Politics
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
05 Mar 15
10:27
Joined:
Date Joined:
25 Jun 11
The posh boys frit and full of sh!t.
Show More
Media controls them if they want. If Cameron refuses to play ball just go ahead anyway and leave a white feather on his empty chair. We want to see it. They are our servants and not the other way round.
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 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.
There's no positive reason for Cameron to do a debate. Yet he's offered to do one and Miliband and Clegg don't seem to want to participate.
Miliband especially needs the debate, so I'm guessing he'll be forced kicking and screaming into it. Clegg? A good chance that he has as much to lose as gain, so may well empty seat himself.
Miliband especially needs the debate, so I'm guessing he'll be forced kicking and screaming into it. Clegg? A good chance that he has as much to lose as gain, so may well empty seat himself.
The choice for the debates: empty seats or empty vessels.
Miliband has nothing to lose from a debate. It's all upside for him.
Same with Clegg he can't lose any more ground than he already has lost.
Cameron has lost the moment the debate starts, because he's giving credibility to the others.
He's got to score a knockout to get a draw.
Brown only gave Cameron a debate last time because he wanted to play down the Bottler Brown image he'd picked up.
And of course it was Brown who was the underdog last time with plenty to gain.
Same with Clegg he can't lose any more ground than he already has lost.
Cameron has lost the moment the debate starts, because he's giving credibility to the others.
He's got to score a knockout to get a draw.
Brown only gave Cameron a debate last time because he wanted to play down the Bottler Brown image he'd picked up.
And of course it was Brown who was the underdog last time with plenty to gain.
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.
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.
None of them want to debate with Garage because they have no answer to his two main arguments, those concerning immigration and Europe. He will destroy them in front of the whole nation, and they know it.
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.
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.
Mar 5, 2015 -- 3:06PM, jed.davison wrote:
None of them want to debate with Garage because they have no answer to his two main arguments, those concerning immigration and Europe. He will destroy them in front of the whole nation, and they know it.
High chance of Bennett or loopy Leanne shouting racist to something innocuous as well.
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.
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.
Quite so CJ, the real surprise is not that Cameron is reluctant to appear, but that Bennett would ever wish to subject herself to the ordeal again.
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.
the polls are maintaining the greens at 6/7% suggesting that their supporters are unconcerned about their leader making an absolute **** of herself.
Could we not stay in the EU and force our underclass,bankers and such-like riff-raff,to go to Bulgaria say ?
Greens wouldnt be at 6% once Farage/Cameron/Miliband had a chance to expose their policies on open door immigration and legalising membership of terrorist organisations for a start. Banning NH racing might lose the votes of any Betfairians. Mind you the lists of crackpot policies they have would take more than one debate to ridicule properly.
I don't often get a chance to correct you Eternaloptimist but people serve their country - they are not servants to anyone!
Almost every positive improvement in employee rights over the past 20 years has come about as a result of EU influence for a start.
What positives? Employees' rights are a noose over the employers' neck and dragging down employees' standard of living. There are no 'rights' created by man, except for natural rights that applies to all equally. Taking away one's natural rights and replacing it with 'garbage rights' has been a disaster. The EU has, and always be, an economic disaster hence why countries in the far east are doing well. There is no substitute for hard work.
What positives? Employees' rights are a noose over the employers' neck and dragging down employees' standard of living. There are no 'rights' created by man, except for natural rights that applies to all equally. Taking away one's natural rights and replacing it with 'garbage rights' has been a disaster. The EU has, and always be, an economic disaster hence why countries in the far east are doing well. There is no substitute for hard work.
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.
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.
Semantics paddle but seeing as the gauntlet has been thrown down I maintain my position. MP's are elected to serve us. There is no such thing as society. Only people. 
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
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
Cant do it without his bullingdon butt buddies to back him up.
Typical lying gutless politician we have suffered for decades vote for change vote ukip.
Typical lying gutless politician we have suffered for decades vote for change vote ukip.
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.
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.
"If they are having debates then it should have been the tories labour libdems and UKIP."
Why have minor parties like the LibDems and UKIP???
Just stick to the major ones, the ones with the most seats, tories labour and SNP.
Why have minor parties like the LibDems and UKIP???
Just stick to the major ones, the ones with the most seats, tories labour and SNP.
There is no such thing as society
Any opportunity to cite his silly heroine.
Call me Dave is now call me chicken.
Any opportunity to cite his silly heroine.
Call me Dave is now call me chicken.
Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, won't speak on the Scottish Neverendum.
Won't come out as pro-EU.
Won't debate with Ed Milliband.
What does he stand for?
Surely he cannot lose this election, can he? Can he?
He thinks the game is won, and he's trying not to blow it.
But fortune doesn't favour the timid.
I've seen more backbone in a tin of sardines.
Won't come out as pro-EU.
Won't debate with Ed Milliband.
What does he stand for?
Surely he cannot lose this election, can he? Can he?
He thinks the game is won, and he's trying not to blow it.
But fortune doesn't favour the timid.
I've seen more backbone in a tin of sardines.
UB he stands for nothing he is known as mr slippery for a reason. All he cares about is re election.
Meadow the reason i said tories labour Ukip and Lib dems are
1. They are contesting seats in all constituencies
2. The tories and labour are the major parties
3. UKIP are polling third currently and won the last national election
4. The lib dems are currently the third biggest party and part of the coalition government.
I don't think the SNP Plaid or the unionists should be part as they are regional parties and not standing nationally.
The greens don't have enough support in my view to be part. They are polling 6%, and are unlikely to win or influence more than a couple of seats.
1. They are contesting seats in all constituencies
2. The tories and labour are the major parties
3. UKIP are polling third currently and won the last national election
4. The lib dems are currently the third biggest party and part of the coalition government.
I don't think the SNP Plaid or the unionists should be part as they are regional parties and not standing nationally.
The greens don't have enough support in my view to be part. They are polling 6%, and are unlikely to win or influence more than a couple of seats.
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.
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.
These debates are stupid anyway.
People who would make their choice after watching these farces shouldn't have a vote.
People who would make their choice after watching these farces shouldn't have a vote.
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.
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.
Im more than happy for there to be regional debates in wales n ireland and scotland.
I live in england i can't vote snp same as the rest of england wales and n ireland.
They are not a national party so i don't see why they should be in national debates.
It is conjecture at this stage how many seats any party will get, just because they are popular in scotland doesnt mean they should be in the national debates. They may get more seats but they wont get more votes than UKIP or libdems and possibly the greens.
The DUP will probably have more seats than UKIP green respect and plaid put together but i wouldn't include them.
I live in england i can't vote snp same as the rest of england wales and n ireland.
They are not a national party so i don't see why they should be in national debates.
It is conjecture at this stage how many seats any party will get, just because they are popular in scotland doesnt mean they should be in the national debates. They may get more seats but they wont get more votes than UKIP or libdems and possibly the greens.
The DUP will probably have more seats than UKIP green respect and plaid put together but i wouldn't include them.
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.
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.
Mighty,
You are falling into the trap of believing our Westminster Parliament is based on proportional representation. It's not, it's first past the post and until that changes the parties that will have the most seats are the major parties.
You are falling into the trap of believing our Westminster Parliament is based on proportional representation. It's not, it's first past the post and until that changes the parties that will have the most seats are the major parties.
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.
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.
Ok,
Let's look at this another way...
Edinburgh Zoo have more giant pandas in Scotland than Tory, UKIP, Green, Respect, BNP and Monster Raving Loony MPs put together. These are UK parties that campaign for seats in Scotland. Should they be invited to a Scotland debate?
Let's look at this another way...
Edinburgh Zoo have more giant pandas in Scotland than Tory, UKIP, Green, Respect, BNP and Monster Raving Loony MPs put together. These are UK parties that campaign for seats in Scotland. Should they be invited to a Scotland debate?
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.
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.
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.
The SNP will only vote on issues that affect Scotland either directly or indirectly (Trident is one of them) but they have made it 100% clear there will be no formal coalition.
Presumably they are democrats and will accept the result.
Labour in coalition might not be too bad,they might with SNP influence start to look after the British working class.
If Labour ditch all the anti British stuff,stop engaging in foreign wars,stop pandering to Islam they might get back their core vote.
Cameron is terrified of a debate with Farage because he would be destroyed.
Labour in coalition might not be too bad,they might with SNP influence start to look after the British working class.
If Labour ditch all the anti British stuff,stop engaging in foreign wars,stop pandering to Islam they might get back their core vote.
Cameron is terrified of a debate with Farage because he would be destroyed.
Meadow X1 05 Mar 15 21:06
Ok,
Let's look at this another way...
Edinburgh Zoo have more giant pandas in Scotland than Tory, UKIP, Green, Respect, BNP and Monster Raving Loony MPs put together. These are UK parties that campaign for seats in Scotland. Should they be invited to a Scotland debate?
In the last election in scotland these were the votes cast.
Labour 1035528
lib dems 465471
snp 491386
tories 412855
UKIP 17223
so labour, lib dems snp, tories yes to a scottish debate UKIP no
Ok,
Let's look at this another way...
Edinburgh Zoo have more giant pandas in Scotland than Tory, UKIP, Green, Respect, BNP and Monster Raving Loony MPs put together. These are UK parties that campaign for seats in Scotland. Should they be invited to a Scotland debate?
In the last election in scotland these were the votes cast.
Labour 1035528
lib dems 465471
snp 491386
tories 412855
UKIP 17223
so labour, lib dems snp, tories yes to a scottish debate UKIP no
If i was part of the labour leadership i would rule out a coalition with the SNP, it may persuade a few to vote labour rather than SNP if it became apparent voting for SNP would have no impact on the national picture.
I doubt the SNP will do as well as people are saying when the election takes place.
I doubt the SNP will do as well as people are saying when the election takes place.
Voting for SNP will have a direct positive impact on any Westminster legislation that affects Scotland.
Don't underestimate them. Voting intention in the opinion polls is very consistent in all regions and has been since the referendum. The same trends are being repeated...LibDem vote collapsing, 20% plus swing Labour-SNP, Tory vote generally holding up, UKIP vote negligible, Green support good in some small pockets.
Remember the SNP have an overall majority at Holyrood, have 100,000 members and are very active organised canvassers.
Don't underestimate them. Voting intention in the opinion polls is very consistent in all regions and has been since the referendum. The same trends are being repeated...LibDem vote collapsing, 20% plus swing Labour-SNP, Tory vote generally holding up, UKIP vote negligible, Green support good in some small pockets.
Remember the SNP have an overall majority at Holyrood, have 100,000 members and are very active organised canvassers.
Voting for SNP will have a direct positive impact on any Westminster legislation that affects Scotland.
That will depend on how the dust settles after the election.
If there is no overall majority they may have some sway but that depends on how the overall picture looks. If there is a tory majority or the tories can form a coalition then they will have plenty of mps but no influence.
If there is no overall majority there is every chance of a second election later in the year.
That will depend on how the dust settles after the election.
If there is no overall majority they may have some sway but that depends on how the overall picture looks. If there is a tory majority or the tories can form a coalition then they will have plenty of mps but no influence.
If there is no overall majority there is every chance of a second election later in the year.
crackers;'People who would make their choice after watching these farces shouldn't have a vote.'
what a fascist outlook. denial of voting rights to people who might be amenable to persuasion? what if they were persuaded to your opinion? would you re-instate their franchise?
i would deny nobody a vote, however symbolic or irrelevant. you would. not very liberal. but it is a common theme from bogus liberals. authoritarianism is ok as long as it is left-wing. democratic socialists, and i know plenty, all lovers of castro, clam-up when i mention the zero votes cast in the socialist paradise of cuba. it is as though it had never occurred to them that elections have at least some degraded meaning. how is it that all notions of freedom are abandoned when it comes to a socialist state? no trade unions or free speech, no freedom to travel. political prisoners worked to death? guantanamo is on th e same island. cuba has been such for 50 years.
boring, obv. but until a socialist follower of castro can explain why he is beyond criticism, despite his persecution and murder of opponents, it is a legitimate question.
what a fascist outlook. denial of voting rights to people who might be amenable to persuasion? what if they were persuaded to your opinion? would you re-instate their franchise?
i would deny nobody a vote, however symbolic or irrelevant. you would. not very liberal. but it is a common theme from bogus liberals. authoritarianism is ok as long as it is left-wing. democratic socialists, and i know plenty, all lovers of castro, clam-up when i mention the zero votes cast in the socialist paradise of cuba. it is as though it had never occurred to them that elections have at least some degraded meaning. how is it that all notions of freedom are abandoned when it comes to a socialist state? no trade unions or free speech, no freedom to travel. political prisoners worked to death? guantanamo is on th e same island. cuba has been such for 50 years.
boring, obv. but until a socialist follower of castro can explain why he is beyond criticism, despite his persecution and murder of opponents, it is a legitimate question.
I think the DUP have done a deal with Cameron on this one and are threatening an official review to help him get out of the debates and will also back the tories if they win a narrow majority.
One would expect them to do so since any SNP progress is an existentialist threat to the unionist cause
Good point Jed. Clear from some of the comments and especially their unwillingness to clarify their position that the DUP will help Cameron get out of these debates.
You can't have a national debate and exclude NI while giving Sco/Wal a voice. That was an idiotic decision in the first place, and legally DUP should win any case.
Let DUP in and UUP & SDLP will have a case. Broadcasters have f*cked this up to accomodate Sturgeon & Wood without thinking of the consequences.
Let DUP in and UUP & SDLP will have a case. Broadcasters have f*cked this up to accomodate Sturgeon & Wood without thinking of the consequences.
Cameron doesn't need the DUP to get him out of the debate, he is perfectly within his rights to shun them.
He may need them to shore up his minority administration however, and then they will be there for him.
He may need them to shore up his minority administration however, and then they will be there for him.
Broadcasters say debates will go on with or without cowardy cameron.
They will replace him with an empty chair with a white feather on it.
They will replace him with an empty chair with a white feather on it.
Don't think you could let the DUP in without letting the alliance party and the sdlp also into the debates. Sinn Feinn would also want in. Cameron knows this. The ulster unionist party have not much of a case as they don't have a single west minster mp at present.
In reality the DUP don't want into these debates and Cameron does not want them in either. In any debates the DUP would have to be hostile to the tory party as in n.ireland they have campaigned with sinn fein against many austerity measures.
DUP would rather do a deal with the tories after the election with a tory government which might need their support and they are likely to bring more mps to the table than ukip will.
DUP would rather do a deal with the tories after the election with a tory government which might need their support and they are likely to bring more mps to the table than ukip will.
Mar 6, 2015 -- 5:19PM, paddletoe wrote:
Don't think you could let the DUP in without letting the alliance party and the sdlp also into the debates. Sinn Feinn would also want in.
Quotes..
In the same vein you can't really run the NI debates without UKIP. It's a complete mess of the broadcasters own making after the nats were invited due to sabre rattling.
A bad decision trying to appeal to the craven demands to include Sturgeon & Wood has probably killed any chance of them happening. A complete own goal.
In the same vein you can't really run the NI debates without UKIP. It's a complete mess of the broadcasters own making after the nats were invited due to sabre rattling.
A bad decision trying to appeal to the craven demands to include Sturgeon & Wood has probably killed any chance of them happening. A complete own goal.
I would not allow ukip in the n.ireland debates if they were in the main debates at the exclusion of the regional parties and the debates in Scotland, wales and n.ireland were therefore seen as separate debates. Ukip would need to meet some minimum criteria of past electoral success and at present they would not meet any of those criteria in n.ireland.
In the same vein we could say the same for PC & SNP in England and Scotland/Wales respectively.
It's starting to look like the spin doctor who instructed Dave to follow this course of action has miscalculated.
He's not very lucky with spin doctors is he.
He's not very lucky with spin doctors is he.
Craig Oliver, tbf, had approximately zero influence in this decision. The Tories are counting their chips before the game is over.
Ed Miliband has said he will legislate to make TV debates compulsory in the lead up to future GEs.
Ffs, how can anyone think of crafting such a law. And defining who takes part and for how long. And why tv, why not on radio or twitter. And why does each party have to one spokesperson anyway, it's not a presidency, and the best parties are about team work.
I've got a better idea - which is if you want a debate, make your own arrangements, don't impose them. Bravo to Farage and Clegg, they turned up and had it out, and didn't fanny on with suggestions to make laws about when to do it.
The ASI has waded in on this and I pretty much agree with it:
.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/ed-milibands-tv-debates-law/
If the debates do happen, they will at some point debate the debates about legislating for debates. At which point people will go to bed.
Ffs, how can anyone think of crafting such a law. And defining who takes part and for how long. And why tv, why not on radio or twitter. And why does each party have to one spokesperson anyway, it's not a presidency, and the best parties are about team work.
I've got a better idea - which is if you want a debate, make your own arrangements, don't impose them. Bravo to Farage and Clegg, they turned up and had it out, and didn't fanny on with suggestions to make laws about when to do it.
The ASI has waded in on this and I pretty much agree with it:
.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/ed-milibands-tv-debates-law/
If the debates do happen, they will at some point debate the debates about legislating for debates. At which point people will go to bed.
Or, as Alaister Campbell put it to his 292,000 followers on twitter:
blog - Cameron's ducking of the TV debates - morally cowardly and democratically wrong http://www.alastaircampbell.org
OG Cameron
blog - Cameron's ducking of the TV debates - morally cowardly and democratically wrong http://www.alastaircampbell.org
OG Cameron
Mar 8, 2015 -- 11:06PM, bongo wrote:
Ed Miliband has said he will legislate to make TV debates compulsory in the lead up to future GEs.Ffs, how can anyone think of crafting such a law. And defining who takes part and for how long. And why tv, why not on radio or twitter. And why does each party have to one spokesperson anyway, it's not a presidency, and the best parties are about team work. I've got a better idea - which is if you want a debate, make your own arrangements, don't impose them. Bravo to Farage and Clegg, they turned up and had it out, and didn't fanny on with suggestions to make laws about when to do it. The ASI has waded in on this and I pretty much agree with it:.http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/politics-government/ed-milibands-tv-debate... the debates do happen, they will at some point debate the debates about legislating for debates. At which point people will go to bed.
You should be thanking your lucky stars he didn't call for a judge led inquiry into the debates.
Mar 8, 2015 -- 11:27PM, unitedbiscuits wrote:
Or, as Alaister Campbell put it to his 292,000 followers on twitter:blog - Cameron's ducking of the TV debates - morally cowardly and democratically wrong http://www.alastaircampbell.org OG Cameron
Campbell is back on the booze.
He blocked Blair from doing them against Hague.
Too late now. Too close to election. Tories hugely weakened by this.
And Dave is going to be asking "Who is strong enough to be trusted at the driving wheel" While proving he is personally weak weak weak.
Ha ha ha ha ha. What a mess.
And Dave is going to be asking "Who is strong enough to be trusted at the driving wheel" While proving he is personally weak weak weak.
Ha ha ha ha ha. What a mess.
They all know Farage will win any debate but Cameron is the one running away.
I must say Cameron has loads of problem with the (ex? Tory?)Farage. Not least how to keep his own anti Europe quiet while being honest on the fact that he doesn't really want a referendum and if he is forced to have one he will be launching the propaganda war to end all media blitzes to make such we stay in Europe.
Will Farage do a deal? I'm sure the Tories want one. The last thing they want is Farage megaphoning "Cameron's running scared." V. bad for the Tories.
Will Farage do a deal? I'm sure the Tories want one. The last thing they want is Farage megaphoning "Cameron's running scared." V. bad for the Tories.
You have to be dubious about someone who will only attend a mass debate.
Mar 9, 2015 -- 7:28PM, flushgordon1 wrote:
You have to be dubious about someone who will only attend a mass debate.
Only if you already were.
Mar 9, 2015 -- 8:08PM, flushgordon1 wrote:
cj i assumed you were also a mass debater.
You don't know how correct you are.
If the Tories thought the debates had an advantage for re-election, 'Dave' would be all over 'em like a cheap suit.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539