@bbcnickrobinson: So, you wanted a big election choice? You've got one on Europe which is why Blair backed Ed Miliband today. My blog http://t.co/ipLK8WxXAR
I dare say Natalie Bennett is pleased to let Lucas have a go after another radio car crash, it would be unfortunate to have two days with multiple PR disasters. Seems the sisterhood is a little less than fulsome in its praise today https://twitter.com/bindelj/status/585353054804914177
How on earth does Tim Stanley get on the panel? While his Telegraph columns are essential reading, they are also becoming increasingly absurd.
He is helping the kippers develop their persecution complex with the BBC by taking the spot on the panel they would expect to get one of their members in.
@bbcnickrobinson: So, you wanted a big election choice? You've got one on Europe which is why Blair backed Ed Miliband today. My blog http://t.co/ipLK8WxXAR
The worst possible battlefield for Labour is Europe. And that's what Blair wants, make these elections like the euro-elections and see Labour lose.
It would still be possible to force on Israel a two state solution. I expect this would be unacceptable to the fast growing Orthodox extremists and the inevitable fate of the Palestinian people will be an acceleration of the current policy of ethnic cleansing. Of course if this receives as much media attention as is currently devoted to Palestinian suffering I expect most will never be aware it happened, not unlike the attack on the USS Liberty.
Not counting in Northumberland until Friday at 9:00. Pathetic. At least the LibDems will be able to hold onto Berwick for a few extra hours.
And Warwick not until 10am Friday it would seem. I thought the law had been changed to require immediate overnight counting unless there was a very good reason not to.
I can see that St. Ives might get a pass, as the seat includes the Scilly Isles and presumably they can't the ballot boxes over until the next day, but if the Western Isles can do an overnight count, I'm not sure I buy even that.
On behalf of The Jewish Chronicle, Survation conducted a poll by telephone of the Jewish community in Britain, on their voting intentions, views about the upcoming general election and their attitudes to party leaders, policies and their effect on voting intention. Full data tables are available here.
Fieldwork: Thursday April 2nd and Tuesday April 7th in consideration of Pesach. -------- For the non-jew: The Jewish Chronicle is about as relevant to the remaining British Jews as is Warcry to British Christians.
The Jewish Board of Guardians - a non elected pompous body - are all deeply conservative, and probably had a hand a hand in this. If you want to see a poll as political fluff; this is it.
Putting this as mildly and politely as I can... (speaking as a pro-EUer) the last person in the world I'd want to have making any kind of pro-EU case in public is Tony Blair.
Not counting in Northumberland until Friday at 9:00. Pathetic. At least the LibDems will be able to hold onto Berwick for a few extra hours.
And Warwick not until 10am Friday it would seem. I thought the law had been changed to require immediate overnight counting unless there was a very good reason not to.
I can see that St. Ives might get a pass, as the seat includes the Scilly Isles and presumably they can't the ballot boxes over until the next day, but if the Western Isles can do an overnight count, I'm not sure I buy even that.
(oh and :delurk:)
Nice first post rpjs. I have no idea of the legal situation but it seems poor form for a constituency not to count on election night.
The party’s foot-soldiers are instructed to appear “level-headed”, to not stand too close to people’s front doors and to express their admiration for voters’ homes.
'I love your gas barbecue and patio heaters! Wow, you've got Air Con too. Would you consider voting for the Greens?' Being told to 'blend in' with the public makes them sound like invaders from another planet. Hmm.. I doubt they will get David Vincent's vote.
Not counting in Northumberland until Friday at 9:00. Pathetic. At least the LibDems will be able to hold onto Berwick for a few extra hours.
And Warwick not until 10am Friday it would seem. I thought the law had been changed to require immediate overnight counting unless there was a very good reason not to.
I can see that St. Ives might get a pass, as the seat includes the Scilly Isles and presumably they can't the ballot boxes over until the next day, but if the Western Isles can do an overnight count, I'm not sure I buy even that.
(oh and :delurk:)
Welcome to PB, and I feel strongly about overnight counting. I wasn't aware that the law had been changed though?
On behalf of The Jewish Chronicle, Survation conducted a poll by telephone of the Jewish community in Britain, on their voting intentions, views about the upcoming general election and their attitudes to party leaders, policies and their effect on voting intention. Full data tables are available here.
Fieldwork: Thursday April 2nd and Tuesday April 7th in consideration of Pesach. -------- For the non-jew: The Jewish Chronicle is about as relevant to the remaining British Jews as is Warcry to British Christians.
The Jewish Board of Guardians - a non elected pompous body - are all deeply conservative, and probably had a hand a hand in this. If you want to see a poll as political fluff; this is it.
How does one do a telephone poll of the Jewish community? Presumably by using an existing database of Jewish subscribers. Who would have such a database?
» show previous quotes I know SNP wallas don't do detail but a point of fact is that John Thurso isn't a "Mr".
On your more substantive point I have this odd thought that had Viscount Thurso not been undertaking a robust campaign you'd be indicating he'd given up.
Clearly as a matter of consistency you'll also be of the opinion that the extensive SNP leafleting campaign in many seats is also a sign of "desperation" ??
On behalf of The Jewish Chronicle, Survation conducted a poll by telephone of the Jewish community in Britain, on their voting intentions, views about the upcoming general election and their attitudes to party leaders, policies and their effect on voting intention. Full data tables are available here.
Fieldwork: Thursday April 2nd and Tuesday April 7th in consideration of Pesach. -------- For the non-jew: The Jewish Chronicle is about as relevant to the remaining British Jews as is Warcry to British Christians.
The Jewish Board of Guardians - a non elected pompous body - are all deeply conservative, and probably had a hand a hand in this. If you want to see a poll as political fluff; this is it.
Apparently, Jews lie if called by the Jewish Chronicle... If it'd been done by YouGov it would have shown 103% of Jews voting for UKIP
How can the BBC get away with Question Time during purdah. Are they going to list the candidates for the seats each of these is fighting for?
Even if they are going to claim that they will be speaking generally and not mention their constituency, they're giving out the twitter @Douglas4Paisley which is clearly a constituency message,
@iainmartin1: In Scotland BBC have surveyed voters. They want big increases in public spending, no cuts, higher pay. All paid for with magic money tree.
Similar results would be found in England, IMO.
That would not suit Scott's hatred of all things Scottish though. Bitter and twisted that there are more Panda's than Tories , he wails and gnashes his teeth on here all the time like a broken record.
I disagree with this wholeheartedly. If we consider the routine extermination of Christians in Iraq and Syria by IS, and other persecution of Christians across the middle east I cannot think that the Jews would be allowed to exist elsewhere.
"Yet idiots people only mention the rights of the Palestinians to return to their ancestral homelands ... "
Enough of your right wing drivel
If they hadn't behaved as badly as they did towards the Palestinians they wouldn't now be in this position. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has been a disgrace. Consider this. I who have never visited Israel can live there. A Palestinian born there and kicked out of their home to accommodate the likes of me can't even visit.
Let me rephrase that: "If the Arabs had not behaved as badly as they did towards the Jews they wouldn't now be in this position. The Arab treatment of the Jews has been a disgrace."
And continue to ~3000 BC ...
If it had not been for the formation of the Jewish state, there would be no Jews in the entire Middle East, their ancestral homelands.
I'm not defending everything Israel does - far from. They're their own worst enemy at times. But the idea that the Palestinian states and surrounding governments are morally better is laughable.
I am not sure that is quite correct. I understand the main reason Jews were kicked out of other Middle Eastern nations was because of anger over Israel. If Israel was not formed, plenty of Jews would be living in other Middle Eastern nations.
I do agree with the idea that other Arab states are no more moral than Israel. But I do not think that is the question. The question is whether Israel is behaving in unacceptable ways that delegitimise it as a democratic power. The permanent occupation over another people, and the slow annexation of their land, suggests it is. And I say this as a great admirer of the Jews.
» show previous quotes I know SNP wallas don't do detail but a point of fact is that John Thurso isn't a "Mr".
On your more substantive point I have this odd thought that had Viscount Thurso not been undertaking a robust campaign you'd be indicating he'd given up.
Clearly as a matter of consistency you'll also be of the opinion that the extensive SNP leafleting campaign in many seats is also a sign of "desperation" ??
Is Thurso a lady then
I think it's possible that Viscount Thurso will be the only remaining LibDem MP in Scotland - he's certainly the only one with a genuinely significant personal vote.
How can the BBC get away with Question Time during purdah. Are they going to list the candidates for the seats each of these is fighting for?
Even if they are going to claim that they will be speaking generally and not mention their constituency, they're giving out the twitter @Douglas4Paisley which is clearly a constituency message,
I'd assumed Douglas Paisley the Fourth was one of the Rev Ian Paisley's children
UK: To me, the saddest thing about the debate was there was no reference – none, nada, zilch – to foreign policy; I predict that ten years from now we will see Cameron’s contribution to political life as having been the ‘shrinking of Britain’ – which is happening day-by-day, with no complaints from anyone.
A country doesn't shrink or grow via foreign policy (unless in a WW1 scenario). It shrinks or grows due to economic policy. Fleets of aircraft carriers and the like are merely an outward expression of inner wealth.
Luckily we have a carrier just lacking the aircraft , are half innerly wealthy
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
» show previous quotes I know SNP wallas don't do detail but a point of fact is that John Thurso isn't a "Mr".
On your more substantive point I have this odd thought that had Viscount Thurso not been undertaking a robust campaign you'd be indicating he'd given up.
Clearly as a matter of consistency you'll also be of the opinion that the extensive SNP leafleting campaign in many seats is also a sign of "desperation" ??
Is Thurso a lady then
I think it's possible that Viscount Thurso will be the only remaining LibDem MP in Scotland - he's certainly the only one with a genuinely significant personal vote.
Hopefully the rotters will be extinct as they deserve.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Labour messed up GP contracts - that's why many don't work out of hours.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
How can the BBC get away with Question Time during purdah. Are they going to list the candidates for the seats each of these is fighting for?
Even if they are going to claim that they will be speaking generally and not mention their constituency, they're giving out the twitter @Douglas4Paisley which is clearly a constituency message,
I'd assumed Douglas Paisley the Fourth was one of the Rev Ian Paisley's children
He is certainly a minister's (reverend's) child, another son of the manse with an unerring moral compass.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
They need the same as Carmichael did to the mole in his department
The Jewish Chronicle poll is interesting. The sample plans to vote 57-18-7 Conservative-Labour-Other, versus a self-reported 51-17-9 last time. The Conservatives are benefitting from a massive share of the 2010 "Did Not Vote" respondents, while 2010 Labour lose a lot to "Undecided". Also interesting: 45 per cent of the sample thinks Israel is a very important influencer of their vote; 73 per cent think it's very or quite important. The more important Israel is among a subsample, the better the Conservatives do. A final note is that this sample was "pre-selected on the basis of a high probability of likely Jewish identity", so we're probably talking about highly-Jewish postcodes, particularly in London (two-thirds of the sample), and it's not weighted by unavailable data like past vote share or social class. Constituencies like Hendon, Chipping Barnet, Finchley and Golders Green and Hertsmere are already 6-20 points more Conservative than the country as a whole, so weigh that up.
But I wonder to what extent self-identification as Jewish is different these days from seventy years ago, after three generations of secularism and Israel causing divisions in that community.
"Yet idiots people only mention the rights of the Palestinians to return to their ancestral homelands ... "
Enough of your right wing drivel
If they hadn't behaved as badly as they did towards the Palestinians they wouldn't now be in this position. The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians has been a disgrace. Consider this. I who have never visited Israel can live there. A Palestinian born there and kicked out of their home to accommodate the likes of me can't even visit.
Let me rephrase that: "If the Arabs had not behaved as badly as they did towards the Jews they wouldn't now be in this position. The Arab treatment of the Jews has been a disgrace."
And continue to ~3000 BC ...
If it had not been for the formation of the Jewish state, there would be no Jews in the entire Middle East, their ancestral homelands.
I'm not defending everything Israel does - far from. They're their own worst enemy at times. But the idea that the Palestinian states and surrounding governments are morally better is laughable.
I am not sure that is quite correct. I understand the main reason Jews were kicked out of other Middle Eastern nations was because of anger over Israel. If Israel was not formed, plenty of Jews would be living in other Middle Eastern nations.
I do agree with the idea that other Arab states are no more moral than Israel. But I do not think that is the question. The question is whether Israel is behaving in unacceptable ways that delegitimise it as a democratic power. The permanent occupation over another people, and the slow annexation of their land, suggests it is. And I say this as a great admirer of the Jews.
I fear you are wrong. The problems in surrounding nations and the exodus started many decades before the formation of Israel, so it might be more accurate to say that the formation of Israel was, in part, a reaction to the pogroms, blood libels, and other nonsense that went on. It varied from country to country, and there was immigration into some countries, but the general emigration trend was well in place before the 1930s.
And that is an important distinction.
Read the history of Jews in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran etc through the nineteenth century for more information. Oddly, Iran is one of the better countries (although better is a loose term) for Jews to live in nowadays.
I don't like a great deal of what the Israeli government does. But I don't like a great deal of what the Palestinian authorities or those of neighbouring countries do, either. It's a hideous mess.
But blaming Israel for it, whilst absolving the other parties from all blame, is distinctly dodgy and unhealthy.
The Jewish Chronicle poll is interesting. The sample plans to vote 57-18-7 Conservative-Labour-Other, versus a self-reported 51-17-9 last time. The Conservatives are benefitting from a massive share of the 2010 "Did Not Vote" respondents, while 2010 Labour lose a lot to "Undecided". Also interesting: 45 per cent of the sample thinks Israel is a very important influencer of their vote; 73 per cent think it's very or quite important. The more important Israel is among a subsample, the better the Conservatives do. A final note is that this sample was "pre-selected on the basis of a high probability of likely Jewish identity", so we're probably talking about highly-Jewish postcodes, particularly in London (two-thirds of the sample), and it's not weighted by unavailable data like past vote share or social class. Constituencies like Hendon, Chipping Barnet, Finchley and Golders Green and Hertsmere are already 6-20 points more Conservative than the country as a whole, so weigh that up.
But I wonder to what extent self-identification as Jewish is different these days from seventy years ago, after three generations of secularism and Israel causing divisions in that community.
I know very few practising Jews, but all my Jewish friends are very connected to their Jewish identities. Many are married to non-Jewish women, but still consider their kids Jewish - to the extent that they have had bar and bat mitzvahs (in ultra liberal synagogues, of course). Israel does not seem to cause any divisions; the actions of certain Israeli governments do.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Indeed. Any discussion of any subject that may cause the SNP, its leadership and/or supporters even a moment's discomfort is against all electoral rules. If it is permitted it is a clear sign of bias. There can be no other explanation.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Criticism is not abuse.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
Not only does Scotland have more pandas than Tory Westminster MPs; they also have more nuclear power-stations; nuclear submarines; and - yes - nuclear warheads in store (and on loan from England). Something for the Jockanese troupe of clowns to crow-about no...?
Rottenborough Indeed, Cruz announced and Clinton and Rubio also likely to step in this month.
Of course beyond GE 2015 and US election 2016 we have Canada's election in the autumn and Holyrood and Australia next year as well as the beginnings of the euro referendum campaign if Cameron returns to power
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Criticism is not abuse.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
No, he didn't. He reported the story and also reported Sturgeon's denial and the denial from the French. What he failed to do was report it all in exactly the way certain fundamentalists wanted, so they abused him.
Not counting in Northumberland until Friday at 9:00. Pathetic. At least the LibDems will be able to hold onto Berwick for a few extra hours.
And Warwick not until 10am Friday it would seem. I thought the law had been changed to require immediate overnight counting unless there was a very good reason not to.
I can see that St. Ives might get a pass, as the seat includes the Scilly Isles and presumably they can't the ballot boxes over until the next day, but if the Western Isles can do an overnight count, I'm not sure I buy even that.
(oh and :delurk:)
Welcome.
Haven't the Western Isles a problem in that they MUST finish before the Sabbath?
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
Dontcha just love Nicola ("democracy" )Sturgeon.. Yes she wanted a referendum on Scottish independence.. but definitely NO to the people of GB deciding on an in out EU vote. Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez PS I would vote to stay in FWIW
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
Wrong. Purdah applies to any coverage that may in any way inconvenience or discomfit the SNP. It is strictly forbidden under those electoral rules you'll find in the book that also says the price of oil will not fall below $I30 a barrel, Scotland gets automatic EU membership, there will be a currency union on terms set by Scotland, and so on.
Rottenborough Indeed, Cruz announced and Clinton and Rubio also likely to step in this month.
Of course beyond GE 2015 and US election 2016 we have Canada's election in the autumn and Holyrood and Australia next year as well as the beginnings of the euro referendum campaign if Cameron returns to power
I think that's what worries me. We discussed the Scottish Referendum ad nauseum for the best part of a year, and I think that we'd discuss an IN-OUT EU referendum for at least as long.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Criticism is not abuse.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
No, he didn't. He reported the story and also reported Sturgeon's denial and the denial from the French. What he failed to do was report it all in exactly the way certain fundamentalists wanted, so they abused him.
Repeating a weak claim for which the only evidence says is probably wrong and where no corroboration can be found is NOT journalism. It is smearing.
Reports should have called the claim at least "unsubstantiated" every time it was mentioned if not "factually incorrect". He didn't even though, by all standards of Journalistic Practise, he had, by fact checking, established the claim was false.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
Wrong. Purdah applies to any coverage that may in any way inconvenience or discomfit the SNP. It is strictly forbidden under those electoral rules you'll find in the book that also says the price of oil will not fall below $I30 a barrel, Scotland gets automatic EU membership, there will be a currency union on terms set by Scotland, and so on.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Criticism is not abuse.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
No, he didn't. He reported the story and also reported Sturgeon's denial and the denial from the French. What he failed to do was report it all in exactly the way certain fundamentalists wanted, so they abused him.
Repeating a weak claim for which the only evidence says is probably wrong and where no corroboration can be found is NOT journalism. It is smearing.
Reports should have called the claim at least "unsubstantiated" every time it was mentioned if not "factually incorrect". He didn't even though, by all standards of Journalistic Practise, he had, by fact checking, established the claim was false.
Did the evidence say it was probably wrong, or maybe wrong. Or was it perhaps wrong? Who knows, it all depends on how you interpret it.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
Wrong. Purdah applies to any coverage that may in any way inconvenience or discomfit the SNP. It is strictly forbidden under those electoral rules you'll find in the book that also says the price of oil will not fall below $I30 a barrel, Scotland gets automatic EU membership, there will be a currency union on terms set by Scotland, and so on.
Sarcasm is apparently the lowest form of wit. Even ranked below a TSE joke!
The Jewish Chronicle poll is interesting. The sample plans to vote 57-18-7 Conservative-Labour-Other, versus a self-reported 51-17-9 last time. The Conservatives are benefitting from a massive share of the 2010 "Did Not Vote" respondents, while 2010 Labour lose a lot to "Undecided". Also interesting: 45 per cent of the sample thinks Israel is a very important influencer of their vote; 73 per cent think it's very or quite important. The more important Israel is among a subsample, the better the Conservatives do. A final note is that this sample was "pre-selected on the basis of a high probability of likely Jewish identity", so we're probably talking about highly-Jewish postcodes, particularly in London (two-thirds of the sample), and it's not weighted by unavailable data like past vote share or social class. Constituencies like Hendon, Chipping Barnet, Finchley and Golders Green and Hertsmere are already 6-20 points more Conservative than the country as a whole, so weigh that up.
But I wonder to what extent self-identification as Jewish is different these days from seventy years ago, after three generations of secularism and Israel causing divisions in that community.
I know very few practising Jews, but all my Jewish friends are very connected to their Jewish identities. Many are married to non-Jewish women, but still consider their kids Jewish - to the extent that they have had bar and bat mitzvahs (in ultra liberal synagogues, of course). Israel does not seem to cause any divisions; the actions of certain Israeli governments do.
I suppose I am wondering whether this pattern is itself the result of a selection process. Whether John Smith's secular Jewish identity is associated with an interest in Israel, while his cousins whose branch of the family didn't care about Israel doesn't identify as part of the community any more. I haven't a clue, it's just a question.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Criticism is not abuse.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
No, he didn't. He reported the story and also reported Sturgeon's denial and the denial from the French. What he failed to do was report it all in exactly the way certain fundamentalists wanted, so they abused him.
Repeating a weak claim for which the only evidence says is probably wrong and where no corroboration can be found is NOT journalism. It is smearing.
Reports should have called the claim at least "unsubstantiated" every time it was mentioned if not "factually incorrect". He didn't even though, by all standards of Journalistic Practise, he had, by fact checking, established the claim was false.
Did the evidence say it was probably wrong, or maybe wrong. Or was it perhaps wrong? Who knows, it all depends on how you interpret it.
Apparently, to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt, it is sufficient simply to ask a politician, and take her word for it.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
Unbelievable that BBC Scotland give up all pretence at impartiality. Now their biased journalists should be beyond criticism. Utterly ridiculous. BBC Scotland need taken in hand by the BBC Trust.
I like the way that you have tacitly acknowledged that the abuse, as opposed to criticism, BBC journalists get comes from one side only.
Criticism is not abuse.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
No, he didn't. He reported the story and also reported Sturgeon's denial and the denial from the French. What he failed to do was report it all in exactly the way certain fundamentalists wanted, so they abused him.
Repeating a weak claim for which the only evidence says is probably wrong and where no corroboration can be found is NOT journalism. It is smearing.
Reports should have called the claim at least "unsubstantiated" every time it was mentioned if not "factually incorrect". He didn't even though, by all standards of Journalistic Practise, he had, by fact checking, established the claim was false.
Cook reported the Telegraph story and then reported the Sturgeon and French denials. That is not smearing, it is reporting. Do you have any proof that the document that the Telegraph reported on does not exist? No, you don't. In fact, it seems that all sides accept it does exist. Given that, Cook did exactly what he should have done. It's juyst that what he did was discomfiting for the SNP. Tough. That's democracy.
Funnily enough, when the SNP claimed that currency union would definitely happen because of one off the record quote from an anonymous minister reported by the Guardian absolutely no-one from the SNP commented that this was a smear or poor reporting. No, instead it was hailed as the truth. Go figure.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
Dair truly believes this though. Such is fundamentalism. It is a riveting phenomenon to observe.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
It might help if politicians attended to most people's experience on the NHS; GP services and the other day by day services. Most people have little or no experience of A&E.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
Wrong. Purdah applies to any coverage that may in any way inconvenience or discomfit the SNP. It is strictly forbidden under those electoral rules you'll find in the book that also says the price of oil will not fall below $I30 a barrel, Scotland gets automatic EU membership, there will be a currency union on terms set by Scotland, and so on.
Sarcasm is apparently the lowest form of wit. Even ranked below a TSE joke!
Actually I thought there was a chance that Dair was being sarcastic, and I would be berated for not being able to spot it. Not so, it seems.
Isn't it the Scottish Debate tonight? Anyone watching? Are we going to have a thread on it?
Funnily enough, when the SNP claimed that currency union would definitely happen because of one off the record quote from an anonymous minister reported by the Guardian absolutely no-one from the SNP commented that this was a smear or poor reporting. No, instead it was hailed as the truth. Go figure.
That's the funniest part of this whole story.
A single anonymous quote, strenuously denied, is quoted as gospel by Eck every day.
Now, a report of the existence of an official Government document is described as smear and innuendo
Cook reported the Telegraph story and then reported the Sturgeon and French denials. That is not smearing, it is reporting. Do you have any proof that the document that the Telegraph reported on does not exist? No, you don't. In fact, it seems that all sides accept it does exist. Given that, Cook did exactly what he should have done. It's juyst that what he did was discomfiting for the SNP. Tough. That's democracy.
It's not my job to fact check for the Telegraph. It's not my logical position to disprove a negative. It is for a journalist to demonstrate that any story they run is fact checked and accurately reflects the truth (it was an article not an editorial).
Cook actually did the fact checking that the Telegraph failed to do. He had, by 11.30pm established from conversation with the French Consul that the story was not true. Despite this, despite his own good initial journalism, he then repeated the smear over and over. The claim should not have been mentioned without the caveat of "unsubstatiated" or "factually inaccurate". That's basic standards in journalism.
He got the criticism he deserved for poor journalism.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
And a Labour Party prepared to lie shamelessly about their own record and the actual current figures as relate to the NHS.
There are more doctors, more nurses and fewer administrators now than when Labour left office. But they put out leaflets claiming the opposite.
Labour went into the last election with a pledge to maintain spending at (then) current levels. The coalition has increased spending. But Labour are putting out leaflets claiming cuts in NHS expenditure
Labour when last in office welcomed the involvement of the private sector. Now they condemn it and want to drive it out with artificial profit capping and anti-business rhetoric
Labour has cut NHS spending in Wales - but they deny any responsibility for that (even though Wales get more money to spend than England)
Labour lies about the NHS.
The NHS has serious problems - no doubt about it. But it is serving more people than at any other point in history with more expensive treatments and an ever-increasing demand on resources.
Telling lies about the NHS is not the way to solve these problems. The NHS is not a weapon - it is vital part of the fabric of our country. Labour is fundamentally dishonest about it.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
The OFCOM rules prevent discussion of a party's policy where that party is not present for a Right to Reply. As the SNP also form the Goverment of Scotland, this extends to any devolved matter.
Apparently, to establish the facts beyond reasonable doubt, it is sufficient simply to ask a politician, and take her word for it.
... or a French diplomat (a man sent to lie abroad for his country).
Actually I think the likeliest is that Sturgeon said of course she was closer to the Labour Party's policies and if she had to choose would prefer a Labour government for the UK, but wasn't sure if Mili was up to the job of PM, and as the ruler of a "separate" country she might prefer to continue to negotiate with Cameron. A reasonable opinion, and one where the nuance got lost due to the difficulty of understanding that in French and incompetent minute-taking by a Scotland Office official.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
The OFCOM rules prevent discussion of a party's policy where that party is not present for a Right to Reply. As the SNP also form the Goverment of Scotland, this extends to any devolved matter.
I'd like to see the exact wording as I can't imagine how that could work in practice.
What happens when Andrew Marr interviews Ed Miliband? Is Miliband not allowed to talk about Conservative Party policies and what the Government has done?
Sorry but I can't see how that could possibly make sense. There wouldn't be able to be any political interviews at all.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
And a Labour Party prepared to lie shamelessly about their own record and the actual current figures as relate to the NHS.
There are more doctors, more nurses and fewer administrators now than when Labour left office. But they put out leaflets claiming the opposite.
Labour went into the last election with a pledge to maintain spending at (then) current levels. The coalition has increased spending. But Labour are putting out leaflets claiming cuts in NHS expenditure
Labour when last in office welcomed the involvement of the private sector. Now they condemn it and want to drive it out with artificial profit capping and anti-business rhetoric
Labour has cut NHS spending in Wales - but they deny any responsibility for that (even though Wales get more money to spend than England)
Labour lies about the NHS.
The NHS has serious problems - no doubt about it. But it is serving more people than at any other point in history with more expensive treatments and an ever-increasing demand on resources.
Telling lies about the NHS is not the way to solve these problems. The NHS is not a weapon - it is vital part of the fabric of our country. Labour is fundamentally dishonest about it.
Well at least we agree it is vital part of the fabric of our country.
As for the rest of your post utter Daily Mail clap trap.
The voters know better than to trust the Tories on the NHS thankfully.
Cook reported the Telegraph story and then reported the Sturgeon and French denials. That is not smearing, it is reporting. Do you have any proof that the document that the Telegraph reported on does not exist? No, you don't. In fact, it seems that all sides accept it does exist. Given that, Cook did exactly what he should have done. It's juyst that what he did was discomfiting for the SNP. Tough. That's democracy.
It's not my job to fact check for the Telegraph. It's not my logical position to disprove a negative. It is for a journalist to demonstrate that any story they run is fact checked and accurately reflects the truth (it was an article not an editorial).
Cook actually did the fact checking that the Telegraph failed to do. He had, by 11.30pm established from conversation with the French Consul that the story was not true. Despite this, despite his own good initial journalism, he then repeated the smear over and over. The claim should not have been mentioned without the caveat of "unsubstatiated" or "factually inaccurate". That's basic standards in journalism.
He got the criticism he deserved for poor journalism.
So a journalist is required to take any official at their word?
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
The OFCOM rules prevent discussion of a party's policy where that party is not present for a Right to Reply. As the SNP also form the Goverment of Scotland, this extends to any devolved matter.
I'd like to see the exact wording as I can't imagine how that could work in practice.
What happens when Andrew Marr interviews Ed Miliband? Is Miliband not allowed to talk about Conservative Party policies and what the Government has done?
Sorry but I can't see how that could possibly make sense. There wouldn't be able to be any political interviews at all.
I'm fairly sure it's overall balance, I am sure there will be a Snat on QT next week to provide that.
I note that at 25/1, I can back Labour to win 326 seats in the House of Commons.
Alternatively, at 25/1, I can back Labour to win Fylde, where in 2010 they were in third place, 33 points behind, and where the last non-Conservative MP was the 8th Duke of Devonshire, elected in 1865 for the two-member constituency of North Lancashire, comprising everything in that county above Wigan and Heywood.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
It might help if politicians attended to most people's experience on the NHS; GP services and the other day by day services. Most people have little or no experience of A&E.
GP appointments harder to get is most people's experience on the NHS in Chesterfield apparently
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Ar party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
And a Labour Party prepared to lie shamelessly about their own record and the actual current figures as relate to the NHS.
There are more doctors, more nurses and fewer administrators now than when Labour left office. But they put out leaflets claiming the opposite.
Labour went into the last election with a pledge to maintain spending at (then) current levels. The coalition has increased spending. But Labour are putting out leaflets claiming cuts in NHS expenditure
Labour when last in office welcomed the involvement of the private sector. Now they condemn it and want to drive it out with artificial profit capping and anti-business rhetoric
Labour has cut NHS spending in Wales - but they deny any responsibility for that (even though Wales get more money to spend than England)
Labour lies about the NHS.
The NHS has serious problems - no doubt about it. But it is serving more people than at any other point in history with more expensive treatments and an ever-increasing demand on resources.
Telling lies about the NHS is not the way to solve these problems. The NHS is not a weapon - it is vital part of the fabric of our country. Labour is fundamentally dishonest about it.
Well at least we agree it is vital part of the fabric of our country.
As for the rest of your post utter Daily Mail clap trap.
The voters know better than to trust the Tories on the NHS thankfully.
Just out of interest what is the tory equivalent of Mid Staffs?
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
The OFCOM rules prevent discussion of a party's policy where that party is not present for a Right to Reply. As the SNP also form the Goverment of Scotland, this extends to any devolved matter.
I'd like to see the exact wording as I can't imagine how that could work in practice.
What happens when Andrew Marr interviews Ed Miliband? Is Miliband not allowed to talk about Conservative Party policies and what the Government has done?
Sorry but I can't see how that could possibly make sense. There wouldn't be able to be any political interviews at all.
I'm fairly sure it's overall balance, I am sure there will be a Snat on QT next week to provide that.
Indeed - I am sure that is the rule - it cannot possibly apply to every separate individual programme - otherwise nobody could ever be interviewed on their own.
As you say, re BBC1 QT - they achieve an overall balance of guests over the entire series of programmes.
I predict a key topic will be how horrible the SNP are. Again.
Any discussion of Scotland or the SNP should be immediately shut down due to purdah rules. Of course with Dimbleby in the chair, the likelihood of that is nil.
Purdah? That applies to the Civil Service, not BBC TV programmes.
What's the point of pedantry like that? You'd prefer people to type out "Short Campaign" every time. Purdah is used generally as a shorthand for the Short Campaign. You know this, I know this, pretty much anyone reading this thread knows this.
Purdah is something very specific which relates to the conduct of the Civil Service during election campaigns. I should know, a detailed PDF was placed on our intranet just before the end of March.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
The OFCOM rules prevent discussion of a party's policy where that party is not present for a Right to Reply. As the SNP also form the Goverment of Scotland, this extends to any devolved matter.
I'd like to see the exact wording as I can't imagine how that could work in practice.
What happens when Andrew Marr interviews Ed Miliband? Is Miliband not allowed to talk about Conservative Party policies and what the Government has done?
Sorry but I can't see how that could possibly make sense. There wouldn't be able to be any political interviews at all.
I'm fairly sure it's overall balance, I am sure there will be a Snat on QT next week to provide that.
In fact Theresa May and John Humphreys were happily discussing Labour tax policy on the Today programme this morning.
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
It might help if politicians attended to most people's experience on the NHS; GP services and the other day by day services. Most people have little or no experience of A&E.
GP appointments harder to get is most people's experience on the NHS in Chesterfield apparently
Public satisfaction with the NHS has increased over the last 5 years. But don't let that fact worry you.
OKC Indeed, there will be a 2 year countdown to 2017 if it happens. Labour leadership or Tory or LD leadership campaigns are also likely depending on the loser. (I should also have added Spain's election is due at the end of the year too, the impact of Podemos will be interesting)
They have also run a 'not working' style poster attacking the tories over the NHS. Pathetic the way they weaponise the NHS. You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories. Labour are cheap and nasty.
Agreed. It is outrageous that the Labour party should seek to make the NHS an issue in this election.
The NHS must be an Election issue my MP has asked me to do a piece on NHS finances since 2010 for his next leaflet drop.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
It might help if politicians attended to most people's experience on the NHS; GP services and the other day by day services. Most people have little or no experience of A&E.
GP appointments harder to get is most people's experience on the NHS in Chesterfield apparently
Where are the 8000 extra GPs that Ed has promised going to come from? At the moment local practices struggle to find anyone suitable.
Comments
@bbcquestiontime: Our #bbcqt panel this week: @trussliz, @vincecable, @Douglas4Paisley, @CarolineLucas & @timothy_stanley http://t.co/A4zwochNFH
https://twitter.com/bindelj/status/585353054804914177
And that's what Blair wants, make these elections like the euro-elections and see Labour lose.
I can see that St. Ives might get a pass, as the seat includes the Scilly Isles and presumably they can't the ballot boxes over until the next day, but if the Western Isles can do an overnight count, I'm not sure I buy even that.
(oh and :delurk:)
Is Danczuk feeling the heat in Rochdale?
On behalf of The Jewish Chronicle, Survation conducted a poll by telephone of the Jewish community in Britain, on their voting intentions, views about the upcoming general election and their attitudes to party leaders, policies and their effect on voting intention. Full data tables are available here.
Fieldwork: Thursday April 2nd and Tuesday April 7th in consideration of Pesach.
--------
For the non-jew: The Jewish Chronicle is about as relevant to the remaining British Jews as is Warcry to British Christians.
The Jewish Board of Guardians - a non elected pompous body - are all deeply conservative, and probably had a hand a hand in this. If you want to see a poll as political fluff; this is it.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?325139-1/senator-rand-paul-rky-presidential-campaign-announcement
He is preparing it for quite a while it seems, he even has his own store of hilarious apparel:
https://store.randpaul.com/
https://store.randpaul.com/index.php/fun-stuff.html
Now you can buy an NSA Spy Cam Blocker for just 15$.
Or a Rand On A Stick for 35$.
Being told to 'blend in' with the public makes them sound like invaders from another planet. Hmm..
I doubt they will get David Vincent's vote.
JackW said:
» show previous quotes
I know SNP wallas don't do detail but a point of fact is that John Thurso isn't a "Mr".
On your more substantive point I have this odd thought that had Viscount Thurso not been undertaking a robust campaign you'd be indicating he'd given up.
Clearly as a matter of consistency you'll also be of the opinion that the extensive SNP leafleting campaign in many seats is also a sign of "desperation" ??
Is Thurso a lady then
http://www.nottinghampost.com/Election-2015-latest-odds-seats-Nottinghamshire/story-26290152-detail/story.html
If it'd been done by YouGov it would have shown 103% of Jews voting for UKIP
Even if they are going to claim that they will be speaking generally and not mention their constituency, they're giving out the twitter @Douglas4Paisley which is clearly a constituency message,
Open doors provide a map which is shows predominantly extreme persecution across the middle east https://www.opendoorsusa.org/christian-persecution/world-watch-list/
You would never believe that in the last election Labour under Brown were saying in their manifesto that the level of NHS spending was good enough and that the NHS could afford a £20 billion efficiency drive. And that it was OK if some of that was achieved by contracting out to private companies. That level of real spending has been maintained under the tories.
Labour are cheap and nasty.
*Fight the Nat power*
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/04/07/rand-paul-set-to-announce-presidential-run/
The Jewish Chronicle poll is interesting. The sample plans to vote 57-18-7 Conservative-Labour-Other, versus a self-reported 51-17-9 last time. The Conservatives are benefitting from a massive share of the 2010 "Did Not Vote" respondents, while 2010 Labour lose a lot to "Undecided". Also interesting: 45 per cent of the sample thinks Israel is a very important influencer of their vote; 73 per cent think it's very or quite important. The more important Israel is among a subsample, the better the Conservatives do. A final note is that this sample was "pre-selected on the basis of a high probability of likely Jewish identity", so we're probably talking about highly-Jewish postcodes, particularly in London (two-thirds of the sample), and it's not weighted by unavailable data like past vote share or social class. Constituencies like Hendon, Chipping Barnet, Finchley and Golders Green and Hertsmere are already 6-20 points more Conservative than the country as a whole, so weigh that up.
But I wonder to what extent self-identification as Jewish is different these days from seventy years ago, after three generations of secularism and Israel causing divisions in that community.
And that is an important distinction.
Read the history of Jews in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran etc through the nineteenth century for more information. Oddly, Iran is one of the better countries (although better is a loose term) for Jews to live in nowadays.
I don't like a great deal of what the Israeli government does. But I don't like a great deal of what the Palestinian authorities or those of neighbouring countries do, either. It's a hideous mess.
But blaming Israel for it, whilst absolving the other parties from all blame, is distinctly dodgy and unhealthy.
Cook deserved the criticism he got. Especially as he shut down the story at 11:30pm on Friday but kept regurgitating the false claim for the next 48 hours. That needs challenged and Scots should be congratulated for holding broken journalism to account - not castigated by BBC Scotland.
Abuse has no place. But so far there is no evidence of any abuse other than unsubstantiated claims from James Cook.
Not only does Scotland have more pandas than Tory Westminster MPs; they also have more nuclear power-stations; nuclear submarines; and - yes - nuclear warheads in store (and on loan from England). Something for the Jockanese troupe of clowns to crow-about no...?
:and-all-funded-by-England;you-ungrateful-[MODERATED]s!:
Of course beyond GE 2015 and US election 2016 we have Canada's election in the autumn and Holyrood and Australia next year as well as the beginnings of the euro referendum campaign if Cameron returns to power
Haven't the Western Isles a problem in that they MUST finish before the Sabbath?
Jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
PS I would vote to stay in FWIW
Reports should have called the claim at least "unsubstantiated" every time it was mentioned if not "factually incorrect". He didn't even though, by all standards of Journalistic Practise, he had, by fact checking, established the claim was false.
Lansley is a gift to LAB. 80% of Acute Hospitals in deficit. Hospitals only paid 30% of cost for additional A&E attendances. Better Care Fund syphoning £3.8 bn away from hospitals etc etc etc
Funnily enough, when the SNP claimed that currency union would definitely happen because of one off the record quote from an anonymous minister reported by the Guardian absolutely no-one from the SNP commented that this was a smear or poor reporting. No, instead it was hailed as the truth. Go figure.
I don't recall any OfCom rules stating that Scottish matters may not be discussed during the Short Campaign unless a Scot is present.
Most people have little or no experience of A&E.
Isn't it the Scottish Debate tonight? Anyone watching? Are we going to have a thread on it?
A single anonymous quote, strenuously denied, is quoted as gospel by Eck every day.
Now, a report of the existence of an official Government document is described as smear and innuendo
They don't like it up 'em, as it were...
Cook actually did the fact checking that the Telegraph failed to do. He had, by 11.30pm established from conversation with the French Consul that the story was not true. Despite this, despite his own good initial journalism, he then repeated the smear over and over. The claim should not have been mentioned without the caveat of "unsubstatiated" or "factually inaccurate". That's basic standards in journalism.
He got the criticism he deserved for poor journalism.
What polls are expected this week other than the regular YouGov and Populus?
NB. YouGov is 7 days a week from now on.
There are more doctors, more nurses and fewer administrators now than when Labour left office. But they put out leaflets claiming the opposite.
Labour went into the last election with a pledge to maintain spending at (then) current levels. The coalition has increased spending. But Labour are putting out leaflets claiming cuts in NHS expenditure
Labour when last in office welcomed the involvement of the private sector. Now they condemn it and want to drive it out with artificial profit capping and anti-business rhetoric
Labour has cut NHS spending in Wales - but they deny any responsibility for that (even though Wales get more money to spend than England)
Labour lies about the NHS.
The NHS has serious problems - no doubt about it. But it is serving more people than at any other point in history with more expensive treatments and an ever-increasing demand on resources.
Telling lies about the NHS is not the way to solve these problems. The NHS is not a weapon - it is vital part of the fabric of our country. Labour is fundamentally dishonest about it.
It is up to the conservatives to call labour out on this. Not the rest of us
We have to hold candidates to account for the leaflets put out in their name.
Actually I think the likeliest is that Sturgeon said of course she was closer to the Labour Party's policies and if she had to choose would prefer a Labour government for the UK, but wasn't sure if Mili was up to the job of PM, and as the ruler of a "separate" country she might prefer to continue to negotiate with Cameron. A reasonable opinion, and one where the nuance got lost due to the difficulty of understanding that in French and incompetent minute-taking by a Scotland Office official.
What happens when Andrew Marr interviews Ed Miliband? Is Miliband not allowed to talk about Conservative Party policies and what the Government has done?
Sorry but I can't see how that could possibly make sense. There wouldn't be able to be any political interviews at all.
As for the rest of your post utter Daily Mail clap trap.
The voters know better than to trust the Tories on the NHS thankfully.
Just a name and a face, a woman, no bio whatsoever...
Alternatively, at 25/1, I can back Labour to win Fylde, where in 2010 they were in third place, 33 points behind, and where the last non-Conservative MP was the 8th Duke of Devonshire, elected in 1865 for the two-member constituency of North Lancashire, comprising everything in that county above Wigan and Heywood.
Think you are overlooking the big NHS no top down reorganisation lie from Dave
As you say, re BBC1 QT - they achieve an overall balance of guests over the entire series of programmes.