Cowardy custard Cameron

When the talks began over live televised debates, the first words out of Cameron’s gob were ‘I’m not joining the debate unless the Green Party are also on the stage.’

The Television companies agreed to put the GP chair on the stage.

Now Cameron has jumped to ‘I want SEVEN parties in the debate, and I’m only doing ONE.’

Does the country want a leader who is so openly afraid of debate?

Answer - No.

That should be the end of the Tories.

Does the country  want Labour in charge?

Answer - hardly likely.

Milliband has promised to build thousands of new houses (just like Cameron) if he gets elected. That may go a bit towards helping the housing crisis now, but it won’t be helped by Labour letting in hundreds of thousands of  immigrants in the future.

That should keep Labour out of No.10.

Clegg couldn’t win a debate against a class of teenagers, so the Lib-Dums are out of it as well. 

The Green Party disaster we heard recently won’t have done them any favours. Not that they were in with  much chance anyway, but their chances must have further diminished. 

Farage, like him or not, like his policies or not, will win any debate he stands in, against any other party member. 

He wants to leave the EU. 

Everybody argues about this, that and the rest of it, but the simple fact is that the public have never been asked. 

Instead of ticking boxes on the last census form, telling the govt what colour your skin is, and what religion you chose to adopt, howe often you  take a dump, a simple check box with a simple question would have sufficed:

’EU -  IN or OUT’ 

If the country had voted ‘IN’,  Farage has something to argue over.

If they voted OUT,  Farage will gain power. 

And on a census form, every house in the UK would have got a vote on it.

It’s pointless stating that most voters have no idea what withdrawal from the EU will do to them, these same voters put different parties into number 10 with no idea what would happen.

And no matter who has been in power, for decades, it hasn’t gone well.


Time to give the new boy a chance.

Vote UKIP.

And if it was the wrong decision, simply vote them out again when the time comes, the same as the Tories and Labour have done to each other for as long as I can recall, with no other party getting a look in.

The choice for the debates: empty seats or empty vessels.

Clegg can't lose any more ground to Lab/Con and to an extent SNP. But he can lose to plenty to PC & Green on the night and even UKIP.

I was fascinated by the amount of LD to UKIP switches there are in the LD heartlands of the SW. With such opposing fundamentals it's not a jump I could envisage many making.

Farage, like him or not, like his policies or not, will win any debate he stands in, against any other party member. 

He wants to leave the EU. 

Everybody argues about this, that and the rest of it, but the simple fact is that the public have never been asked. 

Instead of ticking boxes on the last census form, telling the govt what colour your skin is, and what religion you chose to adopt, howe often you  take a dump, a simple check box with a simple question would have sufficed:

’EU -  IN or OUT’ 

If the country had voted ‘IN’,  Farage has something to argue over.

If they voted OUT,  Farage will gain power. 

And on a census form, every house in the UK would have got a vote on it.

It’s pointless stating that most voters have no idea what withdrawal from the EU will do to them, these same voters put different parties into number 10 with no idea what would happen.

And no matter who has been in power, for decades, it hasn’t gone well.


Time to give the new boy a chance.

Vote UKIP.

And if it was the wrong decision, simply vote them out again when the time comes, the same as the Tories and Labour have done to each other for as long as I can recall, with no other party getting a look in.

With all due respect there's other policies required besides this country leaving the EU or not.

And quite frankly, when people look at all the facts surrounding whether it's better to leave the EU or not and realise it involves a lot more than just immigration, the decision is most likely to be to remain in it anyway. Almost every positive improvement in employee rights over the past 20 years has come about as a result of EU influence for a start.

As the man says though, even that is thin gruel, at a time when employees have fewer rights, flimsier security of employment and lower real-term wages than ever before. Even the minimum wage can hardly be counted a success I its sole real achievement has been to depress wages in previously mid to lower wage brackets.

And if the people who govern us, who have access to much more info on the matter than we do, agreed with your hypothesis that we would vote to stay in, we would have had a referendum already.

The people of Europe - not just Great Britain, but all across the continent - will ultimately reject political and financial union, just like Iraq and other artificial and unnatural constructs dreamed up by patrician idiots are doomed to failure.

Shows just how dumb Cameron is that he wanted the Greens ( who could take lots of labour votes) to be part of a debate where they would have been exposed as ridiculous and lost most of their support.

Could we not stay in the EU and force our underclass,bankers and such-like riff-raff,to go to Bulgaria say ?

I don't often get a chance to correct you Eternaloptimist but people serve their country - they are not servants to anyone!

As the man says though, even that is thin gruel, at a time when employees have fewer rights, flimsier security of employment and lower real-term wages than ever before. Even the minimum wage can hardly be counted a success I its sole real achievement has been to depress wages in previously mid to lower wage brackets.

And if the people who govern us, who have access to much more info on the matter than we do, agreed with your hypothesis that we would vote to stay in, we would have had a referendum already.

Fewer rights than when? All very well for "the man" to throw out such glib generalisations but they mean nothing without giving specific times when workers had it better. It sure as hell won't be any time 20 years and more ago.

Why would we have had a referendum? The party with the most number of MP's presently happen to have huge splits on the issue. Of course they weren't going to bring those splits to the forefront of the nation's consciousness in the lead up to a general election. It also suited Labour not to push for a pre 2015 referendum in order to highlight those splits because the UKIP vote will damage the tories to some degree in any case.

1. “I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great.” –
David Cameron and Jeremy Thompson, Sky news, 14 April 2010

2. “I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go someway
to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics
because we badly need that once again in this country.” – David Cameron,
Leaders Debate, ITV, 15 April 2010

3.“Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged
Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls,
and when I was behindin the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” –
David Cameron,
Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010

4.
“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in
every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s
part of the
modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010

5. “I think these debates are here to stay. They clearly engage people in politics
which is what we need.” – David Cameron, News of the World, 2 May 2010

I don't know who is advising Milliband but quite why he doesn't come out and say the tories are saying its a choice between me and him and he won't even debate with me I don't know.

Milliband would be absolutely bonkers to have a one on one with Paxman if Cameron refuses as he would be exposed badly. In a debate with cameron he could come out of it with credit but on his own he is likely to lose out.

I can understand why Cameron doesn't want the debate. It elevates others on to the platform he has as prime minister. The only PM to go for the debates is Brown and that was the last throw of the dice from a lunatic.

The current proposals are ridiculous. The seven man debate will be a farce there will be little debate as each party will just put forward their party lines.

If they are having debates then it should have been the tories labour libdems and UKIP.

Can't see them happening personally.

There is no such thing as society

Any opportunity to cite his silly heroine.

Call me Dave is now call me chicken.

UB he stands for nothing he is known as mr slippery for a reason. All he cares about is re election.

Comrade_Karla    05 Mar 15 20:06 
There is no such thing as society

"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

One of Maggies finest quotes as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.

Mighty,

SNP are polling third nationally in terms of Westminster seats.

SNP will have more seats in the next Parliament than UKIP.

SNP will have more seats than LibDems.

Come to think of it, SNP will have more seats than UKIP, LibDem, Green, Respect and Plaid Cymru put together.

Comrade_Karla    05 Mar 15 20:31 
These debates are stupid anyway.
People who would make their choice after watching these farces shouldn't have a vote.

agree 100%, with seven people in them there will be barely any time for debate.

i understand that but you are associating winning seats as the only thing that matters.

UKIP in particular will influence many marginal seats if they continue to poll in the teens which may well determine the outcome of the election.

You are presuming the SNP vote will hold up to the election they currently have 6 seats, at the last election the BNP got more votes than them.

I don't think they should be in national debates because they are not a national party. I think there should be a debate in scotland in which they can participate. There is no point them being in a national debate because 90% of the country can't vote for them even if they wanted to.

Looking at the present numbers either Labour govern as a minority or form a coalition with the SNP. I'm not convinced they could even reach an agreement, although I am sure both would try hard.
If they do manage to agree a coalition then you can expect Nicola to really push through some socialist policies both North and South of the border.
I do wonder how all the fruitcakes on here will feel about that. I can just see the likes of Mr Eeternal, Blackburn and others sailing off into the sunset.

Bon voyage, boys.

How would you know?
Trident is obviously a sticking issue, but if they can get over that then I see no reason why not. And not to mention, the SNP would be very aware that such a coalition would be hugely unpopular in large parts of England which helps their ultimate cause of independence, which incidentally is just a matter of time now.