politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour ruling out ‘negative’ election campaign posters indi
Labour has scrapped all plans to run billboard posters of David Cameron during the general election campaign in what it says it is a deliberate attempt to avoid “negative personalised adverts” and raise the tone of debate.
Comments
-
First!0
-
Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.0 -
By the way, that Cons poster of Miliband is brilliant, either in its Salmond or Salmond + Adams form.
I wonder if it will go down as one of the great election posters? It's difficult not to laugh at how they've captured EdM's awfulness outside No.10. But it also captures a potent meme for Conservative waverers.
3 months + 1 week to go. I'll be putting the first of my monthly vote and seat projections on here this time next week, based on the next 7 days of polling. I will also explain my rationale and will try to dispatch my own preferences to the dugout. I bet pb regulars will be rushing to clear their diaries, cancel appointments, banish children and cats as they drool in anticipation 0 -
Moving average chart of the 100 most recent YouGov polls...
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2uhlqbb223a6xf0/100 most recent YouGov polls as of 01 February 2015.jpg#
Reds and blues appear to be enjoying a recent uptick at the expense of the other parties.0 -
It does seem as though the only people who haven't yet cottoned on to the level of defeat Labour is about to experience are the voters....
Come on voters, get your act together.0 -
'Policies not personalities,' says wee Dougie.
Do Labour have either?
The Yougov 35% is sub 33% on a straightforward 2015/2010 Lab vote intention among the sample.
0 -
The BBC's take (FPT):CarlottaVance said:
I wonder why Labour wouldn't wish to focus on the merits of the respective leaders?
Labour has vowed not to feature Prime Minister David Cameron on billboards ahead of the general election.
The party said it would not use negative personal campaigning, focusing on issues rather than personalities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-310790260 -
Scottish Subsample watch:
Lab: 22
SNP: 47
Net doing well:
Cameron: -33
Miliband: -65
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/gjshgtgjrm/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-300115.pdf0 -
Interesting polling on Greece & whether British government should copy - Labour voters in favour - despite them thinking it will make situation in Europe worse.....
Greek Govt right to reverse spending cuts(net)
OA: -3
Lab: +26
Should Eurozone let Greece cut repayments (net)
OA: +1
Lab: +25
Greece reverses cuts/reduces repayment - good for Eurozone economy (net)
OA: -28
Lab: -13
Support GB copying Greece (reverse cuts/reduce debt repayment)
OA: -11
Lab: +20
Pick the bones out of that one Eds.......0 -
Sack the sub editor0
-
Someone else who, (were she to have a view, which of course she doesn't) might not be that keen on a Miliband government.
Should govt continue to fund royal family (net agree):
Con: +57
Lab: +4
LibD: +37
UKIP: +26
Scot: -10 (only geographical area not net supporters, next lowest London on +15)0 -
"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk0 -
Is Peter Hitchens the unhappiest man in Britain?0
-
By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.0 -
Which again raises the question of whether CCHQ has screwed up the debates. If the Conservatives' crucial advantage is the contrast between Cameron and Miliband, why throw it away, or at least dilute it, by inviting all the other parties?audreyanne said:Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.0 -
So - that list of things Labour can't talk about:
- the economy
- immigration
- privatisation in the NHS
- what it would give away to the SNP
- and consequently, our nuclear deterrent
- industrial-scale rape of the children of a key set of its voters by another key set of its voters
- Trojan Horses within the education system
- an EU referendum
- David Cameron
- Tony Blair
- how united the Labour Party is compared to the other parties
- although one thing does unite them: the crapness of Ed Miliband. But they can't talk about that. Apart from behind Ed's back.
So what the hell gives Labour any reason to think it is fit to govern this country?
Simple answer. Entitlement. "We're the fucking Labour Party. Of course we should be in power. We don't HAVE to give you any other reasons."0 -
Because without the debates, the Tory war-chest is a far more effective way of framing how the voters see Ed. Ads. Posters. Play to preconceptions, rather than have the debates frame how the voters see Ed. Because the debates MIGHT just change things in an unpredictable way. Imagine if he somehow managed to give everyone an Edgasm?DecrepitJohnL said:
Which again raises the question of whether CCHQ has screwed up the debates. If the Conservatives' crucial advantage is the contrast between Cameron and Miliband, why throw it away, or at least dilute it, by inviting all the other parties?audreyanne said:Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.
On second thoughts, don't imagine that.
0 -
Good morning, everyone.
Mr. Mark, indeed. The status quo regarding leader perceptions is not something the Conservatives want to change.0 -
Which of those are the Conservatives keen to talk about?MarqueeMark said:So - that list of things Labour can't talk about:
- the economy
- immigration
- privatisation in the NHS
- what it would give away to the SNP
- and consequently, our nuclear deterrent
- industrial-scale rape of the children of a key set of its voters by another key set of its voters
- Trojan Horses within the education system
- an EU referendum
- David Cameron
- Tony Blair
- how united the Labour Party is compared to the other parties
- although one thing does unite them: the crapness of Ed Miliband. But they can't talk about that. Apart from behind Ed's back.
So what the hell gives Labour any reason to think it is fit to govern this country?
Simple answer. Entitlement. "We're the fucking Labour Party. Of course we should be in power. We don't HAVE to give you any other reasons."0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11382145/Labour-government-will-be-catastrophic-for-Britain-warns-Boots-boss.html
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
0 -
F1: testing begins today. And, at first glance, Mercedes appear to have taken the entire off-season off, and just unveiled last year's car [it *has* changed. But not much].
Oh, and they added 50bhp or so to the engine.0 -
Something else that won't be talked about in the election. Labour kept us out of Syria, and the Conservatives ballsed up Libya, but Labour's mess in Iraq was even greater. Neither side will want to go there.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.0 -
Well, the economy and Ed Miliband for starters!DecrepitJohnL said:
Which of those are the Conservatives keen to talk about?MarqueeMark said:So - that list of things Labour can't talk about:
- the economy
- immigration
- privatisation in the NHS
- what it would give away to the SNP
- and consequently, our nuclear deterrent
- industrial-scale rape of the children of a key set of its voters by another key set of its voters
- Trojan Horses within the education system
- an EU referendum
- David Cameron
- Tony Blair
- how united the Labour Party is compared to the other parties
- although one thing does unite them: the crapness of Ed Miliband. But they can't talk about that. Apart from behind Ed's back.
So what the hell gives Labour any reason to think it is fit to govern this country?
Simple answer. Entitlement. "We're the fucking Labour Party. Of course we should be in power. We don't HAVE to give you any other reasons."
0 -
A lot of the justification for our foreign policy is rewritten after events more likeaudreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.0 -
Cameron playing into the hands of ukip say Tories
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html0 -
You left out this bit: Mr Pessina, 73, who is estimated to have amassed an $11.4 billion (£7.5 billion) fortune, declined to elaborate on which specific policies he disliked.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11382145/Labour-government-will-be-catastrophic-for-Britain-warns-Boots-boss.html
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
Perhaps the greater mystery is why Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph gives the dollar figure first and its sterling equivalent in brackets.0 -
Perhaps it is all of them ?DecrepitJohnL said:
You left out this bit: Mr Pessina, 73, who is estimated to have amassed an $11.4 billion (£7.5 billion) fortune, declined to elaborate on which specific policies he disliked.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11382145/Labour-government-will-be-catastrophic-for-Britain-warns-Boots-boss.html
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
.
0 -
Morning all and I see YouGov descended into a bout of silliness last night. Saw yesterday another UKIP councillor has defected to the Tories. Somewhere in east of England I think I read on Twitter.
Love the Sun picture of Ed Bland as Humpty Dumpty this morning. Even better it was attached to an article by Damian McBride telling why Labour is going to be pounded like a dockside hooker.
Had to laugh at OGH's last thread heading. The diagram I saw on Twitter showed Labour heading south and the Tories ticking slightly up. If that is unchanged since September, bring it on.0 -
I wish I had the time for a proper study on weather and opinion polls. I remember covering it back in the days I studied politics. Many of you will probably laugh at the idea that it makes a difference, but remember that 95% of the public don't think like pb posters.
I'm bloody miserable, others on her were noticeably tetchy yesterday and I'm blaming it on the weather.
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.0 -
I am irresistibly reminded of my Blackadder:CarlottaVance said:The BBC's take (FPT):
CarlottaVance said:I wonder why Labour wouldn't wish to focus on the merits of the respective leaders?
Labour has vowed not to feature Prime Minister David Cameron on billboards ahead of the general election.
The party said it would not use negative personal campaigning, focusing on issues rather than personalities.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31079026
EB: We are fighting this election on issues, not personalities.
Vincent Hanna: Why is that?
EB: (indicating BAldrick, who has his mouth stuffed with a turnip) Because our candidate doesn't have a personality.0 -
Frantic postings from A.A,could it be something to do with the 35% for Labour. Attacking Miliband can never be a 'policy' for the Tories and will eventually seem like desperation. Labour have people who will go around talking to people on the doorstep, this could be more decisive in the end.0
-
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
0 -
That's easy: the bulk of his wealth is an 18% stake in Walgreens, which is valued in US dollars. He only has about a billion or so in other investments.DecrepitJohnL said:
You left out this bit: Mr Pessina, 73, who is estimated to have amassed an $11.4 billion (£7.5 billion) fortune, declined to elaborate on which specific policies he disliked.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11382145/Labour-government-will-be-catastrophic-for-Britain-warns-Boots-boss.html
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
Perhaps the greater mystery is why Her Majesty's Daily Telegraph gives the dollar figure first and its sterling equivalent in brackets.0 -
Unless they have something meaningful and relevant to talk about, and refrain from insulting our intelligence by dodging round questions about their failures in government and in opposition, it is hardly likely that they will be decisive in a positive way for Labour.roserees64 said:Frantic postings from A.A,could it be something to do with the 35% for Labour. Attacking Miliband can never be a 'policy' for the Tories and will eventually seem like desperation. Labour have people who will go around talking to people on the doorstep, this could be more decisive in the end.
In particular, if they are mad enough to campaign on the NHS here in Staffordshire...0 -
It's deja vu all over again. Other similarities - absolute certainy, universal conspiracy to do them down and we "dont understand".....TGOHF said:
Gawd - it's like a Sindyref sequel - everything is a boost for the Kippers. Well apart from recent polls I guess..isam said:Cameron playing into the hands of ukip
Mercifully they are generally polite and eschew much of the personal abuse of (some of) the potty mouthed Nats.....0 -
Quite. I always find it bizarre when critics of a military intervention point to the poor state of a country as a reason for why the military action was a bad idea. Of course they're in a poor state - they're a place that was so screwed up there was a case for military intervention. Success isn't that they've become a stable democratic country. Success is better than what the alternative would have been.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk0 -
From the Telegraph, he wants Britain to stay in the EU, Scotland to stay in Britain, and says austerity is harming Europe.TGOHF said:
Perhaps it is all of them ?DecrepitJohnL said:
You left out this bit: Mr Pessina, 73, who is estimated to have amassed an $11.4 billion (£7.5 billion) fortune, declined to elaborate on which specific policies he disliked.TGOHF said:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11382145/Labour-government-will-be-catastrophic-for-Britain-warns-Boots-boss.html
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Mr Pessina warned that Labour’s attitude towards business was “not helpful” for business or the country.
“If they acted as they speak, it would be a catastrophe,” he said of the prospect of a Labour Government coming to power during the next general election.
“The problem is would they act that way or not? One thing is to threaten and to shout but it is completely different to be in charge and to manage the country day-to-day.”
.0 -
Its Tories saying that not me.. I should have put speech marks on a quote, my fault.TGOHF said:
Gawd - it's like a Sindyref sequel - everything is a boost for the Kippers. Well apart from recent polls I guess..isam said:Cameron playing into the hands of ukip
Recent polls are just fine for UKIP, not far off the all time high... I would take them at the GE in a heartbeat, I wonder which other parties could say the same
You are obsessed and yet keep getting it embarrassingly wrong.. not a good combo
EDIT.. Is see you selectively edited to make it look like I said something I didn't.. haha great, means I win xxx0 -
Wait until you see the new Red Bull livery......Morris_Dancer said:F1: testing begins today. And, at first glance, Mercedes appear to have taken the entire off-season off, and just unveiled last year's car [it *has* changed. But not much].
Oh, and they added 50bhp or so to the engine.
Back on topic, if you can't attack the enemy you really need some policies...0 -
It was the leader of Slough's Conservative group defecting to UKIP wasn't it?Easterross said:Morning all and I see YouGov descended into a bout of silliness last night. Saw yesterday another UKIP councillor has defected to the Tories. Somewhere in east of England I think I read on Twitter.
Love the Sun picture of Ed Bland as Humpty Dumpty this morning. Even better it was attached to an article by Damian McBride telling why Labour is going to be pounded like a dockside hooker.
Had to laugh at OGH's last thread heading. The diagram I saw on Twitter showed Labour heading south and the Tories ticking slightly up. If that is unchanged since September, bring it on.
EDIT: There was also a Bucks UKIP to Conservative and a Bracknell Cons to UKIP0 -
What price democracy when a serious newspaper quotes the random comments of a Mr Pessina(billionaire) as if they had any relevance.Business will have to work with the elected government, which ever party comes to power.0
-
Mr. Eek, I have. It's... interesting. Didn't they come up with warship camouflage that had a similar idea behind it?0
-
Funny we seem to have no issues with Isreal and the Ukraine doing the same in Gaza and the Donbass. Slaughter seems an excessive, and unprovable, forecast.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Would Gadaffi's actions have caused more suffering than is currently occurring? No.
Would Libya be a source of terrorism? No.
Would Libya be a transit hub of massive undesirable immigration to Europe? No.
Good reason Cameron doesn't talk about foreign policy.
0 -
Quite. It's now February, and despite Labour falling back in the last year, the people need to pick up the pace!MarqueeMark said:It does seem as though the only people who haven't yet cottoned on to the level of defeat Labour is about to experience are the voters....
Come on voters, get your act together.
On the subject of negativity, I don't believe for one second Labour will not go negative. All parties want to appear reasonable and positive, so will claim to be doing so even as the use negative tactics and try to claim the moral highground. In this case if the 'decision' is down to finances then they may well have decided not to plaster every billboard in the nation with a negative ad as a result, but they'll find some way of being negative of course. Though since the Tories have to rely heavily on the personal negativity re Miliband, de-emphasising the negative may be sensible from Labour, even if it is not really by choice.
That seems like an unnecessarily sinister view of what seems pretty a pretty simple equation in my view. We and others seized on the opportunity to help get rid of Gaddafi because we never liked him and there seemed the possibility of improvement, a possibility which regrettably has not materialized.isam said:
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
The opportunity arose as Gaddafi was not just because he was hated by the Saudis, but because he wasn't liked by anyone else truly important. Even Russia and China did not veto NATO action which it was obvious would be the pretext for regime change, instead they abstained which permitted them to reserve the right to condemn the regime change if they wanted (whether or not it had led to a positive outcome) without taking any diplomatic steps to slow or prevent the action to remove him itself.0 -
The blank sheet of paper has been too blank, too long.eek said:
Wait until you see the new Red Bull livery......Morris_Dancer said:F1: testing begins today. And, at first glance, Mercedes appear to have taken the entire off-season off, and just unveiled last year's car [it *has* changed. But not much].
Oh, and they added 50bhp or so to the engine.
Back on topic, if you can't attack the enemy you really need some policies...
When I pointed this out over the last couple of years, PB labourites assured me that the party was just keeping its powder dry. It is increasingly looking as if there is no powder at all.0 -
Surely the real reason for attacking Libya was an old fashioned one: a good pretext to attack and destroy a longstanding enemy. And if we talked them up before attacking them: well dissimulation and dishonesty are important weapons of both diplomacy and war.Socrates said:
Quite. I always find it bizarre when critics of a military intervention point to the poor state of a country as a reason for why the military action was a bad idea. Of course they're in a poor state - they're a place that was so screwed up there was a case for military intervention. Success isn't that they've become a stable democratic country. Success is better than what the alternative would have been.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
So is the application of appropriate levels of force, which we seem unwilling to do. Carpet-bombing Raqqa would seem to me to be both reasonable and proportionate.
My view on Iraq is that it was nothing to do with Saddam Hussain, it was an attempt to concentrate the enemy and get al-Qaeda to fight us in open battle on our terms. It of course went horribly wrong, and now the Islamic State has given us just that opportunity, we no longer have the bottle.
0 -
The article in the Sunday Times about the 'neo-Blairites' is quite entertaining. and includes this gemMarqueeMark said:
- how united the Labour Party is compared to the other parties
- although one thing does unite them: the crapness of Ed Miliband. But they can't talk about that. Apart from behind Ed's back.If Miliband loses, the frontbenchers from 2010 plan to unite to face down Burnham and Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, the two other leading contenders for the leadership.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1513712.ece
Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, is understood to have privately backed Umunna, who is dubbed “the Neo” of Neo Labour, after the hero of the film The Matrix.0 -
While that is something that is up for debate - a year ago I would have agreed, I'm not so certain now, terrible as that makes me feel - I do think you are right criticisms can get bizarre. I recall a QT from around that time where some panel members and audience members were essentially stating interfering is always wrong, but that the slaughter going on was also wrong and that Gaddafi should be persuaded to step down or words to that effect, as if it were a possible option to get him to do that. Either the instability was not worth preventing him slaughtering people, or the risk of that instability vs potential improvement was worth preventing the slaughter, there was not an option for him to stop being a murderous dictator unless actual action was taken against him. It's why terrible dictators even with few allies like Gaddafi can exist happily for decades as long as they do not get too extravagantly brutal too often.Socrates said:
Quite. I always find it bizarre when critics of a military intervention point to the poor state of a country as a reason for why the military action was a bad idea. Of course they're in a poor state - they're a place that was so screwed up there was a case for military intervention. Success isn't that they've become a stable democratic country. Success is better than what the alternative would have been.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle unday.co.uk
0 -
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=00 -
Prophets are rarely happy people because they clearly see and shout from the rooftops about the looming crises that most others don't forsee or pretend won't happen.audreyanne said:Is Peter Hitchens the unhappiest man in Britain?
0 -
You do what you can. And, Gadaffi was a long-standing enemy of this country, as John Lilburne points out.FalseFlag said:
Funny we seem to have no issues with Isreal and the Ukraine doing the same in Gaza and the Donbass. Slaughter seems an excessive, and unprovable, forecast.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Would Gadaffi's actions have caused more suffering than is currently occurring? No.
Would Libya be a source of terrorism? No.
Would Libya be a transit hub of massive undesirable immigration to Europe? No.
Good reason Cameron doesn't talk about foreign policy.
0 -
UKIP averaged 15.8% in this week's polling. I think TGOHF must be looking at pirated versions of opinion polls that are showing something different.isam said:
Its Tories saying that not me.. I should have put speech marks on a quote, my fault.TGOHF said:
Gawd - it's like a Sindyref sequel - everything is a boost for the Kippers. Well apart from recent polls I guess..isam said:Cameron playing into the hands of ukip
Recent polls are just fine for UKIP, not far off the all time high... I would take them at the GE in a heartbeat, I wonder which other parties could say the same
You are obsessed and yet keep getting it embarrassingly wrong.. not a good combo
EDIT.. Is see you selectively edited to make it look like I said something I didn't.. haha great, means I win xxx
0 -
What does that have to with democracy? Are newspapers not allowed to quote business people now? Should they not quote charity leaders, church leaders, pressure groups, those might have no relevance to an issue as far as I am concerned, but would by the right paper for the right group be presented as some great and relevant intervention.roserees64 said:What price democracy when a serious newspaper quotes the random comments of a Mr Pessina(billionaire) as if they had any relevance.
I don't like billionaire businessmen trying to frighten us either, but I am baffled as to what the first part of your sentence has to do with the latter part, and I am someone who thinks Labour will win a majority, Ed M is not as bad as advertised and Labour will not be a disaster, even though I don't support them winning myself, so I think I can be fairly objective on this.0 -
We got reparations and cooperation. Enemies often become friends, and back again.Sean_F said:
You do what you can. And, Gadaffi was a long-standing enemy of this country, as John Lilburne points out.FalseFlag said:
Funny we seem to have no issues with Isreal and the Ukraine doing the same in Gaza and the Donbass. Slaughter seems an excessive, and unprovable, forecast.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Would Gadaffi's actions have caused more suffering than is currently occurring? No.
Would Libya be a source of terrorism? No.
Would Libya be a transit hub of massive undesirable immigration to Europe? No.
Good reason Cameron doesn't talk about foreign policy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/world/europe/27putin.html
Serbia was an ally in both World Wars. The Balkans remains a mess.0 -
Also the possible effect on sampling. When the weather is warmer and the evenings lighter, people will be out and about rather than stuck in front of their PCs, and how will the Easter holidays affect polling - will more Tories be away on holiday?audreyanne said:I wish I had the time for a proper study on weather and opinion polls. I remember covering it back in the days I studied politics. Many of you will probably laugh at the idea that it makes a difference, but remember that 95% of the public don't think like pb posters.
I'm bloody miserable, others on her were noticeably tetchy yesterday and I'm blaming it on the weather.
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
0 -
Labour shortlist for York Central
Jo Coles (who works for Ed Balls)
Katie Ghose (of Electoral Reform Society)
Rachel Maskell (who works for Unite and sits on Labour NEC)0 -
Hmm, a handsome but wooden figure feted as a messianic figure but who's victory did not really solve things.Scott_P said:MarqueeMark said:
Rachel Reeves, the shadow work and pensions secretary, is understood to have privately backed Umunna, who is dubbed “the Neo” of Neo Labour, after the hero of the film The Matrix.
0 -
As an in running betting trader I have made the mistake of being so convinced it would come my way, even when it was going wrong, that I didn't get out of a position.. in poker they call it "marrying the hand"Sean_F said:
UKIP averaged 15.8% in this week's polling. I think TGOHF must be looking at pirated versions of opinion polls that are showing something different.isam said:
Its Tories saying that not me.. I should have put speech marks on a quote, my fault.TGOHF said:
Gawd - it's like a Sindyref sequel - everything is a boost for the Kippers. Well apart from recent polls I guess..isam said:Cameron playing into the hands of ukip
Recent polls are just fine for UKIP, not far off the all time high... I would take them at the GE in a heartbeat, I wonder which other parties could say the same
You are obsessed and yet keep getting it embarrassingly wrong.. not a good combo
EDIT.. Is see you selectively edited to make it look like I said something I didn't.. haha great, means I win xxx
In betting though you learn through your pocket... on here, if people have no dignity or self respect to restrain them, or respect for the truth/intellectual honesty I guess, they can keep making incorrect statements or change the levels at which their statements are true, as long as they like.. strange behaviour but it happens0 -
Because it's still worth getting the Greens on spouting policies which Labour voters might prefer to those actually on offer from Milliband, and further dilutes UKIP. And they might judge one Cameron/Milliband Prine-Ministerial debate is plenty.DecrepitJohnL said:
Which again raises the question of whether CCHQ has screwed up the debates. If the Conservatives' crucial advantage is the contrast between Cameron and Miliband, why throw it away, or at least dilute it, by inviting all the other parties?audreyanne said:Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.
0 -
I don't believe a word of the premise of this article. Of course Labour are going to go negative. They'd be mad not to.0
-
A fair point. But not always, sometimes rapprochement goes as far as it can but it is not enough.FalseFlag said:
Enemies often become friends, and back again.Sean_F said:
You do what you can. And, Gadaffi was a long-standing enemy of this country, as John Lilburne points out.FalseFlag said:
Funny we seem to have no issues with Isreal and the Ukraine doing the same in Gaza and the Donbass. Slaughter seems an excessive, and unprovable, forecast.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle behind our Gaddafi disaster
Last week, the BBC rightly but cruelly replayed David Cameron’s ludicrous words from September 2011, when he went to Tripoli to say: ‘Your city was an inspiration to the world as you overthrew a dictator and chose freedom.’
Now it’s an inspiration to nobody. He can’t go there to say so, because it’s too dangerous. Why isn’t he in more trouble over his active destruction of an entire country? It’s all very strange.
The Gaddafi regime fell because Mr Cameron lent the RAF to various gangs of Libyan jihadis (about whom we knew nothing).
But less than a year before, in October 2010, Henry Bellingham, a Tory Minister, was referring to Gaddafi as ‘Brother Leader’ at a summit in Tripoli.
About the same time, another Minister, Alistair Burt, told the Libyan-British Business Council that Libya had ‘turned a corner’ which ‘has paved the way for us to begin working together again’.
What changed? Could it be the same forces which decreed that flags in Britain should fly at half-mast to mark the death of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?
The Saudis always hated Libya’s dictator because he had overthrown a dynasty very like their own.
Do we still have an independent foreign policy, or is it governed by another, richer country?"
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk
Would Gadaffi's actions have caused more suffering than is currently occurring? No.
Would Libya be a source of terrorism? No.
Would Libya be a transit hub of massive undesirable immigration to Europe? No.
Good reason Cameron doesn't talk about foreign policy.
.0 -
Has this been discussed?
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
11-15 5/4
16-20 5/4
21-25 5/1
6-10 5/1
1-5 14/1
26-30 15/1
31-35 33/1
None 33/1
Over 35 66
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics0 -
Would seem foolish to listen to the Russians who were keen to advance their own interests in Syria and presumably to make Assad a full-blown client.FalseFlag said:
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
0 -
I am amazed the reporting of it is seemingly being taken at face value. No way they do not go negative. At best they cannot do it as much as they want so will try to draw a contrast with how negative we know the Tories will be, and suggesting either their own negative stuff is not really negative, or at least not as much as the Tories so it doesn't count.antifrank said:I don't believe a word of the premise of this article. Of course Labour are going to go negative. They'd be mad not to.
I would guess that a claim that the Tories will destroy the NHS would be claimed not to be negative because it is true, and that any similar claim will be contrasted with the subtlety-of-a-brick Tory campaign of 'Ed M is a weirdo' and said to not be personally negative at least.
0 -
Agreed, except that's not really what they are saying. the translation is "we are not going to run a campaign on the leadership scores of Cameron, in case the voters compare them to Miliband"antifrank said:I don't believe a word of the premise of this article. Of course Labour are going to go negative. They'd be mad not to.
0 -
I accept that the Russians can sometimes be correct, but they are even more blatant than we are about advancing their own interests with spurious arguments and claims than we are. It's the implicated pretense that if we are sometimes wrong then the Russians actions must always be morally justifiable that gets my goat.JohnLilburne said:
Would seem foolish to listen to the Russians who were keen to advance their own interests in Syria and presumably to make Assad a full-blown client.FalseFlag said:
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=00 -
Cold weather makes people vote Labour, eh? Well, it's a theory.audreyanne said:
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
On topic, the thing about negative campaigning is that it's already priced in. Voters know the Tories say that Ed is awful and Labour would eat the economy. They know that Labour says the Tories are destroying public services and the Cabinet is full of people who've never used public transport. They may agree or disagree, but they absolutely get that it's what we respectively claim. Further repetition invites eye-rolling among swing voters rather than thoughtful nods. And the risk is that voters believe both sides' negative stuff and wander off to UKIP.
What swing voters don't, on the whole, think they see is parties with a strongly positive agenda. They sort of know that UKIP's and the Greens' policies don't add up, but they think, hey, they stand for something. Outside the core vote for the big parties, people have lost track of what they're for. That's a more important hole to fill than having another round of "the other lot eat babies".
0 -
This one is in the offing too!
How many current UKIP MEPs will leave the party before the General Election on May 7th?
Suspd at the mo..
4/6 none
6/4 one I think0 -
My limited betting knowledge acknowledged, that seems well calculated to me.isam said:Has this been discussed?
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
11-15 5/4
16-20 5/4
21-25 5/1
6-10 5/1
1-5 14/1
26-30 15/1
31-35 33/1
None 33/1
Over 35 66
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics0 -
Yet we are right to listen to neo cons with their extensive links to Israel?JohnLilburne said:
Would seem foolish to listen to the Russians who were keen to advance their own interests in Syria and presumably to make Assad a full-blown client.FalseFlag said:
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I would just be happy to listen to some realists who put our own interests first.0 -
Good point. EdM is, in some respects, not to be under-estimated. He was pretty vicious about getting to the top. The problem for him is that I think everyone now knows when he's play-acting, which he does far too often. (Incidentally as an aside Farage has really got to stop doing the same or he will erode the anti-establishment meme.)Scott_P said:
Agreed, except that's not really what they are saying. the translation is "we are not going to run a campaign on the leadership scores of Cameron, in case the voters compare them to Miliband"antifrank said:I don't believe a word of the premise of this article. Of course Labour are going to go negative. They'd be mad not to.
0 -
@eek
"Back on topic, if you can't attack the enemy you really need some policies..."
and
@foxinsoxuk
"When I pointed this out over the last couple of years, PB labourites assured me that the party was just keeping its powder dry. It is increasingly looking as if there is no powder at all."
Well, I'm no expert--one of the reasons I follow this site---, but I feel that politics in this country do rather tend to follow **polarisation** more than policies. Thus I feel that the Libdems (my spell checker suggests "delibes"---what is that?) do (should continue to) have a very important role.
A general feeling about a party's centre of gravity is important and the optimistic presumption that they have a certain degree of practical managerial skill are important to me. For me Cameron fails.
0 -
Yes. Lots in the threads, but we need a thread header or ten from Mike. I wonder why he won'tisam said:Has this been discussed?
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE? 0 -
Surely the trouble with that theory is that all of the opposition parties will attack the government. All of them. But David Cameron will not be able to respond to these attacks individually or in detail because even if he tried, it would be too repetitive, it would disrupt his own agenda, and anyway, he'd simply run out of time.JohnLilburne said:
Because it's still worth getting the Greens on spouting policies which Labour voters might prefer to those actually on offer from Milliband, and further dilutes UKIP. And they might judge one Cameron/Milliband Prine-Ministerial debate is plenty.DecrepitJohnL said:
Which again raises the question of whether CCHQ has screwed up the debates. If the Conservatives' crucial advantage is the contrast between Cameron and Miliband, why throw it away, or at least dilute it, by inviting all the other parties?audreyanne said:Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.0 -
It's an idea. But surely people rely on negative campaigning and scare tactics because it works - they wouldn't rely on it if it did not, so I am skeptical there is as much of a hole there to fill as some think, at least when it comes to having an actual 'agenda'. Tap into the public's positive feelings and you can do really well with nothing more than empty platitudes about change, at that point having an actual agenda would probably be a hindrance.NickPalmer said:
What swing voters don't, on the whole, think they see is parties with a strongly positive agenda...That's a more important hole to fill than having another round of "the other lot eat babies".audreyanne said:
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
0 -
I doubt Labour will be too bothered by the Boots chairman's dire warnings of catastrophe. I'd have thought the more such forecasts from the billionaire bosses of tax-avoiding, minimum wage paying companies the merrier. It's the kind of stuff that will concentrate wavering minds - especially Green ones.0
-
I think he has a chance it could work out for him, if the lefty parties try to tear chunks out of each other and he manages to avoid a debilitating blow, but I suspect you are right and that one way they will try to undermine each other is by seeing who can tear him pieces the best, and he has to be very good and very lucky to avoid coming off badly in that situation, even if Ed M will not shine in such a situation either.DecrepitJohnL said:
Surely the trouble with that theory is that all of the opposition parties will attack the government. All of them. But David Cameron will not be able to respond to these attacks individually or in detail because even if he tried, it would be too repetitive, it would disrupt his own agenda, and anyway, he'd simply run out of time.JohnLilburne said:
Because it's still worth getting the Greens on spouting policies which Labour voters might prefer to those actually on offer from Milliband, and further dilutes UKIP. And they might judge one Cameron/Milliband Prine-Ministerial debate is plenty.DecrepitJohnL said:
Which again raises the question of whether CCHQ has screwed up the debates. If the Conservatives' crucial advantage is the contrast between Cameron and Miliband, why throw it away, or at least dilute it, by inviting all the other parties?audreyanne said:Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.0 -
But only America claims to have full spectrum global dominance, with the right to invade and interfere where, and whenever, they choose. The consequences of which have been negatively felt from east Africa to the Caucuses.kle4 said:
I accept that the Russians can sometimes be correct, but they are even more blatant than we are about advancing their own interests with spurious arguments and claims than we are. It's the implicated pretense that if we are sometimes wrong then the Russians actions must always be morally justifiable that gets my goat.JohnLilburne said:
Would seem foolish to listen to the Russians who were keen to advance their own interests in Syria and presumably to make Assad a full-blown client.FalseFlag said:
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=00 -
In the controlled environment of the debates, I am not sure that is so much of an issue as each leader will be given a fixed time to propound their own policies. However I have to admit I didn't actually see the debates last time, as I was on holiday in the run-up to the election and in any case had already decided how to vote.DecrepitJohnL said:
Surely the trouble with that theory is that all of the opposition parties will attack the government. All of them. But David Cameron will not be able to respond to these attacks individually or in detail because even if he tried, it would be too repetitive, it would disrupt his own agenda, and anyway, he'd simply run out of time.JohnLilburne said:
Because it's still worth getting the Greens on spouting policies which Labour voters might prefer to those actually on offer from Milliband, and further dilutes UKIP. And they might judge one Cameron/Milliband Prine-Ministerial debate is plenty.DecrepitJohnL said:
Which again raises the question of whether CCHQ has screwed up the debates. If the Conservatives' crucial advantage is the contrast between Cameron and Miliband, why throw it away, or at least dilute it, by inviting all the other parties?audreyanne said:Excellent thread TSE. Perhaps next time the Tories go ahead in a poll Mike will let you write the thread if he can't bring himself to do it?
The logic of what you've written, and the point about campaign spending is very interesting. Even in this media age I think billboards matter.
Presumably fleeing from negativity is also because they're aware of their biggest weakness: the personality of their leader.
This smacks of damage limitation. They know they're going to lose.
0 -
Underfunding in the Shires:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html
This is the problem with regional governance also. In regions like the North West and West Midlands, the big cities are included in the regions that surround them. In the south east, however, for no good reason London is broken off from the home counties that are economically one unit with it. Why should London get to benefit from all the business rates and/or corporation tax and keep it entirely from the commuter belt that staff the businesses that make the money? If we are to have regional governance, London and the home counties must be in the same region.0 -
Ah, but thankfully we veteran, yet mistaken, punters now have you to keep us on the straight and narrow so all is well.isam said:
In betting though you learn through your pocket... on here, if people have no dignity or self respect to restrain them, or respect for the truth/intellectual honesty I guess, they can keep making incorrect statements or change the levels at which their statements are true, as long as they like.. strange behaviour but it happensSean_F said:
UKIP averaged 15.8% in this week's polling. I think TGOHF must be looking at pirated versions of opinion polls that are showing something different.isam said:
Its Tories saying that not me.. I should have put speech marks on a quote, my fault.TGOHF said:
Gawd - it's like a Sindyref sequel - everything is a boost for the Kippers. Well apart from recent polls I guess..isam said:Cameron playing into the hands of ukip
Recent polls are just fine for UKIP, not far off the all time high... I would take them at the GE in a heartbeat, I wonder which other parties could say the same
You are obsessed and yet keep getting it embarrassingly wrong.. not a good combo
EDIT.. Is see you selectively edited to make it look like I said something I didn't.. haha great, means I win xxx
love, Ms Frantic.0 -
The betting market is new though isn't it? You see any value?audreyanne said:
Yes. Lots in the threads, but we need a thread header or ten from Mike. I wonder why he won'tisam said:Has this been discussed?
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?0 -
I'm not going to contest that. As I said, the problem comes when people, in opposition to such a thing, state or imply that whatever crap the Russians are pulling in the name of their own self interest is morally correct automatically, or that whatever line they are pushing must be correct. That is barely ever true (though it can be), but we know that people state so.FalseFlag said:
But only America claims to have full spectrum global dominance, with the right to invade and interfere where, and whenever, they choose. The consequences of which have been negatively felt from east Africa to the Caucuses.kle4 said:
I accept that the Russians can sometimes be correct, but they are even more blatant than we are about advancing their own interests with spurious arguments and claims than we are. It's the implicated pretense that if we are sometimes wrong then the Russians actions must always be morally justifiable that gets my goat.JohnLilburne said:
Would seem foolish to listen to the Russians who were keen to advance their own interests in Syria and presumably to make Assad a full-blown client.FalseFlag said:
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=00 -
Wow, I have 16 LD to Con losses in my current forecast.isam said:Has this been discussed?
How many current Lib Dem seats will the Tories win at the GE?
11-15 5/4
16-20 5/4 .....
https://www.betfair.com/sport/politics
0 -
I think that's spot on. Negative campaigning might work if the aim was to drag down the other side, but most people ALREADY think the Tories are nasty. The issue for Labour is that so many people who think the Tories are nasty are choosing to vote UKIP/Green/SNP instead.NickPalmer said:
Cold weather makes people vote Labour, eh? Well, it's a theory.audreyanne said:
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
On topic, the thing about negative campaigning is that it's already priced in. Voters know the Tories say that Ed is awful and Labour would eat the economy. They know that Labour says the Tories are destroying public services and the Cabinet is full of people who've never used public transport. They may agree or disagree, but they absolutely get that it's what we respectively claim. Further repetition invites eye-rolling among swing voters rather than thoughtful nods. And the risk is that voters believe both sides' negative stuff and wander off to UKIP.
What swing voters don't, on the whole, think they see is parties with a strongly positive agenda. They sort of know that UKIP's and the Greens' policies don't add up, but they think, hey, they stand for something. Outside the core vote for the big parties, people have lost track of what they're for. That's a more important hole to fill than having another round of "the other lot eat babies".
That said, I don't see how Labour are going to be able to run a positive campaign unless they change their policies to something much more distinctive. The irony is that when the main parties are close together, they actually have to ratchet up the personal attacks on one another, simply because otherwise there would be nothing else for them to say - if they just stuck to talking about policies, they would be agreeing with each other.0 -
So what do the 10 million people who live in London do while those who commute in do all the work?Socrates said:Underfunding in the Shires:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html
This is the problem with regional governance also. In regions like the North West and West Midlands, the big cities are included in the regions that surround them. In the south east, however, for no good reason London is broken off from the home counties that are economically one unit with it. Why should London get to benefit from all the business rates and/or corporation tax and keep it entirely from the commuter belt that staff the businesses that make the money? If we are to have regional governance, London and the home counties must be in the same region.
0 -
I'm no great friend of Israel. I support their right to exist, and to appropriate - even pre-emptive - self defence, but thought their last Gaza campaign was appalling.FalseFlag said:
Yet we are right to listen to neo cons with their extensive links to Israel?JohnLilburne said:
Would seem foolish to listen to the Russians who were keen to advance their own interests in Syria and presumably to make Assad a full-blown client.FalseFlag said:
The consequences of our actions in Syria were well understood by both opponents and presumably some supporters.audreyanne said:By the way, Isam, I think a lot of foreign policy has had to be re-written in the face of emerging and transforming events. A good case in point is Bashar al-Assad. In the light of IS Assad has become more of an ally, less of a villain. In politics and foreign policy you frequently have to allow pragmatism to play a part and that means sometimes dealing with the lesser of two evils. We may need to turn a blind eye to practices of which we don't approve in order to see the bigger goal and protect the greater good.
Idealism is best left to the student common room. In the real world it causes nothing but trouble.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I would just be happy to listen to some realists who put our own interests first.0 -
Is that the Nats who are fecking morons and pieces of dogshit? #hypocritesrusCarlottaVance said:
Mercifully they are generally polite and eschew much of the personal abuse of (some of) the potty mouthed Nats.....0 -
Is justice to blame? Dragging ex-dictators into court to face criminal charges for genocide or civil claims for damages is the least they deserve but is hardly an enticing prospect. Maybe we should go back to the more cynical days of bunging dictators a few quid to retire to some African or Middle Eastern bolthole.kle4 said:
While that is something that is up for debate - a year ago I would have agreed, I'm not so certain now, terrible as that makes me feel - I do think you are right criticisms can get bizarre. I recall a QT from around that time where some panel members and audience members were essentially stating interfering is always wrong, but that the slaughter going on was also wrong and that Gaddafi should be persuaded to step down or words to that effect, as if it were a possible option to get him to do that. Either the instability was not worth preventing him slaughtering people, or the risk of that instability vs potential improvement was worth preventing the slaughter, there was not an option for him to stop being a murderous dictator unless actual action was taken against him. It's why terrible dictators even with few allies like Gaddafi can exist happily for decades as long as they do not get too extravagantly brutal too often.Socrates said:
Quite. I always find it bizarre when critics of a military intervention point to the poor state of a country as a reason for why the military action was a bad idea. Of course they're in a poor state - they're a place that was so screwed up there was a case for military intervention. Success isn't that they've become a stable democratic country. Success is better than what the alternative would have been.Sean_F said:
The alternative was to let the Gadaffis slaughter the people of Benghazi.isam said:"The riddle unday.co.uk
0 -
On topic, if I were a left wing unionist I think I would quite like the idea of a Miliband-Salmond coalition
...obv not Sinn Fein, but that is so unlikely to happen it kind of nullifies the Tory posters point, they might as well have put a pic of Bin Laden on there0 -
Minimum wage jobs?SouthamObserver said:
So what do the 10 million people who live in London do while those who commute in do all the work?Socrates said:Underfunding in the Shires:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html
This is the problem with regional governance also. In regions like the North West and West Midlands, the big cities are included in the regions that surround them. In the south east, however, for no good reason London is broken off from the home counties that are economically one unit with it. Why should London get to benefit from all the business rates and/or corporation tax and keep it entirely from the commuter belt that staff the businesses that make the money? If we are to have regional governance, London and the home counties must be in the same region.0 -
A reasonable point. Although since we are often told nobody pays attention to elections until campaign time and therefore one assumes know next to nothing about political minutiae, perhaps most people do not know Sinn Fein do not take their seats and are unlikely to start now and so it might fool some people?isam said:
...obv not Sinn Fein, but that is so unlikely to happen it kind of nullifies the Tory posters point, they might as well have put a pic of Bin Laden on there0 -
Well i try to help, as you know in Rochester, but it doesn't seem to be appreciated... Every winner I have tipped on here has been pooh poohed by the PB experts, I have even had lawyers here telling me I don't understand how to price up match bets or interpret statistics... Only been an odds compiler 15 years, I guess I'll get the hang of it one dayaudreyanne said:
Ah, but thankfully we veteran, yet mistaken, punters now have you to keep us on the straight and narrow so all is well.isam said:
In betting though you learn through your pocket... on here, if people have no dignity or self respect to restrain them, or respect for the truth/intellectual honesty I guess, they can keep making incorrect statements or change the levels at which their statements are true, as long as they like.. strange behaviour but it happensSean_F said:
UKIP averaged 15.8% in this week's polling. I think TGOHF must be looking at pirated versions of opinion polls that are showing something different.isam said:
Its Tories saying that not me.. I should have put speech marks on a quote, my fault.TGOHF said:
Gawd - it's like a Sindyref sequel - everything is a boost for the Kippers. Well apart from recent polls I guess..isam said:Cameron playing into the hands of ukip
Recent polls are just fine for UKIP, not far off the all time high... I would take them at the GE in a heartbeat, I wonder which other parties could say the same
You are obsessed and yet keep getting it embarrassingly wrong.. not a good combo
EDIT.. Is see you selectively edited to make it look like I said something I didn't.. haha great, means I win xxx
love, Ms Frantic.
0 -
Yes, a lot of them are working for low wages. And, therefore, are staffing a lot of very profitable businesses. Of course, many others are starting and running those businesses. There's a reason why the house my Mum and Dad bought for £7000 in 1970 is now worth over £1.5 million.isam said:
Minimum wage jobs?SouthamObserver said:
So what do the 10 million people who live in London do while those who commute in do all the work?Socrates said:Underfunding in the Shires:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11382017/David-Camerons-funding-plan-will-isolate-us-say-Tory-shires.html
This is the problem with regional governance also. In regions like the North West and West Midlands, the big cities are included in the regions that surround them. In the south east, however, for no good reason London is broken off from the home counties that are economically one unit with it. Why should London get to benefit from all the business rates and/or corporation tax and keep it entirely from the commuter belt that staff the businesses that make the money? If we are to have regional governance, London and the home counties must be in the same region.
0 -
Oh dear. Wee Dougie blames the media for Labour's current woes.0
-
TurnipTheuniondivvie said:
Is that the Nats who are fecking morons and pieces of dogshit? #hypocritesrusCarlottaVance said:
Mercifully they are generally polite and eschew much of the personal abuse of (some of) the potty mouthed Nats.....0 -
Oh Nick, Nick, Nick. That's not what I said. Just put it another way, would you prefer as Government to go to the country in January or May?NickPalmer said:
Cold weather makes people vote Labour, eh? Well, it's a theory.audreyanne said:
As I say, you'll probably laugh at the suggestion but you watch the Conservative mini bounce when this sleety, slushy, sorrowful cold is replaced by the first milder sunny day.
Quite.
Hi Isam - can I get back to you on those odds? Interesting. Got to work now but will pick this up later.0 -
If someone has access to the Sun site, could they summarise what Damian McBride says? I always quite like reading his thoughts.0
