On the day after my party has been predicted to get just 13 seats it's actually the PB Conservatives who are in another blind panic... As a Lib Dem I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...
For you guys getting 13 is just another day in the office. For us who are genuinely terrified of a Corbyn government any less than 320 or more is a terrifying prospect.
I'd find a Corbyn government terrifying too. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on that.
It would be quite funny if as a result of this Channel4 were forced to rectify by giving Gove a full length interview on climate change. It would be a free hit for the Tories.
Give Bozo two interviews with Neil by way of compensation.
I think time here is far more relevant than which nationality they have
French person here 15 years planning to stay > Irish person here 1 year planning to leave or indeed UK person who has been absent for 20 years with no plans to return.
The only of of the three who could vote would be the Irish person and only because we treat them as British. Why hasn't your hypothetical French person bothered to take citizenship if they've been here for 15 years and are planning to stay? They can get citizenship if they want it if they've been here that long and then they can vote.
The Tory manifesto is offering votes for the absent expats.
Perhaps they dont have £1k disposable income to buy a passport. Perhaps they see themselves as French. Perhaps it is more convenient for foreign travel. I dont really mind, by being here 15 years they have shown themselves to be a long term part of the community and therefore should have a say.
If they see themselves as French they have no reason to vote in our elections. The fee has nothing to do with it and if you want to remove the fee then I'd have no objection to that. All countries for good reason reject their national elections to their own nationals.
The fee matters to those who cant afford it!
I want people who are a long term part of the community of the UK to be able to vote, whether they see their main identity as British, Scottish, Cornish, French, Irish, world citizens, Europeans, Chinese or even Catholic or Muslim doesnt change that.
In addition citizenship does not equal "main identity". Citizenship is just a piece of paper.
Goodness pity I bothered to read most of the postings on this thread. Channel 4 and its news programme is a TV version of a cross between the Daily Sport and Guardian newspaper. Half its audience watch it because they are tree hugging lefties that no-one else takes seriously and the other half are people who like watching programmes with people exposing various parts of their bodies with no clothes on. It really is time we made it pay for itself or close it down.
Equally whether BoJo does or does not do an interview with Andrew Neil will vex the sort of people who post on here and most of the population wont give a damn.
Postal voting has already begun and all the broadcast media and most of the print media today ran the story of last night's poll. Most people have already decided how they will vote. Channel 4's programme will merely reinforce to a shower of lefties why they hate BoJo and always have. I'm off to do some genealogy.
Are those trust figures for real? I assume they aren't, they are VI figures presented as "trust" for the sake of the rather feeble gag. Which is seriously naughty, suggesting that Swinson is seen as more than twice as big a liar as Johnson.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Jo Swinson does her recycling and uses a refillable cup. Adam Price is going to buy an electric car. Corbyn blah, blah, blah. Boris won this borefest and he wasn't even there.
Goodness pity I bothered to read most of the postings on this thread. Channel 4 and its news programme is a TV version of a cross between the Daily Sport and Guardian newspaper. Half its audience watch it because they are tree hugging lefties that no-one else takes seriously and the other half are people who like watching programmes with people exposing various parts of their bodies with no clothes on. It really is time we made it pay for itself or close it down.
Equally whether BoJo does or does not do an interview with Andrew Neil will vex the sort of people who post on here and most of the population wont give a damn.
Postal voting has already begun and all the broadcast media and most of the print media today ran the story of last night's poll. Most people have already decided how they will vote. Channel 4's programme will merely reinforce to a shower of lefties why they hate BoJo and always have. I'm off to do some genealogy.
I think time here is far more relevant than which nationality they have
French person here 15 years planning to stay > Irish person here 1 year planning to leave or indeed UK person who has been absent for 20 years with no plans to return.
The only of of the three who could vote would be the Irish person and only because we treat them as British. Why hasn't your hypothetical French person bothered to take citizenship if they've been here for 15 years and are planning to stay? They can get citizenship if they want it if they've been here that long and then they can vote.
The Tory manifesto is offering votes for the absent expats.
Perhaps they dont have £1k disposable income to buy a passport. Perhaps they see themselves as French. Perhaps it is more convenient for foreign travel. I dont really mind, by being here 15 years they have shown themselves to be a long term part of the community and therefore should have a say.
If they see themselves as French they have no reason to vote in our elections. The fee has nothing to do with it and if you want to remove the fee then I'd have no objection to that. All countries for good reason reject their national elections to their own nationals.
The fee matters to those who cant afford it!
I want people who are a long term part of the community of the UK to be able to vote, whether they see their main identity as British, Scottish, Cornish, French, Irish, world citizens, Europeans, Chinese or even Catholic or Muslim doesnt change that.
As I said the fee can be abolished so no it isn't relevant. There is no reason to change the law on voting rather than make acquiring citizenship easier if it is an issue. There are more benefits to citizenship than just voting.
It does change that. All countries let their nationals vote in their national elections. It is what citizenship means. Why not abolish citizenship as a concept if you're just going to let anyone vote?
But the fee exists and the govt are fighting a court battle to keep it, so it is relevant to the Tory party policy even if not to Philip Thompson policy.
Apparently Stanley Johnson was invited by C4News for the “spin room”, not “sent by the PM” from John Rentoul.
Looks like the participants vetoed Goves inclusion which would be a breach of standards in an election period
That's ridiculous. If this is a Climate debate he is eminently qualified to represent the party.
Are we saying the veto, or the inclusion, would be a breach of standards? And what standards?
The veto (other parties can choose to not do the debate not veto who does) and the exclusion of Gove as there is a responsibility to allow reasonable representation in a GE. Ch4 cant insist on leaders any more than they can refuse to have anyone on the news than leaders
Apparently Stanley Johnson was invited by C4News for the “spin room”, not “sent by the PM” from John Rentoul.
Looks like the participants vetoed Goves inclusion which would be a breach of standards in an election period
That's ridiculous. If this is a Climate debate he is eminently qualified to represent the party.
Are we saying the veto, or the inclusion, would be a breach of standards? And what standards?
Vetoing a party from choosing who wants to represent it would be a breach of standards. The standards are OFCOM regulations on equal representation. They can choose to only invite the major parties, or choose to invite all parties, but they can't choose to exclude one party - and if a party wants to have a Secretary of State represent it they should be able to do so.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Why is a restricted subject an appropriate topic for a leaders debate? The leader of a party doesn’t have to be the expert on everything. He is free to delegate to others. S/He must however have a general grasp of the broad sweep of Government but that’s not what this is.
On the day after my party has been predicted to get just 13 seats it's actually the PB Conservatives who are in another blind panic... As a Lib Dem I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...
For you guys getting 13 is just another day in the office. For us who are genuinely terrified of a Corbyn government any less than 320 or more is a terrifying prospect.
I'd find a Corbyn government terrifying too. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on that.
Then don't vote Lib Dem! Unless you're in an existing Lib Dem/Labour marginal seat.
I'm happy to continue to be a contrarian: if the worst story about Boris over the next 13 days is that he dodged an interview with Andrew Neil and that story dominates the political news cycle, then that does the Tories much less harm than if Labour's NHS BS were being run 24/7. It's basically a running dead cat!
Neil is a Westminster bubble story, especially since Boris has already gone head-to-head with Corbyn, and will do so again.
Bojo has stolen Farage's thunder by being a better blustering authoritarian than Farage.
The thing about Authoritarians is that they mist appear strong. That's why it was ridiculous when people saying Boris might switch constituency, it would have destroyed his aura.
Skipping multi party debates was fine as that kept his aura of being above it all intact. Skipping the 1 v 1 makes him look like a coward and makes people reassess his skipping the multi party debates.
It is a massive category error.
I think your category error is assuming that the "people who care" category is 100 times bigger than it really is. Boris is going up against Corbyn head-to-head, and that's all that really matters. How many people even know the C4 debate is happening, let alone are watching it, let alone are Tory supporters or potential Tory voters?
They are all watching our next PM jooooooooooooo swwwwwwwwwinssssssssssssson on itv.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
The thing with the Tories is, we might all sagely feel we know what it is they should do, but their relaxed attitude about seeming to lose the above the line 'airwar' agenda is presumably because they feel they are winning in the below the line cloak and dagger Facebook stuff. They might even want, or perhaps have even engineered, a wobble. To make it seem that Corbyn is a genuine prospect. Certainly, Cummings' blog supports that - the man has not sincerely written a blog because he's genuinely worried and thinks it will help - we know he doesn't even pass wind without wargaming all the different scenarios. If they felt they needed to do more, they would.
Apparently Stanley Johnson was invited by C4News for the “spin room”, not “sent by the PM” from John Rentoul.
Looks like the participants vetoed Goves inclusion which would be a breach of standards in an election period
That's ridiculous. If this is a Climate debate he is eminently qualified to represent the party.
Are we saying the veto, or the inclusion, would be a breach of standards? And what standards?
Vetoing a party from choosing who wants to represent it would be a breach of standards. The standards are OFCOM regulations on equal representation. They can choose to only invite the major parties, or choose to invite all parties, but they can't choose to exclude one party - and if a party wants to have a Secretary of State represent it they should be able to do so.
It is not that simple. It is the parties not the broadcasters doing the vetoing.
One dog that hasn't barked so far is Labour's plan to enfranchise every resident of the UK, adding millions to the rolls and essentially performing a colossal act of election-rigging in their favour. Shouldn't we have have heard something more about this by now? I know Cummings mentioned it recently, but if Labour were to win and enact this policy (perhaps with SNP complicity), it would have a gigantic effect on every democratic decision for decades to come. That should fire up the Tory base + any sane person quite a bit, but it looks like radio silence so far...
Letting tax paying permanent residents vote is "election rigging", umm ok.
It's an opinion I suppose.
There is no other EU country that lets non-citizens vote in its main national elections. In fact I can find no other first world country that allows non citizens to vote in their main national elections. I am sure you can see that there is a sound democratic reason for this.
Malta is about to give British citizens resident there reciprocal rights, so effectively the answer will be that Malta and Ireland will give UK citizens main election voting rights (and vice versa).
The spat about EU nationals getting the vote that's taking place on here at the moment demonstrates exactly why Boris Johnson probably has to win this election outright if Brexit is ever to happen. If the Conservatives fail to win and a Corbyn minority Government enters office, backed by the votes of the SNP and others, then the only way that a second referendum doesn't happen is if the EU27 decide they are so totally fed up with the UK that they determine to be rid of us at the end of January. That's possible but doesn't seem at all likely - especially because Remain will almost inevitably win such a referendum, because Labour and its partners will extend the franchise to include 16-18 year olds and all EU nationals ordinarily resident in the UK. It's not even as if this can be frustrated in the Lords because the Tories don't have the numbers there, or anywhere close.
Once A50 is withdrawn then Brexit can only happen in future if a majority Government committed to it is elected. Might that happen at some point? Perhaps. But one would've thought that having all those extra EU voters on the electoral register would rule it out for a very long time.
And democracy will have died in our country. All those non citizens having the vote is just a gerrymander ( for clarity is withdraw the rights of the Commonwealth to vote too).
If people feel the field is slanted against them like that, it will be a dark day.
If this does all end in a Conservative victory then one of the best things about it will be that this kind of mucking about will be thwarted. I might be able to look on the bright side of them falling short, but I certainly don't approve of their opponents empowering non-citizens in this fashion.
The Tories certainly ought to execute the long-awaited boundary reforms too if they get the chance, but it might be best if they were to wait until after the next census, to ensure that the Electoral Commission is working with up-to-date information.
The spat about EU nationals getting the vote that's taking place on here at the moment demonstrates exactly why Boris Johnson probably has to win this election outright if Brexit is ever to happen. If the Conservatives fail to win and a Corbyn minority Government enters office, backed by the votes of the SNP and others, then the only way that a second referendum doesn't happen is if the EU27 decide they are so totally fed up with the UK that they determine to be rid of us at the end of January. That's possible but doesn't seem at all likely - especially because Remain will almost inevitably win such a referendum, because Labour and its partners will extend the franchise to include 16-18 year olds and all EU nationals ordinarily resident in the UK. It's not even as if this can be frustrated in the Lords because the Tories don't have the numbers there, or anywhere close.
Once A50 is withdrawn then Brexit can only happen in future if a majority Government committed to it is elected. Might that happen at some point? Perhaps. But one would've thought that having all those extra EU voters on the electoral register would rule it out for a very long time.
And democracy will have died in our country. All those non citizens having the vote is just a gerrymander ( for clarity is withdraw the rights of the Commonwealth to vote too).
If people feel the field is slanted against them like that, it will be a dark day.
If this does all end in a Conservative victory then one of the best things about it will be that this kind of mucking about will be thwarted. I might be able to look on the bright side of them falling short, but I certainly don't approve of their opponents empowering non-citizens in this fashion.
The Tories certainly ought to execute the long-awaited boundary reforms too if they get the chance, but it might be best if they were to wait until after the next census, to ensure that the Electoral Commission is working with up-to-date information.
Given the massive changes in voting patterns since 2010 they may discover that “equalisation” is no longer in their favour!
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Why not? Under what Ofcom regulation is a party excluded from choosing who represents it in a specialist debate? We don't have a Presidential election so if this is an Environmental debate then who better to represent the Tories than a top Secretary of State who is a former Environment Secretary?
I think time here is far more relevant than which nationality they have
French person here 15 years planning to stay > Irish person here 1 year planning to leave or indeed UK person who has been absent for 20 years with no plans to return.
The only of of the three who could vote would be the Irish person and only because we treat them as British. Why hasn't your hypothetical French person bothered to take citizenship if they've been here for 15 years and are planning to stay? They can get citizenship if they want it if they've been here that long and then they can vote.
The Tory manifesto is offering votes for the absent expats.
Perhaps they dont have £1k disposable income to buy a passport. Perhaps they see themselves as French. Perhaps it is more convenient for foreign travel. I dont really mind, by being here 15 years they have shown themselves to be a long term part of the community and therefore should have a say.
If they see themselves as French they have no reason to vote in our elections. The fee has nothing to do with it and if you want to remove the fee then I'd have no objection to that. All countries for good reason reject their national elections to their own nationals.
The fee matters to those who cant afford it!
I want people who are a long term part of the community of the UK to be able to vote, whether they see their main identity as British, Scottish, Cornish, French, Irish, world citizens, Europeans, Chinese or even Catholic or Muslim doesnt change that.
As I said the fee can be abolished so no it isn't relevant. There is no reason to change the law on voting rather than make acquiring citizenship easier if it is an issue. There are more benefits to citizenship than just voting.
It does change that. All countries let their nationals vote in their national elections. It is what citizenship means. Why not abolish citizenship as a concept if you're just going to let anyone vote?
But the fee exists and the govt are fighting a court battle to keep it, so it is relevant to the Tory party policy even if not to Philip Thompson policy.
No because this government wouldn't be the government if Labour won the election. 🙄
What is to stop Labour from saying they'd abolish the fee?
Apparently Stanley Johnson was invited by C4News for the “spin room”, not “sent by the PM” from John Rentoul.
Looks like the participants vetoed Goves inclusion which would be a breach of standards in an election period
That's ridiculous. If this is a Climate debate he is eminently qualified to represent the party.
Are we saying the veto, or the inclusion, would be a breach of standards? And what standards?
Vetoing a party from choosing who wants to represent it would be a breach of standards. The standards are OFCOM regulations on equal representation. They can choose to only invite the major parties, or choose to invite all parties, but they can't choose to exclude one party - and if a party wants to have a Secretary of State represent it they should be able to do so.
It is not that simple. It is the parties not the broadcasters doing the vetoing.
Exactly, if the other parties say 'exclude Gove or we wont do it' they, and ch4 are breaching guidelines. They have no right to veto who they have to debate, they can withdraw if they like
The thing with the Tories is, we might all sagely feel we know what it is they should do, but their relaxed attitude about seeming to lose the above the line 'airwar' agenda is presumably because they feel they are winning in the below the line cloak and dagger Facebook stuff. They might even want, or perhaps have even engineered, a wobble. To make it seem that Corbyn is a genuine prospect. Certainly, Cummings' blog supports that - the man has not sincerely written a blog because he's genuinely worried and thinks it will help - we know he doesn't even pass wind without wargaming all the different scenarios. If they felt they needed to do more, they would.
Goodness pity I bothered to read most of the postings on this thread. Channel 4 and its news programme is a TV version of a cross between the Daily Sport and Guardian newspaper. Half its audience watch it because they are tree hugging lefties that no-one else takes seriously and the other half are people who like watching programmes with people exposing various parts of their bodies with no clothes on. It really is time we made it pay for itself or close it down.
Equally whether BoJo does or does not do an interview with Andrew Neil will vex the sort of people who post on here and most of the population wont give a damn.
Postal voting has already begun and all the broadcast media and most of the print media today ran the story of last night's poll. Most people have already decided how they will vote. Channel 4's programme will merely reinforce to a shower of lefties why they hate BoJo and always have. I'm off to do some genealogy.
Channel 4 and Jon Snow in particular seems to me a perfect example of one of the late Clive James' observations. "Among artists without talent Marxism will always be popular, since it enables them to blame society for the fact that nobody wants to hear what they have to say."
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
Who is watching the Jo Swinson interview on ITV now?
That's very clever just watched her on C4 climate debate at the same time. Was impressed with Nicola Sturgeon but she has something the others don't have which, for good or bad, is a record of action
Who is watching the Jo Swinson interview on ITV now?
That's very clever just watched her on C4 climate debate at the same time. Was impressed with Nicola Sturgeon but she has something the others don't have which, for good or bad, is a record of action
Seen her live. She's a very talented politician. Wish she were at Westminster.
Apparently Stanley Johnson was invited by C4News for the “spin room”, not “sent by the PM” from John Rentoul.
Looks like the participants vetoed Goves inclusion which would be a breach of standards in an election period
That's ridiculous. If this is a Climate debate he is eminently qualified to represent the party.
Are we saying the veto, or the inclusion, would be a breach of standards? And what standards?
Vetoing a party from choosing who wants to represent it would be a breach of standards. The standards are OFCOM regulations on equal representation. They can choose to only invite the major parties, or choose to invite all parties, but they can't choose to exclude one party - and if a party wants to have a Secretary of State represent it they should be able to do so.
It is not that simple. It is the parties not the broadcasters doing the vetoing.
Parties aren't allowed to veto other parties representatives! Parties get to choose who represents themselves not who represents other parties.
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
The spat about EU nationals getting the vote that's taking place on here at the moment demonstrates exactly why Boris Johnson probably has to win this election outright if Brexit is ever to happen. If the Conservatives fail to win and a Corbyn minority Government enters office, backed by the votes of the SNP and others, then the only way that a second referendum doesn't happen is if the EU27 decide they are so totally fed up with the UK that they determine to be rid of us at the end of January. That's possible but doesn't seem at all likely - especially because Remain will almost inevitably win such a referendum, because Labour and its partners will extend the franchise to include 16-18 year olds and all EU nationals ordinarily resident in the UK. It's not even as if this can be frustrated in the Lords because the Tories don't have the numbers there, or anywhere close.
Once A50 is withdrawn then Brexit can only happen in future if a majority Government committed to it is elected. Might that happen at some point? Perhaps. But one would've thought that having all those extra EU voters on the electoral register would rule it out for a very long time.
And democracy will have died in our country. All those non citizens having the vote is just a gerrymander ( for clarity is withdraw the rights of the Commonwealth to vote too).
If people feel the field is slanted against them like that, it will be a dark day.
If this does all end in a Conservative victory then one of the best things about it will be that this kind of mucking about will be thwarted. I might be able to look on the bright side of them falling short, but I certainly don't approve of their opponents empowering non-citizens in this fashion.
The Tories certainly ought to execute the long-awaited boundary reforms too if they get the chance, but it might be best if they were to wait until after the next census, to ensure that the Electoral Commission is working with up-to-date information.
Given the massive changes in voting patterns since 2010 they may discover that “equalisation” is no longer in their favour!
Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t happen. There are enough monstrosities out there. Not least my bit of the world, Wales, has 40 seats when on population it should have 30-32ish.
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
Them's not the rules. Rules quoted in the Ofcom complaint, Them's the rules.
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
I don’t think it is. A broadcaster can bill a debate (or interview) however they wish. The invitation however is made to the parties not individuals. A party can refuse to be represented but they must be allowed to be represented. The broadcaster then has a choice whether to pull the event or go ahead.
The spat about EU nationals getting the vote that's taking place on here at the moment demonstrates exactly why Boris Johnson probably has to win this election outright if Brexit is ever to happen. If the Conservatives fail to win and a Corbyn minority Government enters office, backed by the votes of the SNP and others, then the only way that a second referendum doesn't happen is if the EU27 decide they are so totally fed up with the UK that they determine to be rid of us at the end of January. That's possible but doesn't seem at all likely - especially because Remain will almost inevitably win such a referendum, because Labour and its partners will extend the franchise to include 16-18 year olds and all EU nationals ordinarily resident in the UK. It's not even as if this can be frustrated in the Lords because the Tories don't have the numbers there, or anywhere close.
Once A50 is withdrawn then Brexit can only happen in future if a majority Government committed to it is elected. Might that happen at some point? Perhaps. But one would've thought that having all those extra EU voters on the electoral register would rule it out for a very long time.
And democracy will have died in our country. All those non citizens having the vote is just a gerrymander ( for clarity is withdraw the rights of the Commonwealth to vote too).
If people feel the field is slanted against them like that, it will be a dark day.
If this does all end in a Conservative victory then one of the best things about it will be that this kind of mucking about will be thwarted. I might be able to look on the bright side of them falling short, but I certainly don't approve of their opponents empowering non-citizens in this fashion.
The Tories certainly ought to execute the long-awaited boundary reforms too if they get the chance, but it might be best if they were to wait until after the next census, to ensure that the Electoral Commission is working with up-to-date information.
They won’t go for reduction to 600.
It’s got nothing to do with the census. They work from the electoral register. Census trends can be used to help project forward changes for future years, although even there since the register totals come out every year they provide a better basis.
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
Troll alert !
Yawn
Must be your bedtime. Night night.
I'm a big boy now, I can stay up as late as I want
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
I respectfully doubt that. My guess is the others can legitimately withdraw on the basis that they agreed to a Leaders debate and are not obliged to participate in something else, leaving c4 without a show and having to play soothing music over a test card or show cartoons. They can't exercise duress over the hosts, though. And C4 certainly can't claim they were forced against their will into the ice sculpture thing.
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
It's time for a change is one of the top two laziest of reasons brought out at election time, the other being the governmental counter of 'It's too risky to change things right now'. They're so perfect because in each case neither has to provide any positive reasons for their position (though the smart ones will also do so) because who cares? It's time for change/not time for change, so it doesn't matter that the government/opposition are horrendous.
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
This was in the manifesto. Something about paying it back through future energy savings. Quite a common financing arrangement for climate projects in the public sector. Bonkers if it involves compulsion though!
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
Troll alert !
Why? It's the truth. The only snag is kicking him out for Corbyn who has all of Johnson's faults in greater measure and several that are all his own would be even worse.
I think Channel 4 will be in a bit of trouble here.
Lot of fuss about a programme few watched and even fewer cared about!
They could have avoided the fuss if Boris was not afraid. Which we know is the reason because even his defenders have justified his action on the basis that he should not 'risk it'. If they thought he could overcome that risk then clearly they'd have sent him.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
Please provide the Ofcom rule that stipulates that. Parties must be invited, where does it say that parties are permitted to veto other parties representatives? That's completely inappropriate.
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
Yes - it was discussed on here. You’ll have to have it even if you’ve already taken eco-friendly steps. Basically it’s a tax and a chance for some epic mis-selling claims against a load of so-called “green” providers who will probably do a load of work making things worse for the homeowner. See, for instance, cavity wall insulation, which often leads to damp problems and mis-selling of double glazing. There is a lot homeowners can and should do. But Corbyn’s proposal is the wrong way to go about it.
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
I checked in here about an hour ago and I thought Boris had blown the election, or he had sent in his Dad to do channel 4 climate debate, or that Michael Gove had been barred by channel 4, or the conservatives have filed a formal complaint about channel 4's behaviour
I get home and put on the news and find it is a debate over the IFS report followed by the 8.00 news of the Duckinfield not guilty verdict. Nothing about this crisis for the conservative party and no doubt the broadcaster may well be careful on getting involved in an ofcom complaint during purdah
On the face of it I think the conservative party have a very strong case against channel 4.
They offer their chief climate change spokesperson in Michael Gove but channel 4 has a history of anti conservative bias that is well documented. I expect this could not turn out well for channel 4
As far as the debate is concerned the parties taking part are all from the left and competing in the same pot. While climate change is a very important subject, labour need to address their leave areas which in the main are less into climate change
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
The spat about EU nationals getting the vote that's taking place on here at the moment demonstrates exactly why Boris Johnson probably has to win this election outright if Brexit is ever to happen. If the Conservatives fail to win and a Corbyn minority Government enters office, backed by the votes of the SNP and others, then the only way that a second referendum doesn't happen is if the EU27 decide they are so totally fed up with the UK that they determine to be rid of us at the end of January. That's possible but doesn't seem at all likely - especially because Remain will almost inevitably win such a referendum, because Labour and its partners will extend the franchise to include 16-18 year olds and all EU nationals ordinarily resident in the UK. It's not even as if this can be frustrated in the Lords because the Tories don't have the numbers there, or anywhere close.
Once A50 is withdrawn then Brexit can only happen in future if a majority Government committed to it is elected. Might that happen at some point? Perhaps. But one would've thought that having all those extra EU voters on the electoral register would rule it out for a very long time.
And democracy will have died in our country. All those non citizens having the vote is just a gerrymander ( for clarity is withdraw the rights of the Commonwealth to vote too).
If people feel the field is slanted against them like that, it will be a dark day.
If this does all end in a Conservative victory then one of the best things about it will be that this kind of mucking about will be thwarted. I might be able to look on the bright side of them falling short, but I certainly don't approve of their opponents empowering non-citizens in this fashion.
The Tories certainly ought to execute the long-awaited boundary reforms too if they get the chance, but it might be best if they were to wait until after the next census, to ensure that the Electoral Commission is working with up-to-date information.
They won’t go for reduction to 600.
It’s got nothing to do with the census. They work from the electoral register. Census trends can be used to help project forward changes for future years, although even there since the register totals come out every year they provide a better basis.
Reduce the number of Unelected Has-Beens Lords, NOT the elected MPs!
Some big party leaders made him do it, and ran away. So explain the ice statue, did they say they were going to take their footballs home unless there was an ice statue?
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
Epson, you still only get to vote once no matter how angry you are.
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
Yes - it was discussed on here. You’ll have to have it even if you’ve already taken eco-friendly steps. Basically it’s a tax and a chance for some epic mis-selling claims against a load of so-called “green” providers who will probably do a load of work making things worse for the homeowner. See, for instance, cavity wall insulation, which often leads to damp problems and mis-selling of double glazing. There is a lot homeowners can and should do. But Corbyn’s proposal is the wrong way to go about it.
"There's a lot that could and should be done, but Corbyn's proposal is the wrong way to go about it" could be the summary of an awful lot of issues. Shame Boris is, well, Boris.
The Tories drawing attention to Channel 4’s depiction of Johnson will only serve to increase coverage of his craven failure to agree to be interviewed by Andrew Neil.
I checked in here about an hour ago and I thought Boris had blown the election, or he had sent in his Dad to do channel 4 climate debate, or that Michael Gove had been barred by channel 4, or the conservatives have filed a formal complaint about channel 4's behaviour
I get home and put on the news and find it is a debate over the IFS report followed by the 8.00 news of the Duckinfield not guilty verdict. Nothing about this crisis for the conservative party and no doubt the broadcaster may well be careful on getting involved in an ofcom complaint during purdah
On the face of it I think the conservative party have a very strong case against channel 4.
They offer their chief climate change spokesperson in Michael Gove but channel 4 has a history of anti conservative bias that is well documented. I expect this could not turn out well for channel 4
As far as the debate is concerned the parties taking part are all from the left and competing in the same pot. While climate change is a very important subject, labour need to address their leave areas which in the main are less into climate change
Who is Ben de Pear and will he have a job next week?
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
Please provide the Ofcom rule that stipulates that. Parties must be invited, where does it say that parties are permitted to veto other parties representatives? That's completely inappropriate.
Johnson just skips debates because we know he's a coward, he doesn't deserve to be PM and every day that goes by, I'm just more motivated to come out and kick him out. 9 long years, it's time for a change.
It's time for a change is one of the top two laziest of reasons brought out at election time, the other being the governmental counter of 'It's too risky to change things right now'. They're so perfect because in each case neither has to provide any positive reasons for their position (though the smart ones will also do so) because who cares? It's time for change/not time for change, so it doesn't matter that the government/opposition are horrendous.
It is time for a change, but unfortunately it’s the whole system that is rotten, yet the system itself pressures people to preserve it.
On the day after my party has been predicted to get just 13 seats it's actually the PB Conservatives who are in another blind panic... As a Lib Dem I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...
For you guys getting 13 is just another day in the office. For us who are genuinely terrified of a Corbyn government any less than 320 or more is a terrifying prospect.
I'd find a Corbyn government terrifying too. Conservatives don't have a monopoly on that.
Then don't vote Lib Dem! Unless you're in an existing Lib Dem/Labour marginal seat.
I'm an active Lib Dem member in a Lab/Con marginal (Lincoln). I've delivered over 1,100 Lib Dem leaflets so far this campaign. I am a Lib Dem because Lib Dem values most closely align with my values... Conservative values don't so I won't vote for them. If Labour win in Lincoln then so be it.
I find it strange they would have a debate about climate change. Brexit maybe but it’s quite a niche issue and isn’t top of public priorities. Very Channel 4.
I also think it was strange Stanley was there but Gove is environment minister, it’s poor form not to let him take part when some Plaid Cymru Guy is allowed on
They allowed a sub for the leader of Plaid Cymru but not the Tories? That has got to be against the rules.
It’s an election - the people arguing on our tv should be people contesting for our votes. Sending your father is pitiful behaviour. Gove however should have been allowed in, on the same basis as Rudd who subbed for the last Tory leader too frightened to appear on tv.
Problem is that it's a specialist subject, so you have an advantage if you can replace the Leader, who is naturally enough a generalist. This point is being borne out by the discussion I am watching (in between playing scrabble). Sian Berry is not a great speaker but she has a grasp of detail that is giving her a definite edge in this debate.
The answer to that, is have it between specialists. Much more useful and informative. And is Gove a specialist anyway?
My son is in the biz and he rates Gove, but this is a Leaders debate, so specialist substitutes not really an option.
Well, who has the right to stipulate both that it's a Leaders debate and what the subject is? What's to stop them having a [shadow] CotE debate about New York fusion jazz clubs of the '50s and early '60s?
Nothing at all, but if it is a Leaders debate a non-Leader is invited on it has to be with the consent of the others. They refused, so that's that. Them's the rules.
Please provide the Ofcom rule that stipulates that. Parties must be invited, where does it say that parties are permitted to veto other parties representatives? That's completely inappropriate.
Leaders debate. The clue is in the title.
For a specific subject it probably shouldn't have been a leaders debate, but that wouldn't be as exciting I guess.
I checked in here about an hour ago and I thought Boris had blown the election, or he had sent in his Dad to do channel 4 climate debate, or that Michael Gove had been barred by channel 4, or the conservatives have filed a formal complaint about channel 4's behaviour
I get home and put on the news and find it is a debate over the IFS report followed by the 8.00 news of the Duckinfield not guilty verdict. Nothing about this crisis for the conservative party and no doubt the broadcaster may well be careful on getting involved in an ofcom complaint during purdah
On the face of it I think the conservative party have a very strong case against channel 4.
They offer their chief climate change spokesperson in Michael Gove but channel 4 has a history of anti conservative bias that is well documented. I expect this could not turn out well for channel 4
As far as the debate is concerned the parties taking part are all from the left and competing in the same pot. While climate change is a very important subject, labour need to address their leave areas which in the main are less into climate change
Who is Ben de Pear and will he have a job next week?
He's going on a Bender because it's now Pear shaped.
Despite this debate being awful - did I hear Corbyn correctly? He's going to force homeowners to take on an interest free loan to make their homes more eco-friendly?
Click on the link, which I will admit I added in an edit.
Thanks just had a quick read.
What could possibly go wrong with doing enforced work on 27m households? How on earth are you going to measure the “savings” to pay the loan? More bonds for squillions being issued I guess from the back of Corbyn’s sofa to “invest@ ( not debt no siree). It’s a con man’s Christmas. Where’s the capacity to do it? Who judges what needs doing and has it been done to standard? What if ten million of us roundly tell them to piss off you’re not coming in? That’ll be a legal bunfight.
Comments
(Er, just to keep PB's lawyers happy, that was a joke)
Equally whether BoJo does or does not do an interview with Andrew Neil will vex the sort of people who post on here and most of the population wont give a damn.
Postal voting has already begun and all the broadcast media and most of the print media today ran the story of last night's poll. Most people have already decided how they will vote. Channel 4's programme will merely reinforce to a shower of lefties why they hate BoJo and always have. I'm off to do some genealogy.
Is it really worth it?
The Tories certainly ought to execute the long-awaited boundary reforms too if they get the chance, but it might be best if they were to wait until after the next census, to ensure that the Electoral Commission is working with up-to-date information.
What is to stop Labour from saying they'd abolish the fee?
"Among artists without talent Marxism will always be popular, since it enables them to blame society for the fact that nobody wants to hear what they have to say."
Not Trumpian not authoritarian just Boris's new moderate party displaying its one nation, small c credentials.
It’s plain wrong.
It’s got nothing to do with the census. They work from the electoral register. Census trends can be used to help project forward changes for future years, although even there since the register totals come out every year they provide a better basis.
https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/nov/02/labour-scheme-homes-energy-efficiency
https://twitter.com/oliverjamesking/status/1200131755841380352?s=20
I saw him wibbling about whether or not he'd do the Neil interview. What a pathetic sight he made.
The only snag is kicking him out for Corbyn who has all of Johnson's faults in greater measure and several that are all his own would be even worse.
There is a lot homeowners can and should do. But Corbyn’s proposal is the wrong way to go about it.
I get home and put on the news and find it is a debate over the IFS report followed by the 8.00 news of the Duckinfield not guilty verdict. Nothing about this crisis for the conservative party and no doubt the broadcaster may well be careful on getting involved in an ofcom complaint during purdah
On the face of it I think the conservative party have a very strong case against channel 4.
They offer their chief climate change spokesperson in Michael Gove but channel 4 has a history of anti conservative bias that is well documented. I expect this could not turn out well for channel 4
As far as the debate is concerned the parties taking part are all from the left and competing in the same pot. While climate change is a very important subject, labour need to address their leave areas which in the main are less into climate change
https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1200144620656775170?s=20
Shame Boris is, well, Boris.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1200093233617002496
What could possibly go wrong with doing enforced work on 27m households? How on earth are you going to measure the “savings” to pay the loan? More bonds for squillions being issued I guess from the back of Corbyn’s sofa to “invest@ ( not debt no siree). It’s a con man’s Christmas. Where’s the capacity to do it? Who judges what needs doing and has it been done to standard? What if ten million of us roundly tell them to piss off you’re not coming in? That’ll be a legal bunfight.
I could go on.