Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.
So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.
The prospect of a debate between Miliband Clegg and Farage with an empty panel for Cameron is delicious. Would the other three do a deal?
That could not happen during an election campaign as it would breach the broadcasters' duty to provide balanced coverage.
I think we should get rid of our existing system of general elections and replace it with a system where every week we have two by-elections. The next week's by-election should be decided completely randomly, with two names being drawn out of a hat.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
My new system would clearly be excellent news for UKIP, so I hope we'll see MikeK and isam supporting it. It also keeps FPTP and the constituency link, which means that hopefully the Conservative voters on the site will support it. For Libs it offers by-elections, which they're quite good at, so hopefully they'll say yes. For Shadsy, it'll be free money time, so he'll be in favour. And for Labourites, it maintains the existing bias, so they should like it too.
I think we should get rid of our existing system of general elections and replace it with a system where every week we have two by-elections. The next week's by-election should be decided completely randomly, with two names being drawn out of a hat.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
I'm not sure your father could cope with that.
I know just how excited he was over the Eastleigh by-election.
I've never known anyone be that excited when I rang him to say "Chris Huhne has just pleaded guilty"
I think we should get rid of our existing system of general elections and replace it with a system where every week we have two by-elections. The next week's by-election should be decided completely randomly, with two names being drawn out of a hat.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
Why not go across country, make it a roadshow.
Of course traditionally elections were held over a couple of weeks, with people following the running results in the daily newspapers.
I think what makes my idea unique is the random nature of where the next by-elections will be. So, no MP knows they are safe. Heck, they could be made to fight for their seat two weeks in a row. It also increases the number of betting opportunities: where will the next elections be, etc?
The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.
The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.
Increasing the minimum wage will just make it harder for unskilled workers to find jobs.
Nice Tory opinion as ever, F You unskilled people , " I am all right Jack"
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
I think we should get rid of our existing system of general elections and replace it with a system where every week we have two by-elections. The next week's by-election should be decided completely randomly, with two names being drawn out of a hat.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
My new system would clearly be excellent news for UKIP, so I hope we'll see MikeK and isam supporting it. It also keeps FPTP and the constituency link, which means that hopefully the Conservative voters on the site will support it. For Libs it offers by-elections, which they're quite good at, so hopefully they'll say yes. For Shadsy, it'll be free money time, so he'll be in favour. And for Labourites, it maintains the existing bias, so they should like it too.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
It would breach the rules for covering the campaign.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Iirc OFCOM currently define the Lib Dems as a major party for GEs, so I think it'd run afoul of that to exclude the Lib Dems entirely.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Actually, you make a good point. If Cameron killed Milliband, or Milliband killed Cameron, that would be the end of the debates.
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
It would breach the rules for covering the campaign.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Actually, you make a good point. If Cameron killed Milliband, or Milliband killed Cameron, that would be the end of the debates.
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
Clearly this is the system that they use in Russia... Putin de facto leader
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Actually, you make a good point. If Cameron killed Milliband, or Milliband killed Cameron, that would be the end of the debates.
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
Dear oh law, you are seriously unfunny! I'm embarrassed for you!
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Actually, you make a good point. If Cameron killed Milliband, or Milliband killed Cameron, that would be the end of the debates.
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
Dear oh law, you are seriously unfunny! I'm embarrassed for you!
Are you seriously suggesting that a knife fight between Cameron and Milliband would be less interesting than a debate?
"couldn't we put them in a cage and watch them bash the bejasus out of each other. It would be much more interesting TV."
Like Oliver Reid and Alan Bates and (sadly) not Glenda Jackson in Woman in Love-naked?
It would certainly lift the profile of both men though probably more appealing to the Old Etonians than the men of toil on the Labour side. We could follow it up with Hatty and Nick....
Talking of which neither were very good today though Nick clearly did his party more damage than Hatty.
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Actually, you make a good point. If Cameron killed Milliband, or Milliband killed Cameron, that would be the end of the debates.
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
Dear oh law, you are seriously unfunny! I'm embarrassed for you!
Are you seriously suggesting that a knife fight between Cameron and Milliband would be less interesting than a debate?
I wouldn't like to see that personally
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Would be a real show of strength from any politician to say "Its obvious UKIP are getting a lot of support, I am in politics to give the people what they want, not for my own good, of course they should be heard"
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
What would be wrong with the only possible Prime Ministers being the only two in the debate?
Actually, you make a good point. If Cameron killed Milliband, or Milliband killed Cameron, that would be the end of the debates.
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
Poor old Nigel would be out for the count after a few minutes. His beer and fags diet would see to that.
No wonder isam finds the suggestion so unfunny.
Seriously though, without Farage where would UKIP be?
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Why do what suits what someone partisan who doesnt know that much about the issue when there are non-partisan rules that have worked well down the years already in place to guide us?
"Too often today, people are ready to tell us, 'this is not possible, that is not possible.' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible."
"Too often today, people are ready to tell us, 'this is not possible, that is not possible.' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible."
You're back to opposing Farage's inclusion in the debates?
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I thought that was the customary way to refer to someone else in the house.
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Why do what suits what someone partisan who doesnt know that much about the issue when there are non-partisan rules that have worked well down the years already in place to guide us?
"Too often today, people are ready to tell us, 'this is not possible, that is not possible.' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible."
You're back to opposing Farage's inclusion in the debates?
Whoever is relevant to the forthcoming election in terms of number of votes should be included.
Some more than others.
We can use our own judgement to determine who gets what exposure, not everything has to be done by a set of strict rules, especially when it is obvious the rules leave an elephant in the room
I say Cameron and Miliband should get most airtime.
"Keith Vaz asked Alan Rusbridger if he loves this country. That's the definition of McCarthyism"
That was my exact thought. As it happens after watching the DH Lawrence series and the clips of Hodges delightful and talented mother I'm prepared to forgive his political chicanery. It must be difficult living in such an immense shadow
"Keith Vaz asked Alan Rusbridger if he loves this country. That's the definition of McCarthyism"
That was my exact thought. As it happens after watching the DH Lawrence series and the clips of Hodges delightful and talented mother I'm prepared to forgive his political chicanery. It must be difficult living in such an immense shadow
Thinking back to when the piccies were passed around the common room, I wouldn't have called her shadow immense.
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Why do what suits what someone partisan who doesnt know that much about the issue when there are non-partisan rules that have worked well down the years already in place to guide us?
"down the years"
There has only been one election with tv debates
Yes, you said that before, the point that the broadcasting rules we are discussing have been in place for quite a few GEs still stands.
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I thought that was the customary way to refer to someone else in the house.
No, "The [Right] Honourable Member" is the standard. [Right="on privy council"] "Friend" is normally used to mean "a member of my party". It's occasionally used as a joke when someone in a different party has unexpectedly agreed with something, but never seriously. A Freudian slip in this case, perhaps.
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Why do what suits what someone partisan who doesnt know that much about the issue when there are non-partisan rules that have worked well down the years already in place to guide us?
"down the years"
There has only been one election with tv debates
Yes, you said that before, the point that the broadcasting rules we are discussing have been in place for quite a few GEs still stands.
There are plenty of long held rules and laws that have worked well for those in charge down the years. I am sure you can think of many that you are glad were changed
But some people wanted them kept the way they were because it suited them...
& when they said "that's just the way it has always been" you though it a terrible defence
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Why do what suits what someone partisan who doesnt know that much about the issue when there are non-partisan rules that have worked well down the years already in place to guide us?
"down the years"
There has only been one election with tv debates
Yes, you said that before, the point that the broadcasting rules we are discussing have been in place for quite a few GEs still stands.
There are plenty of long held rules and laws that have worked well for those in charge down the years. I am sure you can think of many that you are glad were changed
But some people wanted them kept the way they were because it suited them...
& when they said "that's just the way it has always been" you though it a terrible defence
Yeah, and plenty of times we've all seen people try to change the rules to suit themselves and we've not agreed with them either.
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Why do what suits what someone partisan who doesnt know that much about the issue when there are non-partisan rules that have worked well down the years already in place to guide us?
"down the years"
There has only been one election with tv debates
Yes, you said that before, the point that the broadcasting rules we are discussing have been in place for quite a few GEs still stands.
There are plenty of long held rules and laws that have worked well for those in charge down the years. I am sure you can think of many that you are glad were changed
But some people wanted them kept the way they were because it suited them...
& when they said "that's just the way it has always been" you though it a terrible defence
Yeah, and plenty of times we've all seen people try to change the rules to suit themselves and we've not agreed with them either.
I would say the same for any party that was attaining the level of support that UKIP is.
Im sure the anti big two plus LDs feeling will be even greater if UKIP are excluded while the Lib Dems are involved, should the polls resemble the current situation in April 2015
We shall see. You know my position, I know yours, no more to be said by us two really.
It is a lot better value than the outstanding bet we have on UKIP > 10%. Why not. I'll take £50 of it. (ps it's £50 at 4/6 I have on UKIP < 10% with you as well, isnt it? I must write down all my GE bets as they're only in my head right now.)
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I thought that was the customary way to refer to someone else in the house.
No, "The [Right] Honourable Member" is the standard. [Right="on privy council"] "Friend" is normally used to mean "a member of my party". It's occasionally used as a joke when someone in a different party has unexpectedly agreed with something, but never seriously. A Freudian slip in this case, perhaps.
Actually I think there were a few protocol questions about the proper address for fellow coalition members from different parties. Honourable member used to mean other parties. Some compromised around Rt Hon Colleague iirc.
It is a lot better value than the outstanding bet we have on UKIP > 10%. Why not. I'll take £50 of it. (ps it's £50 at 4/6 I have on UKIP < 10% with you as well, isnt it? I must write down all my GE bets as they're only in my head right now.)
£50@4/6 is yours
I thought it was £100 the other bet.. maybe not!
Its the same as I had w @tim & @JohnO so maybe they can remember
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I thought that was the customary way to refer to someone else in the house.
No, "The [Right] Honourable Member" is the standard. [Right="on privy council"] "Friend" is normally used to mean "a member of my party". It's occasionally used as a joke when someone in a different party has unexpectedly agreed with something, but never seriously. A Freudian slip in this case, perhaps.
The government must, must move on the minimum wage tomorrow. A 5% rise (to £6.80) has to be considered. For too many years it has risen below inflation and the working poor have taken a hit so that businesses can fix their balance sheets. Now they need to make up for lost time as corporate profits rise, small businesses are in a more stable position and the jobs market is booming. The working poor have unfairly borne too much of the recession with under-inflation minimum wage rises and it all feeds into the "cost of living" crisis Labour are banging on about. An above inflation rise in the minimum wage neutralises the argument in one fell swoop. Not only is it good politics, it's probably good economics as it gives low income people more spending money, it also costs the government very little as the loss in taxes from lowered corporate profits are offset by higher yields from a higher base level wage.
The Tory party must take up the cause for lower income people and the aspirational working classes if they are to have a chance in the next election. These issues are the real meat an potatoes for the electorate. On the other side I would like to see out of work benefits frozen in cash terms for a further year. With a 5% rise in the minimum wage and a benefits freeze it really will pay to work.
Increasing the minimum wage will just make it harder for unskilled workers to find jobs.
Nice Tory opinion as ever, F You unskilled people , " I am all right Jack"
The effect of the minimum wage has been increased youth unemployment.
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I thought that was the customary way to refer to someone else in the house.
No, "The [Right] Honourable Member" is the standard. [Right="on privy council"] "Friend" is normally used to mean "a member of my party". It's occasionally used as a joke when someone in a different party has unexpectedly agreed with something, but never seriously. A Freudian slip in this case, perhaps.
But they are both on the government benches.
Yes, and I've not been in the House during a coalition, so I might be out of date. But I think you'll find that Tories and LibDems do not usually refer to each other as Honourable Friends (I may be wrong and don't have time to check). The convention very clearly means the same party, and Roger is right to note it as interesting.
By the way, as an aside, I have now changed the browser cache settings for the front page of the site, which should mean that - once you have used the F5 or reload page button on the front page at least once, you will no longer see an out of date page
"Too often today, people are ready to tell us, 'this is not possible, that is not possible.' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible."
You're back to opposing Farage's inclusion in the debates?
Whoever is relevant to the forthcoming election in terms of number of votes should be included.
Some more than others.
We can use our own judgement to determine who gets what exposure, not everything has to be done by a set of strict rules, especially when it is obvious the rules leave an elephant in the room
I say Cameron and Miliband should get most airtime.
Clegg and Farage less.
The rest, less still.
Whose judgment? Who is deciding who will be relevant and how relevant? And based on what? Any opinion pollster will tell you they're looking at now not predictions. We've seen sudden surges and drop offs in opinion polling many times before. See Cleggasm, see the Alliance polling over 50% at one stage.
The main point of the rules is to have an objective measure so there's transparency and an avoidance of wrangling over coverage.
Will UKIP be significant at the next GE? Maybe, you can make predictions but anyone who says they know for certain is a liar or a fool.
It is a lot better value than the outstanding bet we have on UKIP > 10%. Why not. I'll take £50 of it. (ps it's £50 at 4/6 I have on UKIP < 10% with you as well, isnt it? I must write down all my GE bets as they're only in my head right now.)
Don't forget that fifty quid you'll owe me when the fragrant Caroline gets whupped
It is a lot better value than the outstanding bet we have on UKIP > 10%. Why not. I'll take £50 of it. (ps it's £50 at 4/6 I have on UKIP < 10% with you as well, isnt it? I must write down all my GE bets as they're only in my head right now.)
Don't forget that fifty quid you'll owe me when the fragrant Caroline gets whupped
*knows Neil will save that comment for when she wins!*
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I thought that was the customary way to refer to someone else in the house.
No, "The [Right] Honourable Member" is the standard. [Right="on privy council"] "Friend" is normally used to mean "a member of my party". It's occasionally used as a joke when someone in a different party has unexpectedly agreed with something, but never seriously. A Freudian slip in this case, perhaps.
Tut tut incorrect young Nick ....
My "Friend" is used for members sitting on the government benches regardless of party.
I havent forgotten my bets on Caroline You were much shrewder than Mark Senior, he gave me 8/1 whereas you only gave me evens (which is what Paddy Power have her at now I think).
I havent forgotten my bets on Caroline You were much shrewder than Mark Senior, he gave me 8/1 whereas you only gave me evens (which is what Paddy Power have her at now I think).
You can rest easy, remember I've bet on there being no Green MPs in 2015.
Christ, there's going to be a Green landslide in 2015 now.
I havent forgotten my bets on Caroline You were much shrewder than Mark Senior, he gave me 8/1 whereas you only gave me evens (which is what Paddy Power have her at now I think).
It is a lot better value than the outstanding bet we have on UKIP > 10%. Why not. I'll take £50 of it. (ps it's £50 at 4/6 I have on UKIP < 10% with you as well, isnt it? I must write down all my GE bets as they're only in my head right now.)
Spreadsheets Neil. Huge, massive spreadsheets - Or is that just me
"Too often today, people are ready to tell us, 'this is not possible, that is not possible.' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible."
You're back to opposing Farage's inclusion in the debates?
Whoever is relevant to the forthcoming election in terms of number of votes should be included.
Some more than others.
We can use our own judgement to determine who gets what exposure, not everything has to be done by a set of strict rules, especially when it is obvious the rules leave an elephant in the room
I say Cameron and Miliband should get most airtime.
Clegg and Farage less.
The rest, less still.
Whose judgment? Who is deciding who will be relevant and how relevant? And based on what? Any opinion pollster will tell you they're looking at now not predictions. We've seen sudden surges and drop offs in opinion polling many times before. See Cleggasm, see the Alliance polling over 50% at one stage.
The main point of the rules is to have an objective measure so there's transparency and an avoidance of wrangling over coverage.
Will UKIP be significant at the next GE? Maybe, you can make predictions but anyone who says they know for certain is a liar or a fool.
You are right about the liar and fool part, I am not suggesting the rules should be drawn now.
The politicians and tv companies should use their judgement as to what is relevant to the debate at the time.
If two parties are polling in double figures and within 1 or 2% of each other in April 2015 then it would be wrong, in my judgement, to include one and not the other.
To say they polled 3% and didn't get any seats five years ago, so theyre not worth listening to now doesn't seem all that relevant to me. It means they weren't worth listening to five years ago.
It is a lot better value than the outstanding bet we have on UKIP > 10%. Why not. I'll take £50 of it. (ps it's £50 at 4/6 I have on UKIP < 10% with you as well, isnt it? I must write down all my GE bets as they're only in my head right now.)
Spreadsheets Neil. Huge, massive spreadsheets - Or is that just me
and if you increase the supply of something the price goes down
Absolutely correct. Therefore the correct number of people in the country is one, because that maximises average income. It also eliminates income inequality.
The effect of the minimum wage has been increased youth unemployment.
AnotherDave is - of course - completely right.
The first rule of economics is, if you increase the price of something, then demand for it goes down. That is true of cigarettes, people and Ferraris.
Another effect of the minimum wage will be to demand an increase in reliability. Its OK hiring 10 mothers of school age children to work at the local supermarket if you normally expect at least 8 to turn up, and 8 is what you need as a minimum. It doesn't matter if one or two of the mothers stay at home because their child is sick.
Increase their wages by 20% and all that happens is that the business finds it can afford to employ 8, but they're all expected to turn up, rain or shine (unless they're sick themselves).
Anecdotally, this has happened round here, and the mothers weren't pleased.
and if you increase the supply of something the price goes down
Absolutely correct. Therefore the correct number of people in the country is one, because that maximises average income. It also eliminates income inequality.
I wonder whether that opinion is really as damaging for UKIP as it appears at first glance. Although Lady Smith did express a view as to the likelihood of success of the petitioners' arguments at trial (at [38]), that was by no means the only reason for refusal of the petitioners' motion for interdict ad interim. Indeed, it is clear that the petitioners' lacklustre litigation strategy, tainted by unacceptable delay ([38]-[40]), seeking unclear relief ([43]), and ambushing the respondent the day before the third debate, was an important reason why the balance of convenience lay in favour of refusing the motion.
On the merits, UKIP has the advantage, unlike the SNP, of standing throughout the country (cf. [3] & [17]). In addition, if it has any sense, it will challenge any decision of the BBC and OfCom ahead of time, seeking clear relief. The matter would be decided at trial by the Administrative Court, according to English law. Accordingly, the balance of convenience arguments, which relate to matters of interim relief, and weighed very heavily against the petitioners' before Lady Smith, would not arise. In addition, the barbarous discretion over the reduction of administrative decisions, afforded in Scots law to the Court of Session when exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, has no counterpart in English law.
That isn't, of course, to say that any challenge by UKIP will succeed.
Interesting comments. It is correct that the SNP seemed to go to fairly extraordinary lengths to ensure that their case was presented in the worst circumstances possible. Maybe, in fairness, they were caught out by how much the debates came to dominate the entire campaign.
The discretion that the Court of Session has to reduce adminstrative decisions does not seem any different, from this side of the Border, to what the English courts do in Judicial review. Indeed in most areas, such as immigration or planning the English authorities are referred to and relied upon on a daily basis without anyone suggesting that the Courts' role north of the Border is different.
"Too often today, people are ready to tell us, 'this is not possible, that is not possible.' I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible."
You're back to opposing Farage's inclusion in the debates?
Whoever is relevant to the forthcoming election in terms of number of votes should be included.
Some more than others.
We can use our own judgement to determine who gets what exposure, not everything has to be done by a set of strict rules, especially when it is obvious the rules leave an elephant in the room
I say Cameron and Miliband should get most airtime.
Clegg and Farage less.
The rest, less still.
Whose judgment? Who is deciding who will be relevant and how relevant? And based on what? Any opinion pollster will tell you they're looking at now not predictions. We've seen sudden surges and drop offs in opinion polling many times before. See Cleggasm, see the Alliance polling over 50% at one stage.
The main point of the rules is to have an objective measure so there's transparency and an avoidance of wrangling over coverage.
Will UKIP be significant at the next GE? Maybe, you can make predictions but anyone who says they know for certain is a liar or a fool.
You are right about the liar and fool part, I am not suggesting the rules should be drawn now.
The politicians and tv companies should use their judgement as to what is relevant to the debate at the time.
If two parties are polling in double figures and within 1 or 2% of each other in April 2015 then it would be wrong, in my judgement, to include one and not the other.
To say they polled 3% and didn't get any seats five years ago, so theyre not worth listening to now doesn't seem all that relevant to me. It means they weren't worth listening to five years ago.
You want the politicians (which ones?) to use their judgment to decide which of them is relevant enough?
Hereditary peers above the rank of Baron or Lord of Parliament if Scottish are often noted by their noble rank - Noble Viscount, Noble Earl etc ....
Rightly so, of course ;-)
Now, is this also applicable for the Viscount Thurso in the commons? Or has he been demoted to a mere 'right honourable'?
Viscount Thurso is an interesting case as he is the first non Irish hereditary peer to sit in the Commons.
Whilst not a member of the Privy Council he is a "Right Honourable" by virtue of his noble rank. In the House I have only ever heard him refered to as "My Honourable ...." and not "Right" or "Noble".
However I confess his most singular case is one that I'm unaware the Commons authorities have ruled on.
Interesting comments. It is correct that the SNP seemed to go to fairly extraordinary lengths to ensure that their case was presented in the worst circumstances possible. Maybe, in fairness, they were caught out by how much the debates came to dominate the entire campaign.
The discretion that the Court of Session has to reduce adminstrative decisions does not seem any different, from this side of the Border, to what the English courts do in Judicial review. Indeed in most areas, such as immigration or planning the English authorities are referred to and relied upon on a daily basis without anyone suggesting that the Courts' role north of the Border is different.
It is wholly exceptional for the English courts to refuse to quash a decision which the decision maker had no power to make (Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (No.1) [2001] 2 AC 603, 616 per Lord Hoffmann). That said, the strict approach has been diluted by some outlandish judgments about relief in recent years, including the bizarre approach of the Administrative Court (Elias LJ & King J) in R (Hurley & Moore) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation & Skills [2012] EWHC 201 (Admin). By contrast, the discretion to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court of Session to reduce administrative decisions is, as I understand, much broader. But I know little about Scots law, and am guided by the famous dictum of Lord Maugham on the subject.
Hereditary peers above the rank of Baron or Lord of Parliament if Scottish are often noted by their noble rank - Noble Viscount, Noble Earl etc ....
Rightly so, of course ;-)
Now, is this also applicable for the Viscount Thurso in the commons? Or has he been demoted to a mere 'right honourable'?
Viscount Thurso is an interesting case as he is the first non Irish hereditary peer to sit in the Commons.
Whilst not a member of the Privy Council he is a "Right Honourable" by virtue of his noble rank. In the House I have only ever heard him refered to as "My Honourable ...." and not "Right" or "Noble".
However I confess his most singular case is one that I'm unaware the Commons authorities have ruled on.
JackW I did see a debate in the Commons in which someone referred to Viscount Thurso as the Noble member. It was followed up by a Labour member making a point of order, inferring to the speaker that there were no noble members of the Commons. The speaker, if I recall correctly, fudged his reply and made no judgement either way.
... The very senior Tory figure, the Downing Street source and the Whitehall whisperers are wrong. Not wrong to observe that Mr Darling is running a humdrum campaign: he is. But wrong to think that an exciting, blood-and-soil defence of the union would work better than a humdrum one, and frankly deluded in thinking that any of them could do better than Mr Darling.
They misunderstand the nature of Scottish public opinion. For simplicity, divide Scots into three groups. Some Scots—probably a little over a fifth—are principled nationalists who believe that they cannot be truly Scottish while yoked to the rest of Britain. They would vote for independence even if they became poorer as a result. Perhaps a third are principled unionists. The rest are fence-sitters. They may lean towards nationalism or unionism, but they weigh the pros and cons of independence in a fairly cool-headed way.
The side that wins the third, swing group wins the referendum next September.
... If the defence of the union comes from Conservatives, it would almost certainly be counterproductive. Scots are divided on independence but not on what they think of posh Tories.
Viscount Thurso is an interesting case as he is the first non Irish hereditary peer to sit in the Commons.
Whilst not a member of the Privy Council he is a "Right Honourable" by virtue of his noble rank. In the House I have only ever heard him refered to as "My Honourable ...." and not "Right" or "Noble".
However I confess his most singular case is one that I'm unaware the Commons authorities have ruled on.
Viscount Thurso is an interesting case as he is the first non Irish hereditary peer to sit in the Commons.
Whilst not a member of the Privy Council he is a "Right Honourable" by virtue of his noble rank. In the House I have only ever heard him refered to as "My Honourable ...." and not "Right" or "Noble".
However I confess his most singular case is one that I'm unaware the Commons authorities have ruled on.
Viscount Hailsham of Herstmonceaux?
Privy Counselor, QC and MP
Indeed. Right Honourable, Learned and Noble .... although he didn't succeed his father until 2001.
Comments
What's not to like, in fact?
I know just how excited he was over the Eastleigh by-election.
I've never known anyone be that excited when I rang him to say "Chris Huhne has just pleaded guilty"
We'd need to have some system for the parties to have leader, deputy leader, deputy-deputy leader, so that we could guarantee three debates. Of course, this would pretty much ensure all the parties elected physically hard men to be their leaders; I'm not sure if that's a negative or not.
"couldn't we put them in a cage and watch them bash the bejasus out of each other. It would be much more interesting TV."
Like Oliver Reid and Alan Bates and (sadly) not Glenda Jackson in Woman in Love-naked?
It would certainly lift the profile of both men though probably more appealing to the Old Etonians than the men of toil on the Labour side. We could follow it up with Hatty and Nick....
Talking of which neither were very good today though Nick clearly did his party more damage than Hatty.
Why he calls Cameron 'My Right Honourable FRIEND' is baffling. In fact agreeing to sound like a Tory mouthpiece is just crazy. The Lib Dems must have been squirming in their seats.
I guess rules is rules... Why do what seems relevant and right when there are bureaucratic procedures producing nonsense outcomes that must be obeyed?
Would be a real show of strength from any politician to say "Its obvious UKIP are getting a lot of support, I am in politics to give the people what they want, not for my own good, of course they should be heard"
Rather than hide behind rules and regs
Computer says no society
I'm about to post something that is probably going to offend and upset you.
But Dan Hodges agrees with something you said yesterday.
Keith Vaz asked Alan Rusbridger if he loves this country. That's the definition of McCarthyism
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100248867/keith-vaz-asked-alan-rusbridger-if-he-loves-this-country-thats-the-definition-of-mccarthyism/
No wonder isam finds the suggestion so unfunny.
Seriously though, without Farage where would UKIP be?
There has only been one election with tv debates
Some more than others.
We can use our own judgement to determine who gets what exposure, not everything has to be done by a set of strict rules, especially when it is obvious the rules leave an elephant in the room
I say Cameron and Miliband should get most airtime.
Clegg and Farage less.
The rest, less still.
@Eagle
"Keith Vaz asked Alan Rusbridger if he loves this country. That's the definition of McCarthyism"
That was my exact thought. As it happens after watching the DH Lawrence series and the clips of Hodges delightful and talented mother I'm prepared to forgive his political chicanery. It must be difficult living in such an immense shadow
Perhaps conducted AV.
Top 3 win.
Reading the posts under the article you can see why he writes as he does. Jesus!!
But some people wanted them kept the way they were because it suited them...
& when they said "that's just the way it has always been" you though it a terrible defence
Im sure the anti big two plus LDs feeling will be even greater if UKIP are excluded while the Lib Dems are involved, should the polls resemble the current situation in April 2015
We shall see. You know my position, I know yours, no more to be said by us two really.
Want to bet at 4/6 LDs bt UKIP in the GE 2015?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/25221598
I thought it was £100 the other bet.. maybe not!
Its the same as I had w @tim & @JohnO so maybe they can remember
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/03/the-effect-of-the-minimum-wage-on-youth-unemployment/
http://youtu.be/ca8Z__o52sk
The first rule of economics is, if you increase the price of something, then demand for it goes down. That is true of cigarettes, people and Ferraris.
The main point of the rules is to have an objective measure so there's transparency and an avoidance of wrangling over coverage.
Will UKIP be significant at the next GE? Maybe, you can make predictions but anyone who says they know for certain is a liar or a fool.
I'm happy to go with your memory of the other bet.
My "Friend" is used for members sitting on the government benches regardless of party.
I havent forgotten my bets on Caroline
Christ, there's going to be a Green landslide in 2015 now.
The politicians and tv companies should use their judgement as to what is relevant to the debate at the time.
If two parties are polling in double figures and within 1 or 2% of each other in April 2015 then it would be wrong, in my judgement, to include one and not the other.
To say they polled 3% and didn't get any seats five years ago, so theyre not worth listening to now doesn't seem all that relevant to me. It means they weren't worth listening to five years ago.
18/1
Should a member be a holder of the VC they are further refered to as "Gallant"
One might speculate if a future brave, legally eminent, peer on the Privy Council might be addressed as :
"My Right Honourable, Gallant, Learned and Noble Friend"
Increase their wages by 20% and all that happens is that the business finds it can afford to employ 8, but they're all expected to turn up, rain or shine (unless they're sick themselves).
Anecdotally, this has happened round here, and the mothers weren't pleased.
3/1 With Ladbrokes
http://www.oddschecker.com/tv/strictly-come-dancing/bottom-two
Hereditary peers above the rank of Baron or Lord of Parliament if Scottish are often noted by their noble rank - Noble Viscount, Noble Earl etc ....
The Noble Blogger and The Noble Explorer of Bournemouth?
The discretion that the Court of Session has to reduce adminstrative decisions does not seem any different, from this side of the Border, to what the English courts do in Judicial review. Indeed in most areas, such as immigration or planning the English authorities are referred to and relied upon on a daily basis without anyone suggesting that the Courts' role north of the Border is different.
Labour and Tory MPs don't use "friend" even when they are friends outside parliament.
Baron JohnO of the South Coast will clearly be Dave's "Noble Friend" but as for Baron Smithson of Bedford the jury is still out ....
Now, is this also applicable for the Viscount Thurso in the commons? Or has he been demoted to a mere 'right honourable'?
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/martin-bashir-resigns-from-msnbc/
Martin Bashir ought to have had more sense.
Whilst not a member of the Privy Council he is a "Right Honourable" by virtue of his noble rank. In the House I have only ever heard him refered to as "My Honourable ...." and not "Right" or "Noble".
However I confess his most singular case is one that I'm unaware the Commons authorities have ruled on.
Liverpool lead, Chelsea losing.
Happy days
A 40 yard Lob.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3sXt-S7Vic
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/01/31/what-do-you-call-a-nobleman-in-the-commons/
Of course it would be Rees-Mogg who would insist on calling him that!
Thank you. I wasn't aware of those exchanges.
10th Goal in four games against the canaries.
Why can I see Antifrank flagging all of my posts this evening?
I assume that would be more than enough to power the whole of, say, Denmark:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Come on you Blues!
Privy Counselor, QC and MP