politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The great national – constituency betting divide

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Which bit of Cameron got everything he set out for, are you struggling with?

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

More problems for Labour in Halifax

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/20/labour-disqualifies-130-halifax-party-members-linda-riordan

SMukesh said:

With the debates,Miliband and Farage have played a bad hand well.

They knew that Cameron was looking for any reason to sabotage the debates and Tory networks like ITV and Sky will bend backwards to accommodate him ,so they have agreed to make concessions so the debates will take place at all.

This gives Miliband,Farage and Clegg a lot of airtime which they would otherwise not get.

Yes a master stroke by End and no mistake.

SMukesh said:

With the debates,Miliband and Farage have played a bad hand well.

They knew that Cameron was looking for any reason to sabotage the debates and Tory networks like ITV and Sky will bend backwards to accommodate him ,so they have agreed to make concessions so the debates will take place at all.

This gives Miliband,Farage and Clegg a lot of airtime which they would otherwise not get.

Blimey

Do you actually believe that? Really?

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

@londonstatto: @JohnRentoul Also winning: people who don't want the campaign reduced to three TV programmes.

Scott_P said:

SMukesh said:

This gives Miliband,Farage and Clegg a lot of airtime which they would otherwise not get.

Which will be balanced by airtime for the others on their terms...

You should probably stop now.

Yeah.Like an Andrew Marr show watched by noone.

SMukesh said:

With the debates,Miliband and Farage have played a bad hand well.

They knew that Cameron was looking for any reason to sabotage the debates and Tory networks like ITV and Sky will bend backwards to accommodate him ,so they have agreed to make concessions so the debates will take place at all.

This gives Miliband,Farage and Clegg a lot of airtime which they would otherwise not get.

Farage in the opposition debate will be an interesting one. Not easy for him to pitch for the NHS and abolishing the bedroom tax on this platform.

He will appear to be far and away the most right wing of the 5. It may not go down well in Northern cities.

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

@Scott_P
As long as it gets them on TV and the media discussing the various results, it is job done for the opposition, and a "Dave downer".
The actual results of the debates make little real difference, unless someone plays a real blinder, or makes a super blunder.
And no, I can't be arsed explaining the reasons yet again, so carry on as usual.

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

You would think he must see some advantage.

But what is it? I can't for the life of me think what. He will face the Alliance of Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood and be destroyed while needing to spend his own time attacking Farage (who won't be effective as he will be spending all his time concentrating on avoiding any accusations of sexism).

Someone must see what Miliband is thinking here? Anyone?

All I see is a potential Labour disaster.

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

Dair said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

You would think he must see some advantage.

But what is it? I can't for the life of me think what. He will face the Alliance of Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood and be destroyed while needing to spend his own time attacking Farage (who won't be effective as he will be spending all his time concentrating on avoiding any accusations of sexism).

Someone must see what Miliband is thinking here? Anyone?

All I see is a potential Labour disaster.

Farage is quite capable of a gaffe too in this format. Very easy to be tripped into saying something stupid.

Dair said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

You would think he must see some advantage.

But what is it? I can't for the life of me think what. He will face the Alliance of Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood and be destroyed while needing to spend his own time attacking Farage (who won't be effective as he will be spending all his time concentrating on avoiding any accusations of sexism).

Someone must see what Miliband is thinking here? Anyone?

All I see is a potential Labour disaster.

"Anytime, anywhere, anyplace" - having made such a song and dance about the debates (see PMQs ad passim), Ed probably had no choice but to concede to anything that was offered by the broadcasters..!

MaxPB said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Smarmeron said:

@Scott_P
As long as it gets them on TV and the media discussing the various results, it is job done for the opposition, and a "Dave downer".
The actual results of the debates make little real difference, unless someone plays a real blinder, or makes a super blunder.
And no, I can't be arsed explaining the reasons yet again, so carry on as usual.

Which debate is remembered as a blinder? All the debates that I can think of were noted for their gaffes and blunders.

"I agree with Nick". Clegg did pretty well out of the first debate then Dave shaded the second and third, but the first one, which had the highest ratings, caused the Cleggasm.

What if anything did Clegg say in the debate? "I agree with Nick" was more of a gaffe by the others.

The Cleggasm was in anycase a phenomenon of the polling rather than the election. The final outcome was the same as the pre-debate polling. The LDs lost 5 seats too.

MaxPB said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

One of them thinks that Ed made such a massive thing over the debates that Ed couldn't back down from any of them without losing face.

I think there are a lot of left wing voters unhappy with Ed for the principal reason that they think he's a loser and they want a winner. I suspect everything he does is seen through that prism. Personally I think the debates are unpredictable and I suspicious of anyone who thinks they know how it will all pan out. Last time Clegg got a huge boost after the first debate but then on election day it didn't really materialise. If I had to hhazard a guess I'd say Ed Miliband is most likely to be th biggest winner from the debates this time because he can hardly fail to improve upon his low ratings with the public. Even the Tories admit this to their media friends. But nothing is guaranteed.

As for Cameron playing a blinder, it was fairly obvious he didn't want the debates at all. 7 way may be best for him but it's hardly a victory.

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

It's true about blundering in, and I apologise for that.

There were already two idiots in the discussion.
And, against the odds, both of them were you.

Another bad cliche.

I am guessing you have more left in the kitty.Let`s have them out.

What polls are we expecting tonight?

MarqueeMark said:

What polls are we expecting tonight?

YouGov, Opinium and Survation

FrankBooth said:

Dair said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

You would think he must see some advantage.

But what is it? I can't for the life of me think what. He will face the Alliance of Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood and be destroyed while needing to spend his own time attacking Farage (who won't be effective as he will be spending all his time concentrating on avoiding any accusations of sexism).

Someone must see what Miliband is thinking here? Anyone?

All I see is a potential Labour disaster.

Actually it might help Miliband to have Bennett and Wood there so he can stake the claim to moderate social democracy. I agree Stugeon is a good performer whilst Farage is anyone's guess. The whole thing strikes me as unpredictable. But the idea that David Cameron has played a strategic blinder when he has been trying to stop the debates happening seems daft. He's done his best to worm his way out of them but in the end had to accept a compromise.

He was happy to debate before the start of the campaign - so his compromise has been to move the debate by a few days. That is hardly a major defeat.

In a couple of days time, the fuss over the process with have evaporated and performance in front of the cameras will be all that people will be concerned with.

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

MaxPB said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

One of them thinks that Ed made such a massive thing over the debates that Ed couldn't back down from any of them without losing face.

As far as when the 5-way is taking place then if I were Cameron I would be out somewhere meeting the people and making a speech and looking prime ministerial and in control, not squabbling with a bunch of political midgets for the extremist vote.

We can do this

FrankBooth said:

Dair said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

You would think he must see some advantage.

But what is it? I can't for the life of me think what. He will face the Alliance of Sturgeon, Bennett and Wood and be destroyed while needing to spend his own time attacking Farage (who won't be effective as he will be spending all his time concentrating on avoiding any accusations of sexism).

Someone must see what Miliband is thinking here? Anyone?

All I see is a potential Labour disaster.

Actually it might help Miliband to have Bennett and Wood there so he can stake the claim to moderate social democracy. I agree Stugeon is a good performer whilst Farage is anyone's guess. The whole thing strikes me as unpredictable. But the idea that David Cameron has played a strategic blinder when he has been trying to stop the debates happening seems daft. He's done his best to worm his way out of them but in the end had to accept a compromise.

Correction, the Tories wanted to absolutely avoid putting Dave and Ed alone in the same room and they have achieved that goal. The other goal of avoiding having the debates completely was always going to be tougher, but again Dave is only in the room with Nige once and it includes the Greens/SNP/PC as well rather than the original proposal of 4, 4, 2 so that is probably a net gain as well though not as good as their original target of no debates.

The biggest winner in this format is surely Dave and the biggest losers are probably Ed and Nige.

Flightpath said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

MaxPB said:

FrankBooth said:

MaxPB said:

Labour friends of mine pretty irate over the debates. Mostly with Labour campaign for putting Ed into the den of ****s with the challengers.

But surely Miliband wouldn't agree to it unless he felt there was some advantage to him in doing it?

I'm pleasantly surprised by the latest proposals. A range of programmes and formats over a wide enough period so as not to take over the entire campaign.

One of them thinks that Ed made such a massive thing over the debates that Ed couldn't back down from any of them without losing face.

As far as when the 5-way is taking place then if I were Cameron I would be out somewhere meeting the people and making a speech and looking prime ministerial and in control, not squabbling with a bunch of political midgets for the extremist vote.

If I was Cameron I would definitely not meet ordinary people in case a voter asks him why he was being such a coward.

MarqueeMark said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

MarqueeMark said:

What polls are we expecting tonight?

YouGov, Opinium and Survation

Thanks TSE. Wonder if there will be any Budget polling....

I don't think we will with Opinium as the fieldwork began before the budget.

We should see budget polling with YouGov and Survation.

What's on the other side at the same time as these debates ?

Might be a good chance to stick on a big movie or some such

Scott_P said:

The scale of Cameron's victory in the debate war can be measured by the volume of whining from labour

Absolutely

And they are doing a lot of it.

Now all we need is for the DUP to win an injunction and the whole thing will be off and we can focus on real politics not a media event.

Eat your heart out Flightpath. THIS is how to Astroturf!!

"Blow me thats an incredible victory by Cameron."

"I continually underestimate this guy".

"Bloody hell Downing St showed some nerve. This talk of being cowardly is just sour grapes."

"p.s. I chatted to some people today about the budget & I seem to be alone with my misgivings"

"This isn't the first time I've underestimated Cameron and daresay won't be the last. Love him or loathe him, he's prime ministerial."


"Meantime what the blazers is going down with Labour's price in the markets? Talk about bear run."

GeoffM said:

david_herdson said:

GeoffM said:

oxfordsimon said:

MaxPB said:

Scott_P said:

MaxPB said:

So who exactly is in the five way debate?

I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.

Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.

WHAT?!

Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.

Is this the first time we have had a General Election where 2 of the party leaders aren't actually standing for election to Westminster?

Not if you go back to the time that being in the Lords was unremarkable for a Prime Minister.

And it's probably not unusual more recently than that either. It's just that the debates have turned the spotlight on the also-ran parties and we've noticed for the first time.

Since devolution, it's normal for the Plaid and SNP leaders not to contest Westminster seats. In fact, I don't think either has since the Assembly and Parliament came into place. Before then, it'd depend on which parties you count. If you're excluding embryonic parties that later became significant, I think you'd have to go back to 1895 when Rosebery and Salisbury led the two main parties of the day.

Yes, concur with all of that. We're only noticing it (and, as a result of the debates, considering the consequences) this time around as we've been fast and loose up until now in how the titles of participants in debates and the titles of the debates themselves have been characterised.

With your exclusions taken on board it would be 1895. I am a scholar of 19thC politics rather than 20thC as my tutor did not consider anything after 1914 to be "history" which is why that particular period struck me as an obvious outer limit to @oxfordsimon's interesting observation.

The fact that the SNP leader will be in the debates but will not be in Westminster but sitting in Edinburgh but is still seeking to influence the Labour party in a narrow sense and Westminster in a wider sense is a point which ought not to be lost on English voters.

EPG said:

PB glossary
Labour playing politics with Cameron debate participation = whining
Conservatives playing politics with Cameron debate participation = strategic genius, 330 seats at GE 2015

Quite right, only Labour's attempt at playing politics failed miserably.

Scott_P said:

FrankBooth said:

it's clear that the Tories have been wanting to deny Miliband as much publicity as possible.

Not at all.

Every time Ed is on telly the Labour poll rating drops

The exception is one or one, where DC is in danger of looking like a bully. Yes, that's a negative approach, but it's a real risk.

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

It's true about blundering in, and I apologise for that.

There were already two idiots in the discussion.
And, against the odds, both of them were you.

Another bad cliche.

I am guessing you have more left in the kitty.Let`s have them out.

Ooh well done. We need a Cliché Nazi on here. Great timing.

Dave has outmanoeuvred Ed the same way Monty did to Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein.

Do you actually believe this stuff you write. You keep telling us that Dave and George are strategic geniuses outmaneovuring Labour. Yet they couldn't win an election against Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour government and a disastrous financial crisis. Fortunately for them Nick Clegg came along to save their political skin. They show no sign of winning this time in spite of Labour still being in the doghouse and choosing a leader the electorate find weird. Do you think that maybe, just maybe they aren't as good as you think?

Scott_P said:

FrankBooth said:

it's clear that the Tories have been wanting to deny Miliband as much publicity as possible.

Not at all.

Every time Ed is on telly the Labour poll rating drops

So why no 1-1 debate with Cameron?

Roger said:

Eat your heart out Flightpath. THIS is how to Astroturf!!

"Blow me thats an incredible victory by Cameron."

"I continually underestimate this guy".

"Bloody hell Downing St showed some nerve. This talk of being cowardly is just sour grapes."

"p.s. I chatted to some people today about the budget & I seem to be alone with my misgivings"

"This isn't the first time I've underestimated Cameron and daresay won't be the last. Love him or loathe him, he's prime ministerial."


"Meantime what the blazers is going down with Labour's price in the markets? Talk about bear run."

It's good that Audreyanne has a worthy successor.

FrankBooth said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

It's true about blundering in, and I apologise for that.

There were already two idiots in the discussion.
And, against the odds, both of them were you.

Another bad cliche.

I am guessing you have more left in the kitty.Let`s have them out.

Ooh well done. We need a Cliché Nazi on here. Great timing.

Dave has outmanoeuvred Ed the same way Monty did to Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein.

Do you actually believe this stuff you write. You keep telling us that Dave and George are strategic geniuses outmaneovuring Labour. Yet they couldn't win an election against Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour government and a disastrous financial crisis. Fortunately for them Nick Clegg came along to save their political skin. They show no sign of winning this time in spite of Labour still being in the doghouse and choosing a leader the electorate find weird. Do you think that maybe, just maybe they aren't as good as you think?

The Tories were leading before the financial crisis, and had leads of 28%.

Believe it or not, the financial crisis helped Labour.

You have a strange definition of win.

They won the popular vote, comfortably, it was the vageries of the biased electoral system that denied them a majority.

Lab 2005 lead of circa 3% = majority of 66 seats

Con 2010 lead of circa 7% = not a majority.

@MSmithsonPB: Tories ahead by 36-33 in latest Opinium Observer poll

@Labourpaul: Not sure that presentationally lumping Labour with all the fringe parties in one debate will do Ed any favours.

FrankBooth

"Do you actually believe this stuff you write."

That's the most interesting comment on the thread. I know there's an election but do posters really believe the rubbish they've written on this thread? It's impossible to tell the spoofers from the paid staff.

The Opinium Poll was AFTER the budget

FTP Thread

I don't know for certain but I assume when @Dair was talking about apartheid in Scotland he was talking about Religious Schooling and its associated effects.

On one budget measure that has proved very popular, the first time buyer's ISA. It has really struck a chord with a lot of my friends who want to buy flats/houses, most just wish the government would increase the amount that can be saved per month and bring down the length of time it takes to maximise the return.

A small policy, yes, but it speaks to a lot of generation rent and is finally a measure that shows that the Tories are not only on the side of old people and landlords.

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrankBooth said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

n.

Do you actually believe this stuff you write. You keep telling us that Dave and George are strategic geniuses outmaneovuring Labour. Yet they couldn't win an election against Gordon Brown after 13 years of Labour government and a disastrous financial crisis. Fortunately for them Nick Clegg came along to save their political skin. They show no sign of winning this time in spite of Labour still being in the doghouse and choosing a leader the electorate find weird. Do you think that maybe, just maybe they aren't as good as you think?

The Tories were leading before the financial crisis, and had leads of 28%.

Believe it or not, the financial crisis helped Labour.

You have a strange definition of win.

They won the popular vote, comfortably, it was the vageries of the biased electoral system that denied them a majority.

Lab 2005 lead of circa 3% = majority of 66 seats

Con 2010 lead of circa 7% = not a majority.

Eh. It was the absurdity of the electoral system that saw Labour win in 2005 not the Tories fail in 2010. The Tories convinced 37% of the British people to support them in 2010 which didn't provide a majority of seats. They were lucky however that a party that had fought three elections to the left of Labour absurdly decided to form a 5 year coalition with the Tories.

As for the financial crisis it should have helped the Tories as the main opposition party. However they revealed themselves as such a pair of shallow lightweights (as admitted by the then Bank of England Governor) that they couldn't take advantage.

TheScreamingEagles said:

As Nick Palmer would say, tick tock

https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/579343054504595457

Lol.

Although the Tories have yet to break above 36 in any of the polls.

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

It's true about blundering in, and I apologise for that.

There were already two idiots in the discussion.
And, against the odds, both of them were you.

Another bad cliche.

I am guessing you have more left in the kitty.Let`s have them out.

Ooh well done. We need a Cliché Nazi on here. Great timing.

Dave has outmanoeuvred Ed the same way Monty did to Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein.

Can you, perchance, think of a comparison based around the conflicts seen in Roman times?

I believe Mr Dancer was looking for one recently without success.

I have, Dave = Scipio Africanus, Ed = Hannibal

The Debates = The Battle of Zama

So Ed still has a long career ahead of him?

kle4 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

GeoffM said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

MaxPB said:

SMukesh said:

It is really funny all these Tories predicting ED IS going to be hammered when it`s their leader who is the chicken.

Cameron ran scared of the debates for a reason,ladies!

Yes, for this exact reason. You literally don't understand how politics works.

I know enough to know it`s not a good idea to have 6 party leaders calling you chicken before the election.

Again, the "challengers" debate includes the opposition and only the opposition. Also, since Dave, Nige and Nick get less screen time than Ed (one less appearance for Dave and Nige, two less for Nick) they will be able to make that up elsewhere for political balance reasons.

Honestly, you just don't get this politics malarkey. Dave has won. Ed has lost. He is going into a room with 4 anti-establishment parties as the one defending the establishment. Dave and Nick get to sit at home laughing while they tuck into a nice meal and chortle into their beers.

Seems like you know there is everything to know about politics.

Well he's definitely medalling in this particular exchange between the two of you.

And that`s why he needs another idiot to blunder in.

It's true about blundering in, and I apologise for that.

There were already two idiots in the discussion.
And, against the odds, both of them were you.

Another bad cliche.

I am guessing you have more left in the kitty.Let`s have them out.

Ooh well done. We need a Cliché Nazi on here. Great timing.

Dave has outmanoeuvred Ed the same way Monty did to Rommel at the Second Battle of El Alamein.

Can you, perchance, think of a comparison based around the conflicts seen in Roman times?

I believe Mr Dancer was looking for one recently without success.

I have, Dave = Scipio Africanus, Ed = Hannibal

The Debates = The Battle of Zama

So Ed still has a long career ahead of him?

Yes, after a humiliating defeat (I hope)