Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way - not what the ideal format would be, but what the parties are likely to accept in terms of cold-blooded calculation.
The Conservatives think Cameron is their greatest asset and UKIP is their biggest danger. They're bound to want any formula that includes him and not Farage. A two-leader debate would fit their concept ideally.
Labour thinks that Miliband will outperform expectations, so any reasonable format is good. Having Farage is OK because he's probably more of a threat to the Tories. But we won't want to be tag-teamed by DC/NC and in general I'd think we'll resist giving Clegg equal status again.
The LibDems will emphatically resist any downgrading, and will quite like having Farage, to weaken the Tory challenge in Lib/Con marginals and help them promote their "we are the anti-UKIP" niche approach.
Nobody is really certain that the debates will help them or that they'll win without them, so there isn't a huge pressure to agree or disagree. However, that could change nearer the election. If one party is clearly in a commanding position,their interest will switch against having the debate, since it throws an unpredictable element into the mix. The TV companies should try to nail down an agreement as soon as possible while the parties are still unsure. Some sort of varying format seems the only way through the thicket - a PM Cam/Mil debate, a couple of Cam/Mil/Clegg ones and one all-party debate, perhaps?
Agree with the last bit particularly.. it is ridiculous to give Clegg equal billing to Cameron and Miliband, and I guess Farage should be less involved than Clegg given UKIPs lack of MPs
Having three debates, with one less participant each time, seems perfectly fair
I think that seems a sensible compromise.
Miliband vs Cameron is the key battle and they need to be given more exposure than the other two.
But perhaps prior to the Euros,there could be a debate with Cam/Mili/Clegg/Farage.
Having three debates, with one less participant each time, seems perfectly fair
Put like that the obvious solution is to decide the eliminations with American-Idol-style phone-in votes. No need to limit it to three rounds - they should start auditioning around September and go from there.
Let's not forget these were the Prime ministerial debates. Given Clegg no longer appears to have any ambition to be PM, just an adjunct to a Tory or Labour government, is there any need for him to be involved?What about just having a single Cameron/Miliband debate and leaving it at that. Personally the 'debates' might be over-rated. I quite liked the Question Timestuff from 2005, witht the audience getting to put questions to party leaders individually. The important thing is we get proper scrutiny of them and the leaders can't hide behind advertising campaigns and their friends in the media.
I think this bickering show I'm correct. The only sensible criterion is whether a party is ministrable. And a party has to demonstrate that first...
None of the big three will go into coalition in a hung parliament with SNP, Greens or UKIP.
So if (pigs might fly) UKIP were on 40% they should still be excluded from the debates. They would presumably win the election and become the fourth ministrable party, thereby earning their inclusion in the next election's debates...
One of the truly great British films is on Channel 4 at 1.15pm.
Zulu!
Carry On Up The Khyber is surely a better master class of British military brilliance ?!?
Careful, you'll have Michael Gove saying nasty things about you if you carry on like that. Didn't you know that Great Britain won every single battle in every war it ever fought in and it was all because of the superb tactics of our brilliant generals who managed to achieve all of this with the loss of only one carrier pigeon. Anyone who says otherwise is obviously a leftie agitator paid by the Kremlin.
Carry on up the Khyber is one of my favourite films.
It is banned in Pakistan, I think mostly because Pakistanis can't believe and embarrassed by the fact that "These are the people that ruled us for a century?"
I think this bickering show I'm correct. The only sensible criterion is whether a party is ministrable. And a party has to demonstrate that first...
None of the big three will go into coalition in a hung parliament with SNP, Greens or UKIP.
So if (pigs might fly) UKIP were on 40% they should still be excluded from the debates. They would presumably win the election and become the fourth ministrable party, thereby earning their inclusion in the next election's debates...
I think that clearly that is not true. If UKIP have 4 or 5 seats after the election and that is enough to give the Tories a majority in a two party coalition I can certainly see them doing so. More likely I can see Labour in a coalition with the SNP or even the Greens (Though I doubt the latter will have an MP after 2015.)
Miliband vs Cameron is the key battle and they need to be given more exposure than the other two.
No, it isn't
Which channel gets which debate, and do the channels that don't show Farage in a debate have to show an extra PPB?
None of these wild schemes are workable with the broadcasters and the law.
Are you really saying a tv programme showing Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage in a debate would be illegal, it would be impossible to change such a law to allow it?!
Are you really saying a tv programme showing Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage in a debate would be illegal, it would be impossible to change such a law to allow it?!
No, I am really saying that the broadcasters are legally obliged to be impartial during the campaign.
3 debates with 3 leaders on 3 channels clearly meets that criteria.
1 debate per channel with different numbers of leaders does not.
It is true that the impartiality laws could be repealed. It's not going to happen. Get over it.
Cameron would be the leader who would least want to debate with Farage, as on any issue that touches on EU membership, he would find little to disagree with Farage. I am not sure this would help stop Tories from voting UKIP. If the subject of EU renegotiation came up, I think it would be difficult for Cameron not to get into specifics. Cameron is not very good with details and I think he would trip up, pitted against Clegg, Farage and Miliband, who would probably ridicule Cameron making him look weak.
I think this bickering show I'm correct. The only sensible criterion is whether a party is ministrable. And a party has to demonstrate that first...
None of the big three will go into coalition in a hung parliament with SNP, Greens or UKIP.
So if (pigs might fly) UKIP were on 40% they should still be excluded from the debates. They would presumably win the election and become the fourth ministrable party, thereby earning their inclusion in the next election's debates...
"So if (pigs might fly) UKIP were on 40% they should still be excluded from the debates"
That's brilliant!
If a party were polling 40% and excluded by the current government from debating on tv before a GE it would be like living behind the Iron Curtain...
Political hegemony in action, parties only interested in their own chance of power not want the people wan't... you couldn't make it up
I think this bickering show I'm correct. The only sensible criterion is whether a party is ministrable. And a party has to demonstrate that first...
None of the big three will go into coalition in a hung parliament with SNP, Greens or UKIP.
Disagree, any of these are plausible given the right arithmetic but especially Lab-Green or Con-SNP.
I thought things weren't looking good for the only Green MP in the house?
Hard to say - the Greens in control of the council are having some local difficulties but it's not clear how much they'll rub off on her. And even if they lose their only seat next time, I'd expect them to win more and dig in in them in the long term.
Are you really saying a tv programme showing Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage in a debate would be illegal, it would be impossible to change such a law to allow it?!
No, I am really saying that the broadcasters are legally obliged to be impartial during the campaign.
3 debates with 3 leaders on 3 channels clearly meets that criteria.
1 debate per channel with different numbers of leaders does not.
It is true that the impartiality laws could be repealed. It's not going to happen. Get over it.
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way - not what the ideal format would be, but what the parties are likely to accept in terms of cold-blooded calculation. ... Some sort of varying format seems the only way through the thicket - a PM Cam/Mil debate, a couple of Cam/Mil/Clegg ones and one all-party debate, perhaps?
I think Nick has put his finger on the central point here. I'd only add that the broadcasters will also have some input to the decision - they'll of course want Farage because that will make it more of a circus.
I don't think, though, that Nick's suggestion is a way through the thicket. I can't see the LibDems agreeing to anything which implies they are not at the top table.
The area really flying now is commercial property which is both a reflection of and a precursor to the substantial increase in investment that we will see this year. This allows the economy to keep growing even if the consumer needs to take a breather after Christmas and ultimately increases the economy's capacity to produce goods and services allowing exports and import substitution.
I think this bickering show I'm correct. The only sensible criterion is whether a party is ministrable. And a party has to demonstrate that first...
None of the big three will go into coalition in a hung parliament with SNP, Greens or UKIP.
Disagree, any of these are plausible given the right arithmetic but especially Lab-Green or Con-SNP.
Let me know when it moves from 'plausible' to reality. It's lunacy to imagine the SNP in a UK cabinet...
And the Greens ruled themselves out last time...
Why lunacy to imagine the SNP in a UK cabinet, pray? The SNP MPs are MPs just as much as the Tory MPs - which are increasingly English only MPs (fewer than ten in Wales and Scotland, IIRC). And Westminster, we are told, is for all the UK.
(The aftermath of a Yes vote in the indy referendum is not relevant - (a) it has not happened yet but if it did and there was a yes, then to align the UK Cabinet with the interests of EWNI alone is constitutionally wrong, though tempting and probably inevitable given the lack of care for such matters shown by Westminster.)
Worried that a commentator on a political website is incapable of grasping some fundamental aspects of election law perhaps.
About the debates? No.
The debates, in whatever format they happen or not, with whoever is in them, or not, will not change the result.
I am not incapable of grasping any such law, I am just saying that laws can be changed and I think this one will be if it used to exclude a popular party from exposure in the debates.
If Cameron tries to hide behind it he will be slaughtered, but go on using it to justify an unfair advantage if you like
I am not incapable of grasping any such law, I am just saying that laws can be changed and I think this one will be if it used to exclude a popular party from exposure in the debates.
You think the broadcaster impartiality laws will be repealed.
Can I interest you in some magic beans I happen to have to hand?
"Berger went on to claim: “A yearly pass now costs £368 on average, an increase of £15 since 2010″. Before this intervention is allowed to shift the entire political narrative, it should also be pointed out that it’s complete nonsense.
An increase of £15 since 2010 constitutes a 4.1% rise. However, if subsidised costs had risen in line with CPI over the same period (10.5%) a pass would cost an average of £390. So in fact that is a real terms cut of £22 in gym membership costs since 2010. Not only was Berger’s intervention completely vacuous, it was just plain wrong"
I was rather shocked by today's FT article carrying a suggestion from an "EPP insider" that their candidacy for EU Commission President was "Enda Kenny's if the Irish Prime Minister wants it". Do they really want a candidate who was out-debated by Bertie Ahern?! Paddy Power has him at 20/1 to be Ireland's next EU Commissioner if you think the story has the slightest bit of credence (the EPP candidate is surely an evens shot of winning the post).
Happy New Year everyone. I'm in the camp who is strongly pro the debates; for millions of people it's a chance to see far more of the leaders than they ever do through soundbites in news broadcasts, and gets behind the headlines. Just because they aren't perfect is no reason to consider halting them altogether.
If it was up to me (being partisan), I'd have 2 debates with Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, and would make Ed hot favourite. All he'd have to do was blame everything on Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum beside him.
And then a third open to all leaders of parties standing 500 candidates. So not just UKIP but Greens, possibly Loonies or English Dems? The more crackpot the better as it stops Nigel Farage whinging about being excluded, but also puts him on the same footing as several other people with less than mainstream views but who are far weaker communicators.
I am not incapable of grasping any such law, I am just saying that laws can be changed and I think this one will be if it used to exclude a popular party from exposure in the debates.
You think the broadcaster impartiality laws will be repealed.
Can I interest you in some magic beans I happen to have to hand?
They would not have to be repealed. They are civil laws that would only become relevant if the way in which broadcasters were interpreting them was challenged. If all parties agreed not to challenge it would not be a problem. And if they agree that format then obviously they would not challenge them.
I am not incapable of grasping any such law, I am just saying that laws can be changed and I think this one will be if it used to exclude a popular party from exposure in the debates.
You think the broadcaster impartiality laws will be repealed.
Can I interest you in some magic beans I happen to have to hand?
Ill bet with you that Farage is involved in a debate if you like
I was rather shocked by today's FT article carrying a suggestion from an "EPP insider" that their candidacy for EU Commission President was "Enda Kenny's if the Irish Prime Minister wants it". Do they really want a candidate who was out-debated by Bertie Ahern?! Paddy Power has him at 20/1 to be Ireland's next EU Commissioner if you think the story has the slightest bit of credence (the EPP candidate is surely an evens shot of winning the post).
If all parties agreed not to challenge it would not be a problem.
Not going to happen. Get over it.
The SNP challenged last time, didn't they? And they lost.
The point is that no-one can hide behind the impartiality laws. A deal could be agreed under the current laws that would be workable. The only reason for it not to happen is if someone did not want it to.
That said, if you are right perhaps the best thing for Cameron would be to agree a format that includes UKIP and then wait for the Greens or maybe the SNP/PC to knock it down via the courts. He then gets everything he would want as the debates would not happen but it would be entirely someone else's fault.
A UK Independence Party councillor in West Yorkshire is “baffled” by Britain’s social acceptance of homosexuality and says that he finds “female homosexuality” even stranger, whilst also going into great detail about his sex life.
I wonder if we'll get any by-elections this year that UKIP can win? Somewhere in East Anglia or Kent after the Euro elections? UKIP gaining an MP would be politically significant.
Tory MPs, measured by the number of by-elections, appear to be a very healthy lot - certainly compared with Labour. They've also avoided expenses related criminial cases and jail terms.
I remember reading a paper a long time ago that it was to do with the scale of their defeat in 1997.
The incoming Tory MPs in 2005/2010 were a younger generation, while you had some superannuated Labour MPs who had held their seats since 1997 plus also, some others who had won in 1997 after running several times (1987/1992) so were generally older
I wonder if we'll get any by-elections this year that UKIP can win? Somewhere in East Anglia or Kent after the Euro elections? UKIP gaining an MP would be politically significant.
Tory MPs, measured by the number of by-elections, appear to be a very healthy lot - certainly compared with Labour. They've also avoided expenses related criminial cases and jail terms.
I remember reading a paper a long time ago that it was to do with the scale of their defeat in 1997.
The incoming Tory MPs in 2005/2010 were a younger generation, while you had some superannuated Labour MPs who had held their seats since 1997 plus also, some others who had won in 1997 after running several times (1987/1992) so were generally older
Would be interesting, if someone had the time, to rank MP's by age. Like Charls, I suspect that you'd find more Labour MP's at the "older" end. It's an impression that more Lab MP's plan to retire at the next election.
While l agree with what you posted, l would have thought that being 'Britain's most read political blog' you could at least checked the composition ' I'm not convinced that he can think of the his feet '. Sets a poor example don't you agree.
I was rather shocked by today's FT article carrying a suggestion from an "EPP insider" that their candidacy for EU Commission President was "Enda Kenny's if the Irish Prime Minister wants it". Do they really want a candidate who was out-debated by Bertie Ahern?! Paddy Power has him at 20/1 to be Ireland's next EU Commissioner if you think the story has the slightest bit of credence (the EPP candidate is surely an evens shot of winning the post).
Nice catch. I doubt they're particularly bothered by their debating skills - Kenny (or Tusk or whoever) vs Schulz isn't exactly going to be the biggest televised event of the century. If the PES had picked somebody telegenic there might be some pressure, but as it is the EPP leaders are free to go with whoever they think will do what they're told.
I was rather shocked by today's FT article carrying a suggestion from an "EPP insider" that their candidacy for EU Commission President was "Enda Kenny's if the Irish Prime Minister wants it". Do they really want a candidate who was out-debated by Bertie Ahern?! Paddy Power has him at 20/1 to be Ireland's next EU Commissioner if you think the story has the slightest bit of credence (the EPP candidate is surely an evens shot of winning the post).
What odds is Brian Cowen?
Sadly Paddy only has odds on FG or Lab contenders (difficult to imagine FG even giving the gig up to Lab). Enda is adamant that he doesnt want the job and can barely speak Irish never mind any continental languages so should surely be a non-runner on that basis too!
A UK Independence Party councillor in West Yorkshire is “baffled” by Britain’s social acceptance of homosexuality and says that he finds “female homosexuality” even stranger, whilst also going into great detail about his sex life.
It's worse than that. Lagarde, the head of the IMF, is toying with the idea of paying the eurozone's debts by taking10% of all the possessions of the wealthiest in the region. It isn;t a tax, in that its something a government will stand on and be elected on. It's essentially legalised theft.
It would be done at very short notice to prevent the cash and property fleeing elsewhere. Sort of a night of the long knives job.
Remember Eck went to court last time, and got gubbed.
Which is not to say that Farage would suffer the same fate if he did the same thing. Personally I think it's more than reasonable to base coverage (including presence in debates) on actual results in the last equivalent election. That rules Farage out for 2015 but gives UKIP every chance of being involved in 2020 (and in the meantime they get the added bonus of being able to complain about the unfairness of being excluded).
But that would introduce an excessive time-lag into the system. While it's certainly reasonable to base part of the case as to how much coverage a party should receive from a neutral service on their performance 5 years ago, how they have done since surely has to be taken into account too, otherwise breakthrough parties will always face even higher structural barriers (and likewise, declining parties will be excessively protected).
Some consideration of number of candidates, performance in local, by-, Euro- and regional elections, and performance in opinion polling needs to be given too. The precedent is already there in terms of party political/election broadcasts.
Wouldn't it be simplest to have a bright line test:
* All parties that are standing in more than X constituencies with at least Y in each of England, Wales and Scotland (excluding NI because of the different party structure)
AND EITHER
(a) Have more than X current members of the House of Commons
OR
(b) Have averaged more than x% in opinion polls since the last equivalent election (you'd need to select a single provider, probably YouGov simply by virtue of them having the most polls, or perhaps you go for some kind of blended average of polls
I was rather shocked by today's FT article carrying a suggestion from an "EPP insider" that their candidacy for EU Commission President was "Enda Kenny's if the Irish Prime Minister wants it". Do they really want a candidate who was out-debated by Bertie Ahern?! Paddy Power has him at 20/1 to be Ireland's next EU Commissioner if you think the story has the slightest bit of credence (the EPP candidate is surely an evens shot of winning the post).
What odds is Brian Cowen?
Sadly Paddy only has odds on FG or Lab contenders (difficult to imagine FG even giving the gig up to Lab). Enda is adamant that he doesnt want the job and can barely speak Irish never mind any continental languages so should surely be a non-runner on that basis too!
Remember Eck went to court last time, and got gubbed.
Which is not to say that Farage would suffer the same fate if he did the same thing. Personally I think it's more than reasonable to base coverage (including presence in debates) on actual results in the last equivalent election. That rules Farage out for 2015 but gives UKIP every chance of being involved in 2020 (and in the meantime they get the added bonus of being able to complain about the unfairness of being excluded).
But that would introduce an excessive time-lag into the system. While it's certainly reasonable to base part of the case as to how much coverage a party should receive from a neutral service on their performance 5 years ago, how they have done since surely has to be taken into account too, otherwise breakthrough parties will always face even higher structural barriers (and likewise, declining parties will be excessively protected).
Some consideration of number of candidates, performance in local, by-, Euro- and regional elections, and performance in opinion polling needs to be given too. The precedent is already there in terms of party political/election broadcasts.
Wouldn't it be simplest to have a bright line test:
* All parties that are standing in more than X constituencies with at least Y in each of England, Wales and Scotland (excluding NI because of the different party structure)
AND EITHER
(a) Have more than X current members of the House of Commons
OR
(b) Have averaged more than x% in opinion polls since the last equivalent election (you'd need to select a single provider, probably YouGov simply by virtue of them having the most polls, or perhaps you go for some kind of blended average of polls
It's worse than that. Lagarde, the head of the IMF, is toying with the idea of paying the eurozone's debts by taking10% of all the possessions of the wealthiest in the region. It isn;t a tax, in that its something a government will stand on and be elected on. It's essentially legalised theft.
It would be done at very short notice to prevent the cash and property fleeing elsewhere. Sort of a night of the long knives job.
Cameron would be the leader who would least want to debate with Farage, as on any issue that touches on EU membership, he would find little to disagree with Farage. I am not sure this would help stop Tories from voting UKIP. If the subject of EU renegotiation came up, I think it would be difficult for Cameron not to get into specifics. Cameron is not very good with details and I think he would trip up, pitted against Clegg, Farage and Miliband, who would probably ridicule Cameron making him look weak.
I think Cameron and Farage disagree completely on EU membership. Mr Cameron is strongly pro-EU membership, Mr Farage is strongly anti-EU membership.
No because QE is reversible. The Bank of England has bought a bucket of Britian's debt I grant you. But the Bank can and should sell that that debt when the time is right.
I don;t suppose the wealthy will be getting their money back.
It's worse than that. Lagarde, the head of the IMF, is toying with the idea of paying the eurozone's debts by taking10% of all the possessions of the wealthiest in the region. It isn;t a tax, in that its something a government will stand on and be elected on. It's essentially legalised theft.
It would be done at very short notice to prevent the cash and property fleeing elsewhere. Sort of a night of the long knives job.
And it would only be a one off. Honestly.
Now, I ask you, what could possibly go wrong??
The rich will get tip off's from chums 'in the know' within the Euro political elite, and shift any loot lingering within the EZ before the grab takes place, as happened in Cyprus. Those lower down the chain will take the hit.
I can't see 'merely wealthy' middle class Germans letting 10% go without a fight.
Regarding last nights discussion of the Clarkson programme about the Navy last night, just been speaking to my Dad who confirmed that his Dad was on the Ark Royal went it was sunk off Gibraltar. Will watch on iplayer with added interest.. unfortunately never got to meet my Grandad as he died all of a sudden 6 months before I was born
Mr. Eagles, that's unfair. Badoer wasn't very quick, but he also wasn't a ****.
Hmm. World War I is something we briefly covered at school. Wasn't it pretty much because the Germans thought the Frogs would take advantage of an Eastern war to retake Alsace and Lorraine, so (having beaten France in six weeks, apparently, a few decades earlier) they thought they'd win in the West in a few weeks* and then not have to worry about being ambushed there at an inopportune moment later.
*This plan did not develop in quite the way the Germans had anticipated.
Why lunacy to imagine the SNP in a UK cabinet, pray?
How about their pledge (not always honoured) not to vote on non-Scottish issues?
You presumably mean English/Welsh etc only issues - which is not, of course, the same thing as non-Scottish (which would, also, e.g. include UK wide issues such as foreign policy and fiscal policy). Yes, the SNP have a self-denying ordinance on English only issues. But many - presumably all - apparent violations arise where the supposedly English only issues are in fact nothing of the sort: they have direct Barnett consequentials and are therefore legitimate and indeed necessary voting for the SNP. Best they can do in the current setup.
I would have thought this was a Good Thing for backbench MPs to do and so it has been (ironically given that it was a Labour MP who coined the West Lothian Question, it has been Labour and the LDs who are the real offenders). Of course if someone is worried about the WLQ then they should also be worried about a Tory-LD coalition imposing decisions on Scotland on such Scottish-only matters as have not been repatriated - but we're beginning to get stuck in the morass of anomalies in the current constitutional setup, so I will stop there.
Okay, insanity is a colourful way of saying "very improbable" or "counterproductively harmful to the SNP" as someone else also commented. But I was genuinely interested to know if anyone though there was a formal reason against the SNP (or PC or the UUP or SF ...) being in cabinet that did not equally apply to an increasingly one-country Tory party, other than the greater number of English seats. Of course, I agree, it all boils down to the practicality in the circumstances. In the current circs, for reasons we all know, I like others would be very surprised if the SNP did form a coalition gmt at Westminster. I think they'd be far more likely to support a Lab or Con or Con-UKIP minority gmt or otherwise, policy by policy. They've experience of the other side of running a minority government fairly successfully, the odd tram-type defeat aside, without having to go into coalition.
Mr. Eagles, that's unfair. Badoer wasn't very quick, but he also wasn't a ****.
Hmm. World War I is something we briefly covered at school. Wasn't it pretty much because the Germans thought the Frogs would take advantage of an Eastern war to retake Alsace and Lorraine, so (having beaten France in six weeks, apparently, a few decades earlier) they thought they'd win in the West in a few weeks* and then not have to worry about being ambushed there at an inopportune moment later.
*This plan did not develop in quite the way the Germans had anticipated.
I don't mind educating you on the First World War.
The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.
*This plan did not develop in quite the way the Germans had anticipated.
The book I'm reading suggests the Germans were in some ways forced into a corner. The Franco- Russian alliance was estimated by everybody to be much more powerful and aggressive than it really was.
In all seriousness, but with different treaties/alliances signed decades before, we could have been on the side of the Central Powers in World War I, and the Germans on the Entente side.
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's not true for a start.
Well, "not true" is putting it a bit strongly. It's an opinion which is justified by some facts and actions.
One of the problems with WWI is that just about every participant could claim it was a just war, even though in the big scheme of things, it was utterly pointless.
Whether you believe the 'German domination' hypothesis really turns on the two key questions about the outbreak of the war: - Was Austria-Hungary justified in declaring war on Serbia? - Was Russia justified in fully backing Serbia?
Christ on a bike, I've just read Michael Gove's comments on World War I.
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
That's pretty much the conclusion that Max Hastings comes to in Catastrophe and, as I understand it (IANAE), is the consensus view among modern historians, including German ones. The German leadership was confident they could repeat the successes of Bismarck and pushed Austria-Hungary into attacking Serbia in the knowledge this would bring the Russians and hence the French in. They had plans to attack and knock out France in the same way they did in 1870.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.
Is it wrong that I'm enjoying Nick Griffin's bankruptcy?
But I'm allowed to make an exception for Nick Griffin.
He is someone who would expel me from this country if he had a chance.
I am sure there are many who would joyously expel you from this country, given the chance. The expulsion would be based on colour. The colour of your legendary (allegedly) shoes.
Comments
Miliband vs Cameron is the key battle and they need to be given more exposure than the other two.
But perhaps prior to the Euros,there could be a debate with Cam/Mili/Clegg/Farage.
Which channel gets which debate, and do the channels that don't show Farage in a debate have to show an extra PPB?
None of these wild schemes are workable with the broadcasters and the law.
None of the big three will go into coalition in a hung parliament with SNP, Greens or UKIP.
So if (pigs might fly) UKIP were on 40% they should still be excluded from the debates. They would presumably win the election and become the fourth ministrable party, thereby earning their inclusion in the next election's debates...
Everything else is spin and wishful thinking.
It is banned in Pakistan, I think mostly because Pakistanis can't believe and embarrassed by the fact that "These are the people that ruled us for a century?"
@IsabelHardman: The Miliband statement on Hollande's 'new leadership' that the Tories will enjoy reminding Labour of this year http://t.co/RXKq6u3sk6
The Khasi of Kalabar: May the benevolence of the god Shivoo bring blessings on your house.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: And on yours.
The Khasi of Kalabar: And may his wisdom bring success in all your undertakings.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: And in yours.
The Khasi of Kalabar: And may his radiance light up your life.
Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond: And up yours.
Jesus
Quite.
Are you really saying a tv programme showing Cameron, Miliband, Clegg and Farage in a debate would be illegal, it would be impossible to change such a law to allow it?!
And the Greens ruled themselves out last time...
3 debates with 3 leaders on 3 channels clearly meets that criteria.
1 debate per channel with different numbers of leaders does not.
It is true that the impartiality laws could be repealed. It's not going to happen. Get over it.
That's brilliant!
If a party were polling 40% and excluded by the current government from debating on tv before a GE it would be like living behind the Iron Curtain...
Political hegemony in action, parties only interested in their own chance of power not want the people wan't... you couldn't make it up
I don't think, though, that Nick's suggestion is a way through the thicket. I can't see the LibDems agreeing to anything which implies they are not at the top table.
Mr Ford was the first candidate to file his nomination at 8:30 am local time.
"My track record speaks for itself," Mr Ford told reporters. "I've been the best mayor this city has ever had."
He also announced that his slogan will be: "Ford more years".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/toronto-mayor-rob-ford-to-run-for-reelection-despite-crack-scandal-9034790.html
About the debates? No.
The debates, in whatever format they happen or not, with whoever is in them, or not, will not change the result.
The area really flying now is commercial property which is both a reflection of and a precursor to the substantial increase in investment that we will see this year. This allows the economy to keep growing even if the consumer needs to take a breather after Christmas and ultimately increases the economy's capacity to produce goods and services allowing exports and import substitution.
2014 is starting with a fair wind in the sails.
(The aftermath of a Yes vote in the indy referendum is not relevant - (a) it has not happened yet but if it did and there was a yes, then to align the UK Cabinet with the interests of EWNI alone is constitutionally wrong, though tempting and probably inevitable given the lack of care for such matters shown by Westminster.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/4296396.stm
If Cameron tries to hide behind it he will be slaughtered, but go on using it to justify an unfair advantage if you like
Can I interest you in some magic beans I happen to have to hand?
http://order-order.com/2014/01/03/labours-gym-spin-machine-needs-to-row-back/
"Berger went on to claim: “A yearly pass now costs £368 on average, an increase of £15 since 2010″. Before this intervention is allowed to shift the entire political narrative, it should also be pointed out that it’s complete nonsense.
An increase of £15 since 2010 constitutes a 4.1% rise. However, if subsidised costs had risen in line with CPI over the same period (10.5%) a pass would cost an average of £390. So in fact that is a real terms cut of £22 in gym membership costs since 2010. Not only was Berger’s intervention completely vacuous, it was just plain wrong"
If it was up to me (being partisan), I'd have 2 debates with Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, and would make Ed hot favourite. All he'd have to do was blame everything on Tweedle-dee and Tweedle-dum beside him.
And then a third open to all leaders of parties standing 500 candidates. So not just UKIP but Greens, possibly Loonies or English Dems? The more crackpot the better as it stops Nigel Farage whinging about being excluded, but also puts him on the same footing as several other people with less than mainstream views but who are far weaker communicators.
Whatever next? The price of Playstations, Ugg boots or foreign holidays?
It would definitely boost interest in politics and viewing figures.
Last three survivors get to participate in the debates.
The point is that no-one can hide behind the impartiality laws. A deal could be agreed under the current laws that would be workable. The only reason for it not to happen is if someone did not want it to.
That said, if you are right perhaps the best thing for Cameron would be to agree a format that includes UKIP and then wait for the Greens or maybe the SNP/PC to knock it down via the courts. He then gets everything he would want as the debates would not happen but it would be entirely someone else's fault.
Newspaper readership strongest predictor of concern abt immigration - but cause/effect tricky
http://bit.ly/Kkv3n2
pic.twitter.com/yZLciYAyJ2
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/01/03/ukip-councillor-admits-to-using-wrong-sized-condoms-and-being-baffled-by-lesbians/
The SNP would be annihilated in Scotland, as would any UK party who tried to create such a coalition monstrosity...
The incoming Tory MPs in 2005/2010 were a younger generation, while you had some superannuated Labour MPs who had held their seats since 1997 plus also, some others who had won in 1997 after running several times (1987/1992) so were generally older
Ill be generous and split the difference in your favour
£100@9/4 Farage is involved
It's an impression that more Lab MP's plan to retire at the next election.
'"Berger went on to claim: “A yearly pass now costs £368 on average, an increase of £15 since 2010″.
Berger should stick to something she knows the cost of like personalized car number plates.
You set the terms, this could go on all day
BNP Leader Nick Griffin Is Bankrupt, But At Least He's Not Michael Schumacher, Says Press Officer http://huff.to/1gw24av
It's worse than that. Lagarde, the head of the IMF, is toying with the idea of paying the eurozone's debts by taking10% of all the possessions of the wealthiest in the region. It isn;t a tax, in that its something a government will stand on and be elected on. It's essentially legalised theft.
It would be done at very short notice to prevent the cash and property fleeing elsewhere. Sort of a night of the long knives job.
And it would only be a one off. Honestly.
Now, I ask you, what could possibly go wrong??
Someone make him stop
The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.
* All parties that are standing in more than X constituencies with at least Y in each of England, Wales and Scotland (excluding NI because of the different party structure)
AND EITHER
(a) Have more than X current members of the House of Commons
OR
(b) Have averaged more than x% in opinion polls since the last equivalent election (you'd need to select a single provider, probably YouGov simply by virtue of them having the most polls, or perhaps you go for some kind of blended average of polls
That's not true for a start.
Still, Schumacher has had a brilliant life up till now (Whatever happens) and doesn't look like 'Sloth' from the Goonies.
No because QE is reversible. The Bank of England has bought a bucket of Britian's debt I grant you. But the Bank can and should sell that that debt when the time is right.
I don;t suppose the wealthy will be getting their money back.
I can't see 'merely wealthy' middle class Germans letting 10% go without a fight.
There for the Grace of God go I, springs to mind even if I've nothing in common with them.
I have quite a lot of faith in Karma = so don't fancy it rebounding on me by reveling in another's misfortune.
Hmm. World War I is something we briefly covered at school. Wasn't it pretty much because the Germans thought the Frogs would take advantage of an Eastern war to retake Alsace and Lorraine, so (having beaten France in six weeks, apparently, a few decades earlier) they thought they'd win in the West in a few weeks* and then not have to worry about being ambushed there at an inopportune moment later.
*This plan did not develop in quite the way the Germans had anticipated.
He is someone who would expel me from this country if he had a chance.
I would have thought this was a Good Thing for backbench MPs to do and so it has been (ironically given that it was a Labour MP who coined the West Lothian Question, it has been Labour and the LDs who are the real offenders). Of course if someone is worried about the WLQ then they should also be worried about a Tory-LD coalition imposing decisions on Scotland on such Scottish-only matters as have not been repatriated - but we're beginning to get stuck in the morass of anomalies in the current constitutional setup, so I will stop there.
Okay, insanity is a colourful way of saying "very improbable" or "counterproductively harmful to the SNP" as someone else also commented. But I was genuinely interested to know if anyone though there was a formal reason against the SNP (or PC or the UUP or SF ...) being in cabinet that did not equally apply to an increasingly one-country Tory party, other than the greater number of English seats. Of course, I agree, it all boils down to the practicality in the circumstances. In the current circs, for reasons we all know, I like others would be very surprised if the SNP did form a coalition gmt at Westminster. I think they'd be far more likely to support a Lab or Con or Con-UKIP minority gmt or otherwise, policy by policy. They've experience of the other side of running a minority government fairly successfully, the odd tram-type defeat aside, without having to go into coalition.
I very much doubt the eurozone governments would go for this, in truth.
Its the very fact that its being proposed that is striking to me.
The war started because of the vile Hun and his villainous empire- building.
Ditto - when outright theft is dressed up as a 'progressive tax' - everyone should begin to worry.
The book I'm reading suggests the Germans were in some ways forced into a corner. The Franco- Russian alliance was estimated by everybody to be much more powerful and aggressive than it really was.
£20 lost on a 28-1 should be good...
As it's frightfully modern I haven't really read up on it since, so I can't really comment much further.
One of the problems with WWI is that just about every participant could claim it was a just war, even though in the big scheme of things, it was utterly pointless.
Whether you believe the 'German domination' hypothesis really turns on the two key questions about the outbreak of the war:
- Was Austria-Hungary justified in declaring war on Serbia?
- Was Russia justified in fully backing Serbia?
Both agreed that they could have gone from being a very very good team to one of the greats at the Wanderers.
The idea that it was all some terrible accident or simply incompetence is no longer in favour.