How about he does something sensible, like rule out a pact with the SNP. This has been a bad week for Cameron but it may prove to be the fatal week for Ed, the SNP issue is toxic and he knows it.
Cant wait to see the leader of the Green Party explain why rats should have the same rights as humans and that Horse and Dog racing should be banned.Morecambe and Wise were the top entertainers at one time..now we get Political debates..Ed will no doubt been sexed up by Mad Al to answer that one.
@john_zims It was Camerons right, and still is to try and sink the debates.It is the right of all the other parties to show him up as a privileged spoilt ponce
Enough of this nonsense..off to bed Looking forward to more stupid announcements in the morning from Dauntless Ed..very funny lad...and increasingly desperate.
@Big_G_NorthWales A view held by the broadcasters, the other parties, many on his own side, and a large majority of the electorate.
It doesnt appear in the top ten news items on the BBC but the toxic mix of labour and the SNP being called out by David Cameron does. This is a mega issue and dwarfs anything about debates
So all that Cameron is frit and....the general public go, oh look The Big Painting Challenge is on the telly, that will be more exciting than this nonsense.
@saddened Writing an act enabling the televised debates, and setting clear parameters of what, where, when. and who. would have avoided all this unseemly spectacle of Dave looking like a cowardly moron. You would have thought he might have foreseen this in his tenure? (OK, we all know Dave and his spin doctors did, but we can ignore facts and pretend otherwise)
@saddened Writing an act enabling the televised debates, and setting clear parameters of what, where, when. and who. would have avoided all this unseemly spectacle of Dave looking like a cowardly moron. You would have thought he might have foreseen this in his tenure? (OK, we all know Dave and his spin doctors did, but we can ignore facts and pretend otherwise)
@compouter2 Good for democracy, but not so good for Dave's chances of re-election. And it isn't going to take people that long to make the connection (except in some corners of the internet)
Not having a debate does not constitute a national emergency. We will all be able to read the manifestos and look at past records. That is what will decide the election..not a 90 minute TV show..will it be on ice and will they have to eat bugs,bake a cake..or summat exciting.
Also mentioned on that front page, Steve Hilton is back too...Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing for the Tories. He did the Joe Rogan podcast last year and he was very very interesting, but totally unsuited to politics.
Break them on the wheel or failing that tie them onto the wheel they used on remote control (the game show presented by Tony Wilson) and spin them around while everyone else is answering the questions.
'And picking off issues doesn't amount to an ideology. You see this most clearly with banks: any political party, and surely Labour above all, needs some idea about how they want to reform finance. Ed's suggestion is the frankly limp one that we need more banks.
Tactics, rather than strategy. Demands, rather than ideology. Miliband has proved he would be great fighting inequality, or arguing over biofuels. I'm not so sure how he'd tackle an election, let alone the demands of Downing Street.'
Just what we need more bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake.
It's simple really. Task Ofcom and the Electoral Commission to devise guidelines and criteria under which debates will take place. Let them then go forward
Miliband cannot force TV stations to hold debates, he cannot force politicians to attend the debates and he cannot force us to watch his latest piece of statism. As for the statutory body to over see it. The last thing we need is another quango stuffed full of Labour stooges who will stick their heads in the sand at the first hint of any controversy.
It actually does make a difference since there;s a difference in being in a currency union ( you own someone lses problems ) and being in your own. The bariiers are getting other people to agree that they want a Union with you. The only deliverable option is own currency which the SNP rejected.
On trading blocs while the UK has been pragmatic as ever on trade, it is also part of a trading bloc the EU. The Nat assumption that they would just gain all the rights accrued to date doesn't stack up, UK opt outs would not apply to and Indy Scotland. Likewise agreements of fishing, financial services etc. would not apply to Scotland. So while trade will continue, it will not continue under the same condition and to the detriment of Scots
So to put that in context Scotland's terms of trade with its partners will worsen.
So again how do you pay your bills ?
You can tell me when I get back from the pub,off out have a good evening.
Again, when caught out your default position is to lie, lie and exaggerate.
You can argue all you want about the EU position because the UK government REFUSED to ask for it. It is entirely speculative and with 18 months to work out the position, would not have been even remotely unachievable.
Then you start the lies. The fishing grounds ARE SCOTTISH. It is not that Scotland needs to access EU fishing grounds it is that several EU economies are significantly reliant on being able to access Scottish Waters (around 30% of ALL EU Fish Stocks)
It all ties back to the Little Englander mindset. England is important, everywhere else isn't. England matters, nowhere else does. England's economy makes a difference to the world, none of our partners benefit us.
It's no wonder UKIP has such a hold in a country with these sorts of insular, xenophobic attitudes.
Oh dear was hoping for better than that. You know like some arguments instead of a rant.
@saddened Writing an act enabling the televised debates, and setting clear parameters of what, where, when. and who. would have avoided all this unseemly spectacle of Dave looking like a cowardly moron. You would have thought he might have foreseen this in his tenure? (OK, we all know Dave and his spin doctors did, but we can ignore facts and pretend otherwise)
How are you going to force people to participate?
Or force the participants to actually answer the questions put to them?
Comments
How about he does something sensible, like rule out a pact with the SNP. This has been a bad week for Cameron but it may prove to be the fatal week for Ed, the SNP issue is toxic and he knows it.
/ @Widerife81 @tobyhelm The best time of EdM's life was when he "led" a rent strike at Corpus Christie, remember?
Rule out a pact with duly elected representatives of their constituents because England has decided they don't like the FTP system?
'Labour leader pledges to enshrine voters’ rights as he attacks ‘tawdry spectacle’ of prime minister avoiding discussion'
At least Labour no longer has a blank piece of paper, just what voters had been waiting for, nailed on Labour surge.
It was Camerons right, and still is to try and sink the debates.It is the right of all the other parties to show him up as a privileged spoilt ponce
I thought for 5 minutes this might actually be it.
Wrong again.
And boy is he delivering.
A view held by the broadcasters, the other parties, many on his own side, and a large majority of the electorate.
You have to appear with Ed twice?
How many Labour MPs would fall foul of that law..
'Lesser yellow bellied bald tit surely?'
Neil Kinnock?
Con 34 Lab 33 LD 8 UKIP 15 Greens 5%
Next up: Miliband wants to pass a law forcing his MPs to put his picture on their election leaflets.
People support the idea of leaders debates by 69% to 19% and by 57% to 8% think they are good for democracy
The 7-7-2 format of leaders debates is supported by 45% of people
The idea of just a straight debate between Cameron and Miliband is supported by 42% of people, opposed by 42% of people
If David Cameron doesn't agree to take part in the TV debates 55% think they should go ahead without him
50% of people think that Cameron is scared of debating the other party leaders, 32% that he isn't
Writing an act enabling the televised debates, and setting clear parameters of what, where, when. and who. would have avoided all this unseemly spectacle of Dave looking like a cowardly moron.
You would have thought he might have foreseen this in his tenure?
(OK, we all know Dave and his spin doctors did, but we can ignore facts and pretend otherwise)
'Still waiting for Ed to call for one in relation to Mirror's hacking activities'
Yes, especially after all that stand up to vested interests crap.
Chickens coming home to roost
Osborne prepares tax giveaway in budget with aim to put money in voters' pockets before the election
and
Tony Blair's bid for £30m contract to advise UAE, while working as middle east envoy. See the leaked document online
So this is what the Poultry PM playing a blinder looks like?
Victory for Dave?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_hoqeyW8AEgXNb.png
Good for democracy, but not so good for Dave's chances of re-election.
And it isn't going to take people that long to make the connection (except in some corners of the internet)
Will this be before or after the official election campaign?
Also mentioned on that front page, Steve Hilton is back too...Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing for the Tories. He did the Joe Rogan podcast last year and he was very very interesting, but totally unsuited to politics.
· 2m 2 minutes ago
Oh, Ed.
lol
And the best bit is, this probably is actually the high spot of the campaign for hapless ed. It must be bloody embarrassing, being a leftie.
And another Tory lead.
If Osborne delivers the right budget, we'll soon see clear blue water.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kCdjvTTnzDU
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/16/ed-miliband-middle-class-activist
'And picking off issues doesn't amount to an ideology. You see this most clearly with banks: any political party, and surely Labour above all, needs some idea about how they want to reform finance. Ed's suggestion is the frankly limp one that we need more banks.
Tactics, rather than strategy. Demands, rather than ideology. Miliband has proved he would be great fighting inequality, or arguing over biofuels. I'm not so sure how he'd tackle an election, let alone the demands of Downing Street.'
It's simple really. Task Ofcom and the Electoral Commission to devise guidelines and criteria under which debates will take place. Let them then go forward
Miliband cannot force TV stations to hold debates, he cannot force politicians to attend the debates and he cannot force us to watch his latest piece of statism. As for the statutory body to over see it. The last thing we need is another quango stuffed full of Labour stooges who will stick their heads in the sand at the first hint of any controversy.
Laws on TV debates - what a James Hunt of an idea.
Still how will you pay thye bills ?