politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Cameron’s big mistake was not killing off the debates a yea
Comments
-
Could Sky/C4 defy the Ofcom ruling and invite the Greens to the third debate? I think this would be popular with the public.
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
0 -
Don't worry Sam - Nige's new joint pen pal chum Ed won't be reneging on his promise not to have a referendum.isam said:Given Cameron's previous promises to have debates and his shiftiness now, who can blame people who think his referendum promise might not be all it seems if/ when the day arrives
The polling says people think he is making excuses... UKIP should major on this parallel when Tories campaign on offering a referendum
0 -
Absolutely right:blackburn63 said:Murray standing in Thanet S is great news for Farage, no ukip supporters will vote for Murray
(Although as Al Murray is likely to poll only a few hundred votes, it'll need to be a close race for it to have any effect)0 -
Is there polling data on that ?AndyJS said:
The age of consent is 16, although I get the impression a lot of people would like it to be 18 as it is in most of the United States.Pulpstar said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909756/Married-teacher-took-16-year-old-girl-pupil-s-virginity-store-cupboard-spared-prison-judge-says-groomed-HER.html
"In between sex sessions he made her Marmite on toast and they watched Bargain Hunt on television."
Who says romance is dead ;p
Edit: It IS 18 if you are in a 'position of trust' over the other party.0 -
I can write the thread header for that news now - "Blow for Cameron as 5-3-2 debates go ahead" ...Barnesian said:Could Sky/C4 defy the Ofcom ruling and invite the Greens to the third debate? I think this would be popular with the public.
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
0 -
I think I can point to things that Farage, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have said that are clearly false.ashley said:
"he went for simplicity". Marvellous.Charles said:
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.Socrates said:
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?Charles said:
They don't face the same scrutiny.Socrates said:
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).Socrates said:There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
But you know that, of course.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.0 -
Who has told "the most" porky pies though.rcs1000 said:
I think I can point to things that Farage, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have said that are clearly false.ashley said:
"he went for simplicity". Marvellous.Charles said:
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.Socrates said:
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?Charles said:
They don't face the same scrutiny.Socrates said:
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).Socrates said:There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
But you know that, of course.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.
Nick DID apologise for this tuition fees about-turn...0 -
1. The Ofcom suggestion is out for consultation - it's not a "ruling".Barnesian said:Could Sky/C4 defy the Ofcom ruling and invite the Greens to the third debate? I think this would be popular with the public.
But it would cause problems for both Cameron (how could he refuse?) and Miliband (how could he refuse?). BBC and ITV would have no cause to complain and would presumably go ahead with the 2 leader and 3 leader debates.
I think this has a good chance of happening as long as the Ofcom ruling doesn't have the force of law.
2. It does not affect the TV debates.
0 -
Ed knows he can't because he would then have to face Farage and he won't do that if Cam is not there.ashley said:Empty chair the cowardly slimeball.
0 -
I think that the FUKP should have seat at the debates0
-
As Dr Johnson observed, there is little point in settling precedence between a louse and a flea.....Pulpstar said:
Who has told "the most" porky pies though.rcs1000 said:
I think I can point to things that Farage, Clegg, Milliband and Cameron have said that are clearly false.ashley said:
AsCharles said:
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.Socrates said:
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?Charles said:
They don't face the same scrutiny.Socrates said:
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).Socrates said:There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
But you know that, of course.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
"he went for simplicity". Marvellous.
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
On that basis they are all either stupid, or smarmy barefaced liars.
..0 -
I haven't been a member of the Liberal Democrats, so I can't comment definitively on the validity of your assertion. Given the ex-supporters [members? I forget] of the Liberal Democrats I met through the short-lived Democracy 2015 thing I must say that I have my doubts.David_Evershed said:Do the Green supporters realise that it is more like a socialist workers party than a non toxic Lib Dem party?
0 -
Still this thread.... where's the big one.
Farage vs Paul Nuttall/Murray0 -
I'd favour an approach where the age difference is taken into account.AndyJS said:
The age of consent is 16, although I get the impression a lot of people would like it to be 18 as it is in most of the United States.Pulpstar said:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2909756/Married-teacher-took-16-year-old-girl-pupil-s-virginity-store-cupboard-spared-prison-judge-says-groomed-HER.html
"In between sex sessions he made her Marmite on toast and they watched Bargain Hunt on television."
Who says romance is dead ;p0 -
Thinking about the youtube clip a bit more Milliband really did play that rather well. He committed to engaging in a cross-party debate with whoever the TV companies put up, which makes Cameron look like an idiot for calling him a coward, but he didn't commit to debating the Greens specifically which avoids any ambush gotcha style 1-on-1 debate with the Greens.0
-
I see hundreds more people joined the Green party today - could be ahead of UKIP already.0
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRgHSxWnhqkNeil said:I see hundreds more people joined the Green party today - could be ahead of UKIP already.
0 -
I doubt they'd trivialise their brand by appearing on the same platform as the LDs.MikeSmithson said:I think that the FUKP should have seat at the debates
0 -
He didn't just "not deliver". He went backwards.Charles said:
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.Socrates said:
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?Charles said:
They don't face the same scrutiny.Socrates said:
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.Richard_Nabavi said:
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).Socrates said:There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
But you know that, of course.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions0 -
I see they are genuinely going to go for this banning of encryption policy.
F**k a duck,0 -
NEW THREAD0
-
It seems the BBC have decided Cameron is the slippery eel and the others can puff their chests out.
OT. Today's Sid and Doris award goes to........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908579/Orthodox-Israeli-newspaper-airbrushes-female-world-leaders-JeSuisCharlie-march-photographs.html0 -
It’s ridiculous to say he’ll be tagged as a ‘chicken’; more likely a calculating, foxy politician.
The obvious response is to call his bluff and allow the Greens along.
Having only the two leaders likely to become PM makes sense as a debate. If you move from that you should have all the parties with a seat in the Commons. After all any of them could be coalition partners or supporters of a minority administration, so it makes sense for us to hear their position on crucial issues.
0
