Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » GE19’s first big TV event: A debate between 2 men whose partie
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » GE19’s first big TV event: A debate between 2 men whose parties between them got just 23.2% in the last UK elections
I alway felt a bit sorry for ITV at GE2017 when the leaders’ debate it got was the one without TMay or Corbyn. Maybe because of that it has sought to push forward with its Johnson-Corbyn clash without anybody else. This means excluding Jo Swinson and Nigel Farage of the two most electorally successful parties currently in the UK.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
LibDems and Brexiteers - go for it!
If Swinson has any sense, she will let Boris and Corbyn get on with it, and press for her own head-to-head with Farage. First, she will get more airtime, half as opposed to a third or a fifth or an eighth; second, she will win, at least as far as Remain-leaning voters are concerned; third, it allows Farage to peel off Leave-inclined voters from the two main parties, thus making the LibDems' task easier.
Not to mention that, as OGH implies, Boris will probably take any excuse to skip the debate anyway.
Still, I'd argue that the LibDems have a better argument for being at the top table than the SNP. They got two and a half times the number of votes the SNP got, and are actually standing in almost all the constituencies.
And now you've got a 7- or 8-way debate which will be chaotic and uninformative, so Boris will decline, and if Boris declines so will Corbyn, especially after the way Ed Miliband was stitched up in 2015. This leaves the LibDems scrabbling for attention in a 5-way also-rans debate.
So a Pyrrhic victory for Swinson. No, she should aim directly for the Farage head-to-head for the reasons already stated.
But if Ms Swinson has any sense*, she'll use this to her advantage through organising a competing debate. Both her and Farage would be winners if they went head-to-head, because they're not fishing in the same pond.
* She doesn't have any sense
Ah, this could be why (it seems more likely than my mentioning him the other day):
In a letter to Monday's Daily Telegraph six Tories including Cabinet Office minister Mr Gove, Transport minister Chris Heaton-Harris and former Cabinet minister Greg Clark backed Mr Bryant in part because he has the "sense of humour to defuse tension" in the House.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/11/03/labour-mp-chris-bryant-backed-senior-tories-including-michael/
I’d suggest that that is wrong."
Even if you think that the only possible prime minister is Johnson, that does not mean there should be no debates.
Hoyle is the natural favourite, well regarded deputy & Labour member. But... He also represents a heavily leave seat that with the current polling might just be in range for Tories to win at GE19. (It's a push by why take the opportunity off the table)
Bryant's Rhondda on the other hand is a pretty safe seat. However Plaid have said they will contest it anyway. Best case scenario for Conservatives. Chorley is a gain, PC win Rhondda and opportunity to install Government friendly speaker.
Am I overthinking this? Maybe... But you can be damn sure Cummings has overthinked this too.
Whatever the metric for a leaders debate, it seems fairly strange that it should be in the gift of ITV to decide whom to include and exclude.
A pretty arbitrary exercise of power with potentially significant electoral consequences.
No-one will watch them - that is not their purpose, but no-one can avoid them. Hopefully the needs of the Christmas TV schedules will mean they are broadcast after 11 pm. Perhaps the two genres could be combined in some form of political Crystal Maze or Monkey Tennis. It is unlikely that such a programme would be any less informative than what we have been offered in the past. And how would Jo Swinson cope in any debate - she is so shouty ranty even when she is the only one there ?
There are similar pointless debates within constituencies organised generally by left of centre front organisations. Smile and offer polite answers to the pointless questions posed by your opponents' deliverers.
Mike is understandably disappointed that we are not going to get an "I agree with Jo" moment but the fact is last time out the Lib Dems got 12 seats and 7.4% of the vote. The Lib Dems have to earn back the right to be a major party again. Personally, I think that they will will roughly double the seats they won the last time but Nicola has a much better claim to take part in a debate that is about who the next PM is going to be. She will not be a candidate but she will have a bigger say than the Lib Dems.
Is he a man would could lay down the law rather than let things ride ?
General Election 2019: Public spending 'to rocket' in next parliament
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50283719
Alas, we no longer live in a sane world.
The election tv debates are 'the most influential factor' in voters choosing how to vote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32673439
7 million people watched the one in 2015 despite the PM Theresa May ducking out
It's on 19th November prime time and it will be widely watched.
Labour's policy might have been widely derided but I think his approach may be enough to satisfy his target audience of Labour voters.
Without Swinson's presence you could argue that the inevitability of Brexit in some form or another will be to the fore. Which seems to me to be pretty much the zeitgeist now?
F1: entertaining race yesterday, with some slightly strange features.
Will put up the post-race ramble later today.
Labour are doing it out of expediency too.
One of the more remarkable achievements of Corbyn is that despite a long career of hypocrisy, skulduggery and expediency he has managed to fool people into thinking he has principles.
I think what we will see in practice is a refocusing of public spending onto more consumption driven aspects with some services etc cut deep into the bone. But Tory attacks on Labour's spending will be deeply hypocritical. If Boris gets a majority I hope he thinks hard about who his Chancellor should be. Javid has not impressed.
To get the same energy, burning oil and burning biomass release the same carbon (if anything, I'd say fossil fuels tend to be more efficient, so there might be less carbon released for energy gained). Then it is just a matter of which offsetting method draws more carbon out of the atmosphere, a forest, or a new biomass crop.
Do you know what they voted in the Rhondda (60.45 per cent) ?
In what world are you living? The thought that the "Remain alliance" parties are going to take the Rhondda is so funny ...
Chorley is an outside Tory gain (they have held in living memory). PC do held the Rhondda in WA elections. But, both these seats are Lab hold in GE 2019, rather easily.
Story on the Times about 'school recruiters' trafficking Asian girls is personally interesting as I know, not well, but I've met, a couple of people who recruit rich Thai and Vietnamese students for top British schools.
Hm!!!
2017. Actually, every election for the last 100 years.
Absolutely no debating will happen..
Crap formats, presenters and planted party stooges have killed Uk tv debates.
In the very short term - the next decade - it would make sense to replace coal with natural gas. Virtually no one burns oil for electricity, other than emergency generators.
The idea that Hammond was obfuscating a new economic reality perceived by genius of finance Boris Johnson is an odd one.
https://twitter.com/John2Win/status/1190559768215203840?s=19
What we are going to see is both the main parties supposedly producing "fully funded plans" which don't bear even a cursory examination. Sadly, as @ydoethur points out, people are ok with that.
The second is that your point in some ways shows why Labour might be onto something with their voters. If Corbyn is perceived to be pro Brexit then that may be a sufficient sop to Labour Leavers. At the same time, by offering a second referendum he's throwing a considerable bone to Remainers. I've often criticised their befuddled approach but it might just hit the spot.
Corbyn's problem isn't going to be about Brexit ... it's the Marxist policies which I'm mostly cool about but which a lot of the public won't be and the red-top owners certainly aren't.
If I grow a tree and then burn it, the net carbon released is zero.
If I did a lump of coal out the ground and burn it, the net carbon released is something.
Johnson also has that Blairlike delight of announcing changes himself rather than letting his ministers. It is him parading around hospitals and appearing in primary schools, not the ministers of health and education.
Johnson is not a team player, he is an egotist. He dictates policy and changes it on a whim. It is not only the DUP and Mayite Tories that have been shafted by Britain Trump.
If he were genuinely thinking of spending it on the poor I might agree with you, but that’s not been his approach. Indeed, he planned to keep benefit cuts as part of his asinine and unconvincing schtick that his manifesto was costed. That is because he has grasped the poor will probably vote for him anyway and it’s the not very well off he needs to attract.
So I stand by my claim of expediency.
https://www.iea.org/geco/electricity/
(The real scandal of food banks is not how they’ve grown, it’s how bloody difficult it was to set them up until the crash. The few that were available were grossly overstretched.)
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/31/biomass-burning-misguided-say-climate-experts
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/29/obr-to-publish-borrowing-forecasts-despite-scrapping-of-budget
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2019/11/usa-post-race-analysis-2019.html
Oh - sorry - you said ‘big.’
Have a good morning!
Though admittedly Corbyn is doing his best to maintain the Tory advantage.
Also, the last ‘quiet man’ experiment was not an unqualified success.
The race win for Brazil is up too but it's ridiculously tight (except on Albon) and the each way is only top 2.
Football: backed Norwich and Watford to draw at 3.5. My reasoning is that they're both rubbish this season. [Usual disclaimer: I know nothing about football].
Lower personal/corporate taxation and increased capital spending is the predictable solution of the political right.
For the left it's increased transfer payments (i.e. current spending) and a bias towards renationalisation, with a scatter gun approach to supply side investment (with some ideological redistributive taxes thrown in for good measure).
Philip Hammond and George Osborne types are going to be as unfashionable as orange-lined nylon bomber jackets. On the assumption that he wins, Boris's pre-feasibility study for "40 hospitals" will appear quite clairvoyant once the next global recession starts to crush. Elements of Jezzanomics would fare quite well too if only he'd drop the spiteful approach to taxation, dogmatic approach to nationalisation and worrying sympathy towards expropriation.
One bet I'll very happily make is that there's going to be a broad political consensus on investment in environmental mitigation measures. For the left it ticks the warm and fuzzy box with a fat green pen (especially the bits that reduce household bills), and for the right it will lead to sustained long term productivity improvements.
And no, neither coal nor biomass deserve long term capital investment formation at this point of the technology curve, even if you sequester the carbon in trees of underground caverns. From here on it it's all about EVs, renewables with battery storage and ultra high voltage transmission networks.
Johnson will pull out
Said that to many a former partner.
But isn’t it ironic that the Tory logo looks like Northern Ireland...
Swinson will no doubt fall back on sex, claiming Farage is being beastly because he's a misogynist. Well, if your glossy hagiography tells us you are our next PM (as it does), show us how you are going to mix it with that all-round liberal nice guy, Mr. Putin. Girl.....
The Hamilton career race wins bet does look on, though.
Sorry to have been travelling this weekend, and missed you Bottas pole spot. 13/1 would have indeed been generous, and I might have had a nibble.
In the cesspit of PB right wing commentary that turd floats right to the top.
My impression - I can't evidence it scientifically - is that for many voters Brexit is starting to be parked as the dominant issue. There was a poll some weeks back saying IIRC that around half the voters saw it as primary - by polling day, I suspect that'll be down to 25-30%. Leavers feel the job is more or less being done, Remainers feel they've got a shot at stopping it but it's not the only issue. I had nearly 100 replies to my Facebook video endorsing my successor as Labour candidate - some agree, some disagree, but only one mentions Brexit at all.
Farage has stood for parliament on multiple occasions.
Nicola Sturgeon could never be PM unless a) she stands for parliament and wins and b) the SNP fight enough seats to at least stand a chance of becoming the government i.e. hundreds more in England and Wales.
Is Richard O’Brien still knocking about?
What animates them is a visceral hatred of the Tories and, if it looks like doing so will stop them getting a majority, which it will of course, they will do so with whatever rationalisation suits the moment.
We know that Corbyn hates bankers. That extends to food-bankers too.