General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

So, Dave Moron has bottled the debates, via a "I'll do one of them" statement that he knows it's almost impossible for the broadcasters to be able to comply with, when they've been given just 18 days to get it set-up and for ll the leaders to be available to attend. If the broadcasters did manage to meet Cameron's demands, Cameron would suddenly find an important prior appointment that he's just not able to miss.

Not only that, the tories have spent the last 8 months indicating that everything for the for proposed 3 different debates arrangement was acceptable to them, to deliberately lead them into a dead-end.

And of course finally, the whole thing is likely to break down anyway, because every broadcaster won't be their own debate to broadcast, which was part of why there wpould have been 3 debates in the first place.

Cameron is running scared.

He's hoping he's fucked the broadcasters.

So, they need to empty-chair him. Forget the tub of lard, I want to see a goldfish swimming round and round in a small tank on that chair.

Does this country have a leader or does it have a chicken?

[LJS]

In all seriousness and meant as no insult: for people like you to change your mind would require you to be open to changing your mind. You're not.

Labour could offer a socialist wonderland as their manifesto, but you'd reject voting for it whilst calling yourself a socialist. And the reason for that is that you'd dismiss the Labour offering as worthless lies, and you'd invent the 'better' SNP policies from nothing they've ever said.

How do I know this? Because all of the above (without the extremes of Labour policy I've given as a hypothetical) you're already living large. Only Labour are the only party saying they'll tax the rich, and yet you hail the rich-gifting SNP as left-leaning.

For policies to count, people have to be open to policies. That's ended in Scotland.

Perhaps ask yourself why. Only you know.

My point is, it is starting to look as if the debate needs to move on from what Labour does to avoid losing dozens of Scottish seats to how they deal with the increasing probability that these seats are as good as lost.

As to why this is happening, I would suggest Labour is reaping the rewards for years of taking their core support for granted, colluding with the Tories' austerity policies & cosying up too much with the Tories in the referendum campaign.

In other words...it's Labour's fault. They have punched themselves in the face.

[MrZigster]

I think the idea of an empty chair with a goldfish on it needs to go viral

[gary1979666]

So, Dave Moron has bottled the debates, via a "I'll do one of them" statement that he knows it's almost impossible for the broadcasters to be able to comply with, when they've been given just 18 days to get it set-up and for ll the leaders to be available to attend. If the broadcasters did manage to meet Cameron's demands, Cameron would suddenly find an important prior appointment that he's just not able to miss.

Not only that, the tories have spent the last 8 months indicating that everything for the for proposed 3 different debates arrangement was acceptable to them, to deliberately lead them into a dead-end.

And of course finally, the whole thing is likely to break down anyway, because every broadcaster won't be their own debate to broadcast, which was part of why there wpould have been 3 debates in the first place.

Cameron is running scared.

He's hoping he's fucked the broadcasters.

So, they need to empty-chair him. Forget the tub of lard, I want to see a goldfish swimming round and round in a small tank on that chair.

Does this country have a leader or does it have a chicken?

I'd like to see the 7-7-2 format go ahead. But I can see why Cameron doesn't want the debates to go ahead - he's the one with the most to lose and the others can largely gain.

Yes, the Lab / SNP / Green split could happen - but don't think Ed would lose much/any and could even gain some ground. However, Farage will have Cameron, no doubt. He'll change his manifesto at will to sound popular, whereas Cameron is tied to the reality of his polices and record. I'd love to see UKIP exposed as who they are, but I think Nige is too smart for that.

I've seen you admit the same. So, yes, he may be chicken, but he must have weighed up the balance of not attending vs haemoraging more to UKIP.

[eFestivals]

My point is, it is starting to look as if the debate needs to move on from what Labour does to avoid losing dozens of Scottish seats to how they deal with the increasing probability that these seats are as good as lost.

As to why this is happening, I would suggest Labour is reaping the rewards for years of taking their core support for granted, colluding with the Tories' austerity policies & cosying up too much with the Tories in the referendum campaign.

In other words...it's Labour's fault. They have punched themselves in the face.

You keep on saying that Labour should move more to the left, so the question you need to stop and ask yourself is....

Why do you plan to vote for a party that's more to the right than them?

It's the question you can only ever address by inventing SNP policies, rather than by listening to SNP policies.

Meanwhile, exactly the same applies all around the country. If people aren't voting for Labour because they're not left enough, why are parties to the left of Labour not coming on in leaps and bounds?

The simple facts show that Labour's chances of greater support are to the right of their current position - you know, where over 50% of the electorate will vote!

[eFestivals]

I've seen you admit the same. So, yes, he may be chicken, but he must have weighed up the balance of not attending vs haemoraging more to UKIP.

Oh, I don't doubt that Cameron can only lose via the debates - tho that's got far more to do with how he'll perform than the simple fact of him being the current incumbent.

As a tactic, it's wise.

But elections shouldn't be about tactics, they should be about policies. Does he have the policies to win people over? He doesn't think so, very clearly.

He's saying "the country should trust me" while not being able to trust the country. It's doesn't get more chicken.

[russycarps]

he knows he lacks the intelligence to think on his feet and win a debate. All he can do is present material written by aides. He's completely right not to do these debates as he'd be slaughtered.

A fat, sweaty simpering coward of course, but he'd be a fool to have agreed to them.

[gary1979666]

he knows he lacks the intelligence to think on his feet and win a debate. All he can do is present material written by aides. He's completely right not to do these debates as he'd be slaughtered.

A fat, sweaty simpering coward of course, but he'd be a fool to have agreed to them.

Naturally, I don't agree with all of that, though won't deny that some of it is founded in truth.

I reckon he's quick enough to get by, moreso than Milliband for sure. But Nige is good (if you ignore the words, he's a convincing speaker) - think he could run rings round both of them.

The other think for Cameron is if he gets rattled, there a chance he'd turn bully boy. A little bit of it and he can look very authoritititiive, but too much and it's curtains.

What's better though Russy, wise coward or brave fool? Maybe the former, as there can be a lot more to cloud over it between now and the actual vote.

I take Neil's point, it shouldn't be about tactics, but it's going to be hard to get away from. We had similar talk back in 97 - Blair decided against the debates. Sadly Cameron opted in in 2010 and looks like there's no going back now.

[eFestivals]

I reckon he's quick enough to get by, moreso than Milliband for sure.

PMSL ... you didn't see last week's PMQ's then.

Miliband had him on toast. I've yet to see even a tory voter who thought Dave didn't do totally crap.

The other think for Cameron is if he gets rattled, there a chance he'd turn bully boy. A little bit of it and he can look very authoritititiive, but too much and it's curtains.

this would happen, without a doubt.

Cameron is crap if he's not been pre-briefed, and because the debate questions aren't disclosed, he'd do crap.

That bully-boy thing would lose it for him, cos it's not just a "bully boy", it's a "public school bully boy".

What's better though Russy, wise coward or brave fool?

who gives a fuck about either of those, really?

What we want are competent politicians, with policies we approve of.

I take Neil's point, it shouldn't be about tactics, but it's going to be hard to get away from. We had similar talk back in 97 - Blair decided against the debates. Sadly Cameron opted in in 2010 and looks like there's no going back now.

I don't think what happened in the days before there were debates has too much relevance here. That counts as a different era.

We now do have debates - because Dave battered Brown into complying. And, I think, the words he used then to do should be turned back on him to show just how big a coward he is.

[GlastoSimon]

He's not going to avoid the likes of UKIP 'winning the debate' by sitting on his fat arse though is he? All of the parties would already have one-up on him for starters.

I'd be amazed if he actually goes through with it if the broadcasters just say they'll go ahead. But if he does, empty chair is the obvious solution, and I look forward to it

[eFestivals]

I'd be amazed if he actually goes through with it

he's never had any intention of doing the debates, that's been blindingly obvious since the summer.

Quite how the TV companies have allowed themselves to be strung along with his bullshit when him not doing the debates has been public knowledge since last summer I've no idea. But, the tories have been stringing those TV companies along, and I can only guess they the TV companies took that engagement in good faith. The fools.

His latest "I'll do it" has been said only because Miliband has exposed him into a position where he has to look like he'll comply, but it's been said with conditions he's certain the TV companies can't meet ... but if they do, I guarantee Dave will then find an engagement of huge importance to the country that stops him from taking part - and that might be something cooked up as "urgent" in the 24 hours before the debate is due to happen, to create a sense of importance around his absence.

[GlastoSimon]

I'm just a tad sceptical of the idea that Cameron will still say he won't do it if confronted with the idea of him being 'empty seated'. Just think its too big a risk for him to not be able to defend himself with all parties going at him in front of c. 22 million people.

I wonder if the voting tendencies of those at the top of the TV companies have influenced how far they're willing to be strung along by these demands?

[gary1979666]

I don't think he'd let them go on without him - they'll either bubble into nothing or he'll step in last minute and do them.

Mind that was before reading the last para in Neil's post - that sounds vaguely possible, but don't think he could cook up something like that himself - would need to be a global event.

And to quickly go back to a point Neil made earlier - most of the debate will be pre-prepared - we know there'll be questions around the NHS, the economy, Europe, ... and we can guess what the others are likely to say (apart from Nige - even he doesn;t know yet). ALso - if Dave gets his way, one 90min debate - that's only just over 10min for each leader in total - not much really - they're not going to throw in an obscure question.

I'm just hoping we get another picture like the one-legged one last time, but with the seven of them.

[eFestivals]

Mind that was before reading the last para in Neil's post - that sounds vaguely possible, but don't think he could cook up something like that himself - would need to be a global event.

He can invent just about anything to suit.

He needs to go and urgently talk with Obama, about Russia/Ukraine. He needs to go and urgently talk with the other EU members, about Russia/Ukraine.

He needs to talk with the IMF/EU about the Greek financial crisis.

ISIS? Libya? Iraq?

Or just the easy "there's a terrorist issue we can't tell you about, but it needs my attention".

He's just soooo very important, anything in the world might need his attention. And because he's that important, that's all you need to know for why he's not at the debates to win the debates.

The sheeples will love it. There's nothing they like more than someone who says he's important that they can look up to.

[gary1979666]

He'd need to get the buy in of others for the meeting. Europe, maybe not, but Obama might just throw him that bone. Could work if there's enough media coverage.

[eFestivals]

He'd need to get the buy in of others for the meeting. Europe, maybe not, but Obama might just throw him that bone. Could work if there's enough media coverage.

If Dave requests a meeting with Obama (or anyone else), Obama is not going to be looking at the UK TV schedules, he'll only be looking at the reason the meeting is being requested.

An overseas meeting would be better, but there's always plenty of decent-enough internal-UK excuses he could use that plenty would buy.

Edited March 5, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Whilst I don't doubt Dave would rather do without the inconvenience of a debate and the more debates he takes part in, the bigger the risk of him being exposed as an arrogant upper-class prat. However, there is clearly a risk attached to him ducking out of them as will. It will give his opponents free reign to label him as a cowardly, arrogant, anti-democratic upper class prat.

I think he may go through with the magnificent 7 debate, on the theory that it'll be so chaotic that no one will win, but he will at least be able to say he was prepared to debate.

So my money says, he will debate!

[LJS]

Why do you plan to vote for a party that's more to the right than them?

You know who I'm planning to vote for? Funny that, as I haven't made my mind up myself yet.

(You are correct that it won't be Labour though.)

[5co77ie]

non-violent extremism/protest is as dangerous as ISIS - and dissent must be eradicated

http://youtu.be/IuwOfQI8YA8

anyone else think this is a new dangerous path we've just taken?

Edited March 5, 2015 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

Whilst I don't doubt Dave would rather do without the inconvenience of a debate and the more debates he takes part in, the bigger the risk of him being exposed as an arrogant upper-class prat. However, there is clearly a risk attached to him ducking out of them as will. It will give his opponents free reign to label him as a cowardly, arrogant, anti-democratic upper class prat.

I think he may go through with the magnificent 7 debate, on the theory that it'll be so chaotic that no one will win, but he will at least be able to say he was prepared to debate.

So my money says, he will debate!

He's already thpought of as a cowardly, arrogant, anti-democratic upper class prat, tho unfortunately only by those who won't swallow anything of him.

And that, unfortunately, is pretty much hpow it'll stay if he ducks the debates. Those that already give him the benefit of the dopuybt will continue to do so around him bottling the debates.

Note how he's blaming the broadcasters for not coming up with a format that suits him - and yet he's never once mentiooned this to the broadcasters in any of the many meetings there's been between his representatives aND THOSE broadcasters.

He's very clearly, and very definitely, going to bottle it.

Your money, eh? I have money too.

Fancy a tenner bet, with WaterAid as the beneficiary?

[eFestivals]

You know who I'm planning to vote for? Funny that, as I haven't made my mind up myself yet.

(You are correct that it won't be Labour though.)

So there you go - your vote is nothing about policies or whether you lean left or right or whether the party you vote for leans left or right, it's an "I hate Labour vote".

Which is laughable when you claim to be praying that you get a Labour govt.

Edited March 5, 2015 by eFestivals

[russycarps]

Naturally, I don't agree with all of that, though won't deny that some of it is founded in truth.

I reckon he's quick enough to get by, moreso than Milliband for sure. But Nige is good (if you ignore the words, he's a convincing speaker) - think he could run rings round both of them.

The other think for Cameron is if he gets rattled, there a chance he'd turn bully boy. A little bit of it and he can look very authoritititiive, but too much and it's curtains.

What's better though Russy, wise coward or brave fool? Maybe the former, as there can be a lot more to cloud over it between now and the actual vote.

I take Neil's point, it shouldn't be about tactics, but it's going to be hard to get away from. We had similar talk back in 97 - Blair decided against the debates. Sadly Cameron opted in in 2010 and looks like there's no going back now.

All I want is a strong, intelligent prime minister.

I accept a lot of the time the PM is going to be someone who's views differ wildly from my own.

What I cannot accept is a weak, stupid leader. It irks me that the country is run by someone who is thicker than I am.

Now if someone like michael portillo was in charge it would be a different matter. Our views are miles apart but I can admire his intelligence, passion for politics and vision. I can also admire his charisma, charm, wit and dashing good looks.......I've said too much.

[eFestivals]

Now if someone like michael portillo was in charge it would be a different matter. Our views are miles apart but I can admire his intelligence, passion for politics and vision. I can also admire his charisma, charm, wit and dashing good looks.......I've said too much.

Do you have evidence that you should be passing to Justice Lowell Goddard?

[gary1979666]

All I want is a strong, intelligent prime minister.

I accept a lot of the time the PM is going to be someone who's views differ wildly from my own.

What I cannot accept is a weak, stupid leader. It irks me that the country is run by someone who is thicker than I am.

Now if someone like michael portillo was in charge it would be a different matter. Our views are miles apart but I can admire his intelligence, passion for politics and vision. I can also admire his charisma, charm, wit and dashing good looks.......I've said too much.

Not to mention those lovely pastelly shirts! Ah, bring on some more travels with his Bradshaws! Would love him to do a similar thing in the US too - like the Stephen Fry in America program from a while ago.

[5co77ie]

Now if someone like michael portillo was in charge it would be a different matter. Our views are miles apart but I can admire his intelligence, passion for politics and vision. I can also admire his charisma, charm, wit and dashing good looks.......I've said too much.

...and let's not forget the Community Charge, without him we may never have got Thatcher out...

Democracy Street, Britain's longest running soap opera

With the added illusion of audience participation

Our act tonight, on the left, capitalism that's right

On the right, capitalism is it

In the middle, probably the best capitalism in the world

Remember it's your choice

Your five seconds worth of action that counts

I mean that most sincerely voters

Sit tight, keep quiet, 'till the next time

The next time being one thousand eight hundred

And twenty-five days away

Well, if freedom is the choice between greed and practically

The same impression

Then I'll take the one thousand eight hundred and twenty-five days

Never mind the ballots, here's the rest of your life