak at best.
David Brock is particularly hilarious in his denial that Hillary broke any regulations. Even when read the 2009 version of the State Dept regs verbatim, which require that copies of all emails about official business sent from private accounts be stored in official archives, he denied that Hillary had broken any of the rules.
Brock is the guy behind Media Matters, which seems to exist - and it is a 501 c3 - merely to gainsay Fox News. That interview on Morning Joe is hilarious.
They purport to be neutral, but are very left wing, as I'm sure you know.
I particularly liked "Right Wing media blame liberals for lack of circus elephants"
I'm sorry but any so called news network that gives Al Sharpton a daily one hour show to spew his left wing and racist bile is not entitled to be called a news network.
Their plunging ratings would appear to prove that. Fox News is outdrawing them in the evening by 3 and 5 to 1.
"The differences at this election are the widest they've been for a generation, but at the same time this election is set to be the closest for a generation,"
The differences between Labour & Con have been essentially trivial since 1997 - despite the hype on either side - but this is the closest election since the mid-70s.
And no mention of ruling out a deal with the SNP......
As someone who has only just started re-engaging with UK politics can someone somewhere tell me why the Tories are overwhelming favourites for most seats on Betfair? Perhaps Osborne is going to unmask Miliband as Jimmy Saville's lovechild on budget day.
Irrational exuberance, Tyson.
Perhaps they do deserve favouritism given Scotland though ?
Comments
'Is that £200k a year Justine? We're all in it together!'
Yes, she's going to tell us how they struggle to stay in their £2 million mansion and make sacrifices to keep up the £400,000 mortgage payments.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/06/thirteen_or_so_questions_for_hillary_clinton_125848.html
Put another way; If the country doesn't vote for a right wing government, they won't get one.
But at 290 if Ed can form some sort of Nat Gov't then Dave will be out on his ear. The Conservative party does not take kindly to electoral failure.
"Put another way; If the country doesn't vote for a right wing government, they won't get one."
In an ideal world, the "Cons." need to woo the oldies, not piss off the "middlies" , and disenfranchise the young as much as possible.
But that would need a cunning strategy of course.
The long series of scandals, from Whitewater to billing records at the Rose law firm, to accepting foreign government contributions to the Clinton foundation while she was at State, to Benghazi, to the almost unbelievable establishment of a server in her own home to avoid using the State email system when she was running the department - and let's not forget Bill splashing out on that dress of Monica's, and then saying it depends on what you think the meaning of the word IS is - it looks like early onset Clinton fatigue in the Democratic Party is with us already.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/hillary-clinton-emails-delays-115824.html?hp=t1_r
The bad news for Hillary is that this is not just a Fox News story. All the network news programs are reporting this, and it is getting good press coverage.
The last couple of Clinton scandals - the email server and the foreign government bungs to the Clinton Foundation while she was SOS - have seen her under under attack by Democrats.
OTOH it'll take something much bigger than this to make a challenge from the left viable. The basic problem is that Obama could only just beat her with a coalition of young+left-wing+black, and whoever tries to repeat the trick won't be able to count on black.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/312918-alex-salmond-scotland-will-call-the-tune-after-general-election/
There is something of a feeling of Clinton entitlement and presumed inevitability about this campaign. She does seem to have feet of clay and she is not a good speech maker.
There is a rumor that the reason she wears such thick spectacle lenses is that she rubs viagra into her eyes to make her look hard. :-)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2983488/Founded-promote-peace-wealthy-Rowntree-trust-funds-fanatics.html
I wonder what old Quaker Joesph would think of all this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fry's_Turkish_Delight
Found this on Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n4v0Bd63Y4
This story is now a lot more than just why she used a private email server and address for all her official work and her decision-making at the time, but it's now because of this awfully shoddy response becoming about her ability to lead and respond to crises as they arise, i.e. her ability to be presidential.
They purport to be neutral, but are very left wing, as I'm sure you know.
http://mediamatters.org/
I particularly liked "Right Wing media blame liberals for lack of circus elephants"
I'm sorry but any so called news network that gives Al Sharpton a daily one hour show to spew his left wing and racist bile is not entitled to be called a news network.
Their plunging ratings would appear to prove that. Fox News is outdrawing them in the evening by 3 and 5 to 1.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-31764576
The differences between Labour & Con have been essentially trivial since 1997 - despite the hype on either side - but this is the closest election since the mid-70s.
And no mention of ruling out a deal with the SNP......
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/07/ed-miliband-stark-warning-scotland-tories-snp
Yeah.....right.....