Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP’s dreadful YouGov party favourability ratings now get eve

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited December 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » UKIP’s dreadful YouGov party favourability ratings now get even worse

"undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper&&(window.datawrapper={}),window.datawrapper["97SmC"]={},window.datawrapper["97SmC"].embedDeltas={"100":917.8,"200":708.8,"300":644.8,"400":644.8,"500":599.8,"600":599.8,"700":599.8,"800":599.8,"900":580.8,"1000":580.8},window.datawrapper["97SmC"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-97SmC"),window.datawrapper["97SmC"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["97SmC"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["97SmC"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])"97SmC"==b&&(window.datawrapper["97SmC"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px")});

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,103
    edited December 2016
    Remember when Premier League had to change the traditional bottle of bubbly to a crap trophy for MoM after Toure said it was unfair he couldn't receive the award as he was a devote Muslim...

    Manchester City footballer Yaya Toure has been charged with drink driving, police have confirmed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38194869

    Where's my cake...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,075

    Where's my cake...

    Boris Johnson ate it.
  • Remember when Premier League had to change the traditional bottle of bubbly to a crap trophy for MoM after Toure said it was unfair he couldn't receive the award as he was a devote Muslim...

    Manchester City footballer Yaya Toure has been charged with drink driving, police have confirmed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38194869

    Where's my cake...

    See that's why

    1) I'm not a devout Muslim

    2) I don't drink
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,484
    edited December 2016
    That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.

    One being thrown away by the likes of Zac...
  • FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,497
    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Well, the least unfavourable!

    Somebody needs to shout "Fatcha!!!!!" more often.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,497

    That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.

    One being thrown away by the likes of Zac...
    Who?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,190

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
  • That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.

    One being thrown away by the likes of Zac...
    When Zac was signed up for Cameron's A list it was seen as part of the detoxification. He blew it with his mayoral campaign which used Lynton Crosby's company.

  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,190
    Looking just at the favourability numbers, there is potential upside for the LibDems and Kippers while Lab and Con are at their ceilings. Clearly things can change, especially if a party changes leader. It will be interesting to revisit the numbers in 3 months time to see what impact Nutty Boy will have.
  • Dr. Foxinsox, different audiences, and different contenders against Corbyn. How will he react when questioned about wanting subs without nukes, or to leave the EU but have totally open borders?

    The debates being abandoned would be a damned good thing, that said.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 4,385

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    There's an easy solution to the by-election swings problem. Don't stand any candidates.
    No swing against - no problem.
    (You can always canvass for an "Independent" who'll follow the Conservative party line in almost all matters, give that candidate your local electoral data, even send MPs to campaign for him/her, but if he or she loses or gets a swing against, it won't matter - "He wasn't ours in the first place"

    This tactic might not be of much use in a General Election, to be fair.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,061

    Looking just at the favourability numbers, there is potential upside for the LibDems and Kippers while Lab and Con are at their ceilings. Clearly things can change, especially if a party changes leader. It will be interesting to revisit the numbers in 3 months time to see what impact Nutty Boy will have.

    Early days. But from what I've seen of him so far he comes across as an unappealing thug, who's likely to take them further towards the lunatic fringe.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    In summary, we can read (or reasonably infer) the following:

    1. Politicians generally unpopular - but Tories much the least unpopular.
    2. Lib Dems not doing substantially better than Corbynite Labour on this measure.
    3. SNP and Ukip are both niche products, which are widely abhorred outside of their supporter bases (the difference, of course, being that support for one is well-concentrated geographically, support for the other is mostly diffuse.)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,457

    Remember when Premier League had to change the traditional bottle of bubbly to a crap trophy for MoM after Toure said it was unfair he couldn't receive the award as he was a devote Muslim...

    Manchester City footballer Yaya Toure has been charged with drink driving, police have confirmed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38194869

    Where's my cake...

    Reminds me of the Muslim who protested against the Danish cartoons a few years back. He dressed as a suicide bomber and was in every national paper.

    As a result his parole was cancelled and he was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence for peddling heroin.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,103
    edited December 2016
    ydoethur said:

    Remember when Premier League had to change the traditional bottle of bubbly to a crap trophy for MoM after Toure said it was unfair he couldn't receive the award as he was a devote Muslim...

    Manchester City footballer Yaya Toure has been charged with drink driving, police have confirmed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38194869

    Where's my cake...

    Reminds me of the Muslim who protested against the Danish cartoons a few years back. He dressed as a suicide bomber and was in every national paper.

    As a result his parole was cancelled and he was ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence for peddling heroin.
    There was also the Newcastle United footballer a couple of years ago, who made a big scene about gambling sponsor and wouldn't wear a shirt with the logo....was then found late one night in a casino.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    Dr. Foxinsox, different audiences, and different contenders against Corbyn. How will he react when questioned about wanting subs without nukes, or to leave the EU but have totally open borders?

    The debates being abandoned would be a damned good thing, that said.

    They are going to happen, but I think that like Brown, Corbyn will come over better than expectations. He relishes an audience, and Trident is not that popular in a time of austerity, at least with his target audience.

    The time that he looks to have enjoyed most this year was campaigning in the leadership contest. He loves debating so is in his element. He is not a good listener, but then neither is May. She has no people skills.



  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited December 2016
    Off to the office party now, to dance like Ed Balls with a snake in his trousers.

    Play nicely people, and thanks for not mentioning Sunderland. Foxestalk is in meltdown ;-)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    I'm glad you are still in the tent, even if you are pissing in. :p
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 71,944
    Off topic: Far from not communicating with China, Trump is the first leader to have done so since pre-Carter !
  • Pulpstar said:

    Off topic: Far from not communicating with China, Trump is the first leader to have done so since pre-Carter !

    Now PB's going to be infested by the Troll army from Beijing.
  • RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    I'm glad you are still in the tent, even if you are pissing in. :p
    You're lucky I have a bladder the size of the Sahara. I can keep it in.
  • Mr. Eagles, if there are any Chinese people reading this, they should buy Kingdom Asunder.

    It's a novel about the terrible events that occur when the rightful government of a nation is challenged by internal dissent and foreign interference, with an emphasis on the loyalty and honour of the true ruler's family and officials.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,190

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    I'm glad you are still in the tent, even if you are pissing in. :p
    You're lucky I have a bladder the size of the Sahara. I can keep it in.
    But when the dam does burst, we can expect a Tsunami!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,075
    Pulpstar said:

    Off topic: Far from not communicating with China, Trump is the first leader to have done so since pre-Carter !

    We know he's recently met with Henry Kissinger. All those policy wonks who were confidently telling us that Trump wasn't interested in foreign policy will be shown to be as wrong as everything else that's been written about him.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,075

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    I'm glad you are still in the tent, even if you are pissing in. :p
    You're lucky I have a bladder the size of the Sahara. I can keep it in.
    But when the dam does burst, we can expect a Tsunami!
    Why go to Germany for water cannons?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,484
    edited December 2016

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    I'm glad you are still in the tent, even if you are pissing in. :p
    You're lucky I have a bladder the size of the Sahara. I can keep it in.
    But when the dam does burst, we can expect a Tsunami!
    Why go to Germany for water cannons?
    This reminds me of the scene from Horrible Bosses when the guys meet the assassin they want to kill their bosses, because in his advert does it says he does wet work.

    NSFW

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh0yLaWv6Fs
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    We are alll PB Tories now!
  • That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.

    And giving a chance for the electorate to vote LEAVE!
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
    I don't think leaders should be pressured by the broadcasters to take part. What right do the latter have to impose this and lead us to believe that it is an essential part of the election campaign? Every leader should have a right of veto , and those who are not candidates at the election - eg Sturgeon - should have no right to participate.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457
    We don't like politicians much do we?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,540
    justin124 said:

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
    I don't think leaders should be pressured by the broadcasters to take part. What right do the latter have to impose this and lead us to believe that it is an essential part of the election campaign? Every leader should have a right of veto , and those who are not candidates at the election - eg Sturgeon - should have no right to participate.
    Every leader should be able to veto all debates? What right does TM have to prevent the other candidates having a debate if they want?
  • Mr. 124, I agree. The electoral campaign should not be dictated by the media, particularly when the format they love is so flawed (the Worm is horrendous because it has a statistically significant impact upon viewer perception but is determined by a small group wide open to infiltration or groupthink).

    The media is there to report on the course political events take, not to try and determine that course.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    edited December 2016
    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
    I don't think leaders should be pressured by the broadcasters to take part. What right do the latter have to impose this and lead us to believe that it is an essential part of the election campaign? Every leader should have a right of veto , and those who are not candidates at the election - eg Sturgeon - should have no right to participate.
    Every leader should be able to veto all debates? What right does TM have to prevent the other candidates having a debate if they want?
    The same right that Tony Blair - John Major - Margaret Thatcher - Harold Wilson - and Ted Heath had and exercised!
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    TSE

    Waves
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    TSE

    Waves
    Form is temporary, class is permanent.
  • FregglesFreggles Posts: 3,475
    DavidL said:

    We don't like politicians much do we?

    Arguably there is a correlation between how political/ideological the party is seen as, and unpopularity.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 57,803
    Scott_P said:

    twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/805125756627992577

    QTWTAIN
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    TSE

    Waves
    Form is temporary, class is permanent.
    I remember saying exactly that just a few weeks ago..
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 103,484
    edited December 2016

    RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    TSE

    Waves
    Form is temporary, class is permanent.
    I remember saying exactly that just a few weeks ago..
    Still not over yet this weekend.

    Tomorrow I Just need Liverpool to win 9 - 8 with Mane, Firmino, and Lallana all scoring hat tricks, and Lovren scoring eight own goals before he's sent off.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,540
    Pulpstar said:

    Off topic: Far from not communicating with China, Trump is the first leader to have done so since pre-Carter !

    The first leader to have communicated with China since pre-Carter?
    What do you mean by that?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,190
    Scott_P said:
    Presumably the opposite should also apply?
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    TSE

    Waves
    Form is temporary, class is permanent.
    I remember saying exactly that just a few weeks ago..
    Still not over yet this weekend.

    Tomorrow I Just need Liverpool to win 9 - 8 with Mane, Firmino, and Lallana all scoring, and Lovren scoring eight own goals before he's sent off.
    Indeed. How mamy are fit though?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457
    edited December 2016
    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will be wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.
  • RobD said:

    Amazing that the Tories are the most favourable party!

    Technically they are the least unfavourable party.
    Great to see you spinning against the Tories.
    I'm pro Tory, less pro our mandateless eye-watering swings against party leader.
    TSE

    Waves
    Form is temporary, class is permanent.
    I remember saying exactly that just a few weeks ago..
    Still not over yet this weekend.

    Tomorrow I Just need Liverpool to win 9 - 8 with Mane, Firmino, and Lallana all scoring, and Lovren scoring eight own goals before he's sent off.
    Indeed. How mamy are fit though?
    I think Mane is the only one certain to start.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457

    Scott_P said:
    Presumably the opposite should also apply?
    Don't be silly.
  • Remember when Premier League had to change the traditional bottle of bubbly to a crap trophy for MoM after Toure said it was unfair he couldn't receive the award as he was a devote Muslim...

    Manchester City footballer Yaya Toure has been charged with drink driving, police have confirmed.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-38194869

    Where's my cake...

    Arf - Cheers Mr Urquhart, that made me smile.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457
    Freggles said:

    DavidL said:

    We don't like politicians much do we?

    Arguably there is a correlation between how political/ideological the party is seen as, and unpopularity.
    If so it's pretty weak. I mean the Lib Dems don't really believe in anything do they? And they are still unpopular.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,540
    justin124 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
    I don't think leaders should be pressured by the broadcasters to take part. What right do the latter have to impose this and lead us to believe that it is an essential part of the election campaign? Every leader should have a right of veto , and those who are not candidates at the election - eg Sturgeon - should have no right to participate.
    Every leader should be able to veto all debates? What right does TM have to prevent the other candidates having a debate if they want?
    The same right that Tony Blair - John Major - Margaret Thatcher - Harold Wilson - and Ted Heath had and exercised!
    I think if those candidates' opponents decided to organise a debate and invited the PM of the time... It would be quite wrong for the media to be banned from televising it- even if the PM didn't want to go!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,190
    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    DavidL said:

    We don't like politicians much do we?

    Arguably there is a correlation between how political/ideological the party is seen as, and unpopularity.
    If so it's pretty weak. I mean the Lib Dems don't really believe in anything do they? And they are still unpopular.
    Being a bunch of duplicitous shits must also be a factor.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
    Even Cameron didn't manage to stop them altogether and he tried hard enough. About the only upside I can see is the boost in traffic that PB gets from them.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
    I don't think leaders should be pressured by the broadcasters to take part. What right do the latter have to impose this and lead us to believe that it is an essential part of the election campaign? Every leader should have a right of veto , and those who are not candidates at the election - eg Sturgeon - should have no right to participate.
    Every leader should be able to veto all debates? What right does TM have to prevent the other candidates having a debate if they want?
    The same right that Tony Blair - John Major - Margaret Thatcher - Harold Wilson - and Ted Heath had and exercised!
    I think if those candidates' opponents decided to organise a debate and invited the PM of the time... It would be quite wrong for the media to be banned from televising it- even if the PM didn't want to go!
    She would be doing nothing more than follow the examples of those predecessors who acted on the basis of calculated self interest.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457

    DavidL said:

    Freggles said:

    DavidL said:

    We don't like politicians much do we?

    Arguably there is a correlation between how political/ideological the party is seen as, and unpopularity.
    If so it's pretty weak. I mean the Lib Dems don't really believe in anything do they? And they are still unpopular.
    Being a bunch of duplicitous shits must also be a factor.
    Not really. I mean look at all the others. People kinda expect it.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    Scott_P said:
    Presumably the opposite should also apply?
    Remainers live by different rules
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
    Even Cameron didn't manage to stop them altogether and he tried hard enough. About the only upside I can see is the boost in traffic that PB gets from them.
    Cameron only agreed to anything on the basis of certain leaders being included - ie the Greens. Without that he might have blocked them entirely.
  • Cameron played chicken with the broadcasters ( who legally are in a weak position ) and got the debates done to one last time. There is no reason why she'll retreat from that unless it suits her. It'll only suit her if the Tories are well behind Labour in the polls by the time of the next election. If she's ahead and in a position of strength she may well try and go further than Cameron and ditch the all party debate all together. As Corbyn/May will be the starkest choice of Prime Minister the nation has faced since at least 1983 or perhaps 1832 it'll suit her to keep it to head to heads in UK wide debates.
  • kjohnwkjohnw Posts: 1,456

    Scott_P said:
    Presumably the opposite should also apply?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rn3vuKEgTbs&feature=share

    This is hilarious . Double standards from the lib dems
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
    Even Cameron didn't manage to stop them altogether and he tried hard enough. About the only upside I can see is the boost in traffic that PB gets from them.
    Cameron only agreed to anything on the basis of certain leaders being included - ie the Greens. Without that he might have blocked them entirely.
    They were desperate not to but ultimately I think the media would have empty chaired him. There is way too much ego and self importance invested in the debates by the media to let them be stopped.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,540
    justin124 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    justin124 said:

    FPT: Dr. Foxinsox, no. Cameron won most seats (a substantial increase too), but failed to win an overall majority in 2010, at least in part because of Clegg's strong debate performance. Brown also exceeded (low) expectations.

    The debates gave Clegg a huge degree of media coverage, he performed well, and he was an alternative alternative to Brown. Previously that mantle had rested comfortably on Cameron's shoulders. The debates were a clear strategic mistake by Cameron, and good for both Brown and Clegg.

    I agree May is not especially impressive, but if she faces Corbyn at the election she may still do very well.

    On-topic: UKIP's got a lot of serious short term problems, but if Nuttall can overcome them the party's strategic position is great. Like being a millionaire in a building that's on fire.

    Corbyn comes over reasonably well at debates, having watched him at the hustings last year, Nuttall may well too. We know Sturgeon is a winner from last time, and Farron is in his element.

    Having seen May at QT, I think she will flop. Most likely she will try to dodge them, but I would expect her to be empty chaired if she does. She can run but cannot hide.
    I don't think leaders should be pressured by the broadcasters to take part. What right do the latter have to impose this and lead us to believe that it is an essential part of the election campaign? Every leader should have a right of veto , and those who are not candidates at the election - eg Sturgeon - should have no right to participate.
    Every leader should be able to veto all debates? What right does TM have to prevent the other candidates having a debate if they want?
    The same right that Tony Blair - John Major - Margaret Thatcher - Harold Wilson - and Ted Heath had and exercised!
    I think if those candidates' opponents decided to organise a debate and invited the PM of the time... It would be quite wrong for the media to be banned from televising it- even if the PM didn't want to go!
    She would be doing nothing more than follow the examples of those predecessors who acted on the basis of calculated self interest.
    I'm fine for her not to show... That's her choice. My point is she has no right to prevent the others having a debate or to prevent the media reporting it... Which is what I thought you were suggesting by saying veto. In the same way that Cameron didn't show... But the debate went ahead.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
    Even Cameron didn't manage to stop them altogether and he tried hard enough. About the only upside I can see is the boost in traffic that PB gets from them.
    Cameron only agreed to anything on the basis of certain leaders being included - ie the Greens. Without that he might have blocked them entirely.
    They were desperate not to but ultimately I think the media would have empty chaired him. There is way too much ego and self importance invested in the debates by the media to let them be stopped.
    Could he not have gone to the Courts and cited the vetos exercised by his predecessors? If emptychairing is so straight forward surely it would have happened decades earlier!
  • @rkrkrk The media wouldn't be banned from covering it. But TV and Radio are regulated by OFCOM and coverage in campaigns is balanced according to principles stemming from RotPA. The question is what compensatory coverage would a broadcaster have to give May if it ran a debate without her. Or if the Tories could successfully judicially review a decision to go ahead without her.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,497
    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Off topic: Far from not communicating with China, Trump is the first leader to have done so since pre-Carter !

    The first leader to have communicated with China since pre-Carter?
    What do you mean by that?
    Only those out of tune with their voters, perhaps?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Floater said:

    Remainers live by different rules

    Yes, Remainers play by the rule of law, unlike the Brexiteers...

    https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/805118751658147844
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527

    Cameron played chicken with the broadcasters ( who legally are in a weak position ) and got the debates done to one last time. There is no reason why she'll retreat from that unless it suits her. It'll only suit her if the Tories are well behind Labour in the polls by the time of the next election. If she's ahead and in a position of strength she may well try and go further than Cameron and ditch the all party debate all together. As Corbyn/May will be the starkest choice of Prime Minister the nation has faced since at least 1983 or perhaps 1832 it'll suit her to keep it to head to heads in UK wide debates.

    And of course if May is only agreable to a head to head debate with Corbyn it is almost certain that the other party leaders will seek to block them!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 44,457
    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
    Even Cameron didn't manage to stop them altogether and he tried hard enough. About the only upside I can see is the boost in traffic that PB gets from them.
    Cameron only agreed to anything on the basis of certain leaders being included - ie the Greens. Without that he might have blocked them entirely.
    They were desperate not to but ultimately I think the media would have empty chaired him. There is way too much ego and self importance invested in the debates by the media to let them be stopped.
    Could he not have gone to the Courts and cited the vetos exercised by his predecessors? If emptychairing is so straight forward surely it would have happened decades earlier!
    They did have a debate without him. I think the answer is no. The broadcast media have an obligation to give equal coverage overall but not at each and every event. I can't see the courts being interested if the complaint was that someone didn't want to play.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Scott_P said:

    Floater said:

    Remainers live by different rules

    Yes, Remainers play by the rule of law, unlike the Brexiteers...

    https://twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/805118751658147844
    So Scott,

    You feel remainer mp's in areas that voted leave should resign then?

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,075

    The question is what compensatory coverage would a broadcaster have to give May if it ran a debate without her.

    They could run a sympathetic hour long profile on May's stylish shoes, comparing her with similar figures like Imelda Marcos.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,507

    That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.

    And giving a chance for the electorate to vote LEAVE!
    That's his greatest legacy. One to be truly proud of.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,004
    edited December 2016
    I'm having a decent fantasy football weekend even with Aguero being an arae. I wonder how the runaway league leader is doing.

    Oh.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 52,457

    Mr. Eagles, if there are any Chinese people reading this, they should buy Kingdom Asunder.

    It's a novel about the terrible events that occur when the rightful government of a nation is challenged by internal dissent and foreign interference, with an emphasis on the loyalty and honour of the true ruler's family and officials.

    Mr Dancer, with due respect to your fabulous novel which I will get round to reading soon (I hope) I think that would be a very bad idea. Last time somebody offered that advice to the Chinese people the consequences were unfortunate.
  • DavidL said:

    We don't like politicians much do we?

    Never understood why anyone should need to like an MP, you can respect them for what they stand for or have achieved, but that’s a very different thing.
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    justin124 said:

    DavidL said:

    I think despite the tedium, the prepared answers, the non answers and the completely facile focus on sound bites they produce the debates are here to stay. May will be as dull as ditchwater but thoroughly prepared. Corbyn will be "surprisingly good" because expectations will be so low that having his flies all the way up will put him into positive territory and people will wondering who the weird little guy is if Farron gets invited to any at all. I can feel the ennui already.

    By effectively blocking a repeat of the 2010 format in 2015 ,I think Cameron prevented the Debates becoming a permanent feature of the campaign.Other party leaders can cite that precedent as well as the earlier examples - when the absence of 100% agreement prevented them taking place at all.
    Even Cameron didn't manage to stop them altogether and he tried hard enough. About the only upside I can see is the boost in traffic that PB gets from them.
    Cameron only agreed to anything on the basis of certain leaders being included - ie the Greens. Without that he might have blocked them entirely.
    They were desperate not to but ultimately I think the media would have empty chaired him. There is way too much ego and self importance invested in the debates by the media to let them be stopped.
    Could he not have gone to the Courts and cited the vetos exercised by his predecessors? If emptychairing is so straight forward surely it would have happened decades earlier!
    They did have a debate without him. I think the answer is no. The broadcast media have an obligation to give equal coverage overall but not at each and every event. I can't see the courts being interested if the complaint was that someone didn't want to play.
    Which raises the question as to why did the Broadcasters did not emptychair Wilson - Heath -Thatcher -Major -and Blair? Surely their failure to do so on those earlier occasions would expose them to accusations of inconsistency and bias!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,075

    DavidL said:

    We don't like politicians much do we?

    Never understood why anyone should need to like an MP, you can respect them for what they stand for or have achieved, but that’s a very different thing.
    When they don't stand for anything and have no achievements, turning it into a popularity contest is all they have left.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,540

    rkrkrk said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Off topic: Far from not communicating with China, Trump is the first leader to have done so since pre-Carter !

    The first leader to have communicated with China since pre-Carter?
    What do you mean by that?
    Only those out of tune with their voters, perhaps?
    Sorry I don't follow what you're saying?
  • Alistair said:

    I'm having a decent fantasy football weekend even with Aguero being an arae. I wonder how the runaway league leader is doing.

    Oh.

    Like Scotland under Bertie Vogts
  • Cameron played a blinder on the debates. The big strategy was fear of a hung parliament and Milliband being bossed about by left wing munchkins nobody had ever heard of. He then secured not only a debate that put Sturgeon, Wood and Bennett on Prime Time but a challengers debate as well. Tory voters watching that witnessed an alternate time line. A Britain with no Tories. And English Tories didn't like the look of it and got to the polls.

    At the ToR May faces a very similar situation. She's the only party leader who fits Britain's psychological template of what a PM should look like. It suits her to go head to head with Corbyn or have the Munchkins all on show. But 3 all party debates like 2010 ? Ain't gonna happen.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Off topic - this cannot be right can it?

    I mean it's the Express but WTF?

    http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/739275/Dutch-watchdog-OK-send-gay-people-death-threats-Muslim

    "According to Dutch media advisors from the anti-discrimination bureau MiND said that, while homophobic abuse was usually a crime, it was justifiable if you were Muslim due to laws on freedom of religious expression.

    They argued that the Koran says it is acceptable to kill people for being homosexual, and so death threats towards gay people from Muslims could not be discriminatory.

    In a jaw-dropping email explaining why they could not take up the complaint, they wrote: “The remarks must be seen in the context of religious beliefs in Islam, which juridically takes away the insulting character." "

    However it does seem that AFTER people complained they said

    A spokesman for the MiND hotline admitted that after “further research” of the issue it had concluded that the complaint had been “unjustly assessed”.

    You think????????
  • Alistair said:

    I'm having a decent fantasy football weekend even with Aguero being an arae. I wonder how the runaway league leader is doing.

    Oh.

    Bit early to choke isn't it...
  • Sean_F said:

    That's one of Dave's truly great legacies.

    Detoxifying the Tories.

    And giving a chance for the electorate to vote LEAVE!
    That's his greatest legacy. One to be truly proud of.
    Indeed, He promised a referendum and stuck to his word. A far cry from the Lisbon Treaty.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 42,075
    edited December 2016

    At the ToR May faces a very similar situation. She's the only party leader who fits Britain's psychological template of what a PM should look like.

    That would fail badly if the Lib Dems could find a path back to the leadership for Nick Clegg. (Remember Clegg was also missing from the challengers debate in 2015 - another win for Cameron.)
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,004

    Alistair said:

    I'm having a decent fantasy football weekend even with Aguero being an arae. I wonder how the runaway league leader is doing.

    Oh.

    Like Scotland under Bertie Vogts
    You wish you were doing that well.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Floater said:

    You feel remainer mp's in areas that voted leave should resign then?

    All MPs will have to face their electorate. Some might wish to do so before the extent of their folly is revealed. Others will be happy to wait for the "I told you so" election.
  • Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm having a decent fantasy football weekend even with Aguero being an arae. I wonder how the runaway league leader is doing.

    Oh.

    Like Scotland under Bertie Vogts
    You wish you were doing that well.
    Half my side haven't played yet.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    edited December 2016

    The question is what compensatory coverage would a broadcaster have to give May if it ran a debate without her.

    They could run a sympathetic hour long profile on May's stylish shoes, comparing her with similar figures like Imelda Marcos.
    Indeed. If they empty chaired May but because of RotPA had to give her a 45min prime time interview with a soft interviewer like Andrew Marr or one of the Loose Women would the Tories be bothered ?
  • justin124justin124 Posts: 11,527
    I can well imagine that next time both Labour and the Tories will not wish to give publicity to the smaller parties and be disinclined to want to debate with them.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,540

    @rkrkrk The media wouldn't be banned from covering it. But TV and Radio are regulated by OFCOM and coverage in campaigns is balanced according to principles stemming from RotPA. The question is what compensatory coverage would a broadcaster have to give May if it ran a debate without her. Or if the Tories could successfully judicially review a decision to go ahead without her.

    How could they review a decision to go ahead without her? Especially if she was invited!
    Compensatory coverage... Hmm... Yes I guess thats fair. What did they do last time with Cameron a no show?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,004

    Alistair said:

    Alistair said:

    I'm having a decent fantasy football weekend even with Aguero being an arae. I wonder how the runaway league leader is doing.

    Oh.

    Like Scotland under Bertie Vogts
    You wish you were doing that well.
    Half my side haven't played yet.
    We thought we were doing well when we beat the Netherlands 1-0 in the first leg of the playoff
  • Will UKIP keep " Major Party " status from OFCOM in 2020 ? They'll be no EP election to win in 2019 and they'll lose all their MP's. Probably by a whisker based on 2015 vote share.

    Will the Lib Dems keep " Major Party " status from OFCOM in 2020 ? They'll rely on contemporary polling and local authority gains, Richmond Park etc. The 8% and 8 seats in 2015 may not be enough in it's self. Brexit may have saved them.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Corbyn has precisely nothing to lose in any TV debates. However, unelectable is unelectable, and TV debate or no, he is about as unelectable as any individual could be. Outside his safe space of Corbynistas and twitter heads, he will be exposed for the anti-British zealot he truly is.
  • rkrkrk said:

    @rkrkrk The media wouldn't be banned from covering it. But TV and Radio are regulated by OFCOM and coverage in campaigns is balanced according to principles stemming from RotPA. The question is what compensatory coverage would a broadcaster have to give May if it ran a debate without her. Or if the Tories could successfully judicially review a decision to go ahead without her.

    How could they review a decision to go ahead without her? Especially if she was invited!
    Compensatory coverage... Hmm... Yes I guess thats fair. What did they do last time with Cameron a no show?
    A court could conclude the debates are so prominent and influential that broadcasting them in the campaign period without a " Major Party " candidate breached the balance requirements. I'm not saying that's right or likely. I'm saying the Broadcasters don't want to go to court and neither do the politicians. Which gives both sides a veto of sorts.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,780

    Cameron played a blinder on the debates. The big strategy was fear of a hung parliament and Milliband being bossed about by left wing munchkins nobody had ever heard of. He then secured not only a debate that put Sturgeon, Wood and Bennett on Prime Time but a challengers debate as well. Tory voters watching that witnessed an alternate time line. A Britain with no Tories. And English Tories didn't like the look of it and got to the polls.

    At the ToR May faces a very similar situation. She's the only party leader who fits Britain's psychological template of what a PM should look like. It suits her to go head to head with Corbyn or have the Munchkins all on show. But 3 all party debates like 2010 ? Ain't gonna happen.

    A bit pyrrhic for Cameron though, wasn't it? A hung Parliament would have served him better than going through that wretched referendum?
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    edited December 2016
    This is interesting

    election-data.co.uk/richmond-park
This discussion has been closed.