General Election 2015

[eFestivals]

Latest on the chicken

corrected for you.

[gary1979666]

Lol!

Whilst I don't disagree that he's scared - he's quite right in his fear though, as has the most to lose. Are the No voters last September chicken or did they sensible decide it was the best thing to do?

[kaosmark2]

Lol!

Whilst I don't disagree that he's scared - he's quite right in his fear though, as has the most to lose. Are the No voters last September chicken or did they sensible decide it was the best thing to do?

It's a bit different considering Cameron was calling out Brown to do them 5 years ago.

Clearly the incumbent has the most to lose.

[gary1979666]

Does that make Cammers a chicken (or hypocrite) or Brown a fool? (I appreciate the answer is probably both ) )

[eFestivals]

Whilst I don't disagree that he's scared - he's quite right in his fear though, as has the most to lose.

irrelevant.

Elections are about what 'the people' want, not Chicken Dave.

Are the No voters last September chicken or did they sensible decide it was the best thing to do?

What, when 'no' quite happily debated the issue in public with the snippers?

[gary1979666]

irrelevant.

Elections are about what 'the people' want, not Chicken Dave.

What, when 'no' quite happily debated the issue in public with the snippers?

My point with Scotland was that by voting No, were they chicken for not voting Yes? Obviously not, as it's the sensible thing to do - i.e. acting in your own interests isn't chicken.

As for what 'the people' want - I think they'd like honesty from all parties about what they're going to do - not manifesto BS, but the truth - like what are you really going to do with the NHS / tax / education. We all know whoever is in No 11 come May is going to deliver some bad news - let's hear it now and then we can decide who'se medicine we like best. The debates are a charade of preprepared palatable soundbites with very little substance.

The sad truth is more of 'the people' tune into Eastenders than watched the debates last year. The paper have been quoting 21m people watched them - but that's really 7m x 3, as I would imagine most of those who watched one, watched them all.

[eFestivals]

My point with Scotland was that by voting No, were they chicken for not voting Yes? Obviously not, as it's the sensible thing to do - i.e. acting in your own interests isn't chicken.

It's nothing that's compatible.

Chicken Dave isn't meant to be acting in his interests, he's meant to be acting in the country's interests.

If he's acting in the country's interests he'll be able to stand before the country and argue his case, and win his case.

It's called "democracy".

It's a strange concept to tories, I know.

The debates are a charade of preprepared palatable soundbites with very little substance.

But much less of a charade than a charade with prepared and unchallenged sounbdbites, which is the alternative you're suggesting.

The best we can get is via the challenges that a politician will make to another politician's claims..

The sad truth is more of 'the people' tune into Eastenders than watched the debates last year. The paper have been quoting 21m people watched them - but that's really 7m x 3, as I would imagine most of those who watched one, watched them all.

and the even sadder truth is that you're criticising that small engagement, while saying that no engagement at all will be better.

You're giving typical tory thinking, which is very little thinking at all.

[gary1979666]

It's nothing that's compatible.

Chicken Dave isn't meant to be acting in his interests, he's meant to be acting in the country's interests.

If he's acting in the country's interests he'll be able to stand before the country and argue his case, and win his case.

It's called "democracy".

It's a strange concept to tories, I know.

But much less of a charade than a charade with prepared and unchallenged sounbdbites, which is the alternative you're suggesting.

The best we can get is via the challenges that a politician will make to another politician's claims..

and the even sadder truth is that you're criticising that small engagement, while saying that no engagement at all will be better.

You're giving typical tory thinking, which is very little thinking at all.

For the record - I want the debates - I watched all of them last time. You're saying 'the people' want them - when in reality just over 10% of the country watched them. Would love it if it were more, but sadly no.

Was initially arguing whether he is being chicken or not. Not whether he should or not (he should). We know he's on hiding to nothing, so is it cowardice? I'm not necessarily saying it in a positive light - and it's more likely that he's being calculating or disingenuous, rather than chicken.

So enough about my thinking - try reading what I actually said! And then try and stop generalisations about what the public want - cos quite clearly (and sadly) there's a large chunk who couldn't give a shit.

[eFestivals]

You're saying 'the people' want them - when in reality just over 10% of the country watched them.

it was at least another 5 points on that, when you include only those of voting age (the norm for political measurement). But anyway....

The 'wanting' is more important to whether Chicken Dave should do it than the watching. Politicians are meant to be OUR servants, remember?

And then try and stop generalisations about what the public want - cos quite clearly (and sadly) there's a large chunk who couldn't give a shit.

Not giving a shit enough to watch the debate is a very different thing to giving a shit that we're able to hold our politicians to account.

When a politician isn't prepared to make his case to the public for an election, what does that tell you of that politician?

And how the fuck do you expect the public to ever better engage in politics if politicians won;'t better engage with them?

Why does it always scare tories to be under public struitiny?

[gary1979666]

it was at least another 5 points on that, when you include only those of voting age (the norm for political measurement). But anyway....

The 'wanting' is more important to whether Chicken Dave should do it than the watching. Politicians are meant to be OUR servants, remember?

Not giving a shit enough to watch the debate is a very different thing to giving a shit that we're able to hold our politicians to account.

When a politician isn't prepared to make his case to the public for an election, what does that tell you of that politician?

And how the fuck do you expect the public to ever better engage in politics if politicians won;'t better engage with them?

Why does it always scare tories to be under public struitiny?

I think he's happy to make his case to the public and will have plwnty of interviews scrutinising policies/manifesto - he'll be grilled by the humphries', boultonss, davis', dimblebys', marr's and reids' (!) , he's not shying awayfrom that - he doesn't want to be on a stage with Farage and his ever changing manifesto which will haemorage more votes. I think we saw from the debates last time a lot of what comes out of it is more an impact on public image, rather than a focus on the policies - which is one of the things you have been criticisng about the media portrayal of Miliband.

If anything some of these interviewers will scrutinise him far better (ok, not reid, judging by the other morning) than those in the debates would.

If he refused anything like that, then fair enough you'd have a point. And yes, he's a hypocrite for not wanting the debates that he goaded Brown into.

I concede the point on the maths - was laziness rather than point scoring!

[kaosmark2]

Cameron is scared of anything where he could get a question he's not fully briefed on. He's not going to go public school bully on an interviewer, whereas he will against ed. He's currently got an image advantage there, and the debates is how he'd lose that.

[eFestivals]

I think he's happy to make his case to the public and will have plwnty of interviews scrutinising policies/manifesto - he'll be grilled by the humphries', boultonss, davis', dimblebys', marr's and reids' (!) ,

cos those types always do such a great job, yeah, and hugely greater numbers pay attention to those than they do the debates.

only a moron could complain about the debates on the basis of them not being watched, and then suggest that things with even less public interest are a better thing.

I think we saw from the debates last time a lot of what comes out of it is more an impact on public image, rather than a focus on the policies

Last time the public leant a lesson. Now you're saying throw that away for something else so it's easy to work the same scam again.

Anything but public scrutiny is the tories way, and use the least democratic whenever possible. That's been their central core for over a century, for at least since they forumlated violence in Ireland for English political advantage ... and that worked out very well for the many that died over 90+ years as a consequence. The tories were even directly ordering political assassinations.

(yeah yeah, they're nothing like that today... how's that child abuse inquiry going, when they could just publish the files?).

- which is one of the things you have been criticisng about the media portrayal of Miliband.

PMSL - so your answer to a lack of public scrutiny of polices is to deny the opportunity for public scrutiny of policies.

I'm not playing the moron's undemocratic game. I'm calling for the recent public expectation of a debate - an expectation created by Chicken Dave, don't forget - to be fulfilled, in the name of democracy.

Brown wasn't chicken. Chicken Dave can only squawk.

If anything some of these interviewers will scrutinise him far better

based on history, it's extremely unlikely. Journos are pushovers (and if you really want to see the ridiculous, check Gideon on the beeb this morning).

That aside, the public don't engage in those set-piece bollocks bits. If we truly believe in democracy, we want and need the public to engage the best we can get them to engage, even if what they engage with is not as good as some other ways.

We know they won't engage if it's *only* those other ways. We do know they'll better engage if there's a public debate, which might then also cause those people to engage at other times.

The "no debate" angle is designed to keep the public out of politics, so that politicians can keep fucking the public.

Much more than I want my personal political result, I want the public engaged with politics. I'm a democrat, and i believe it's only via engagement that this country stands a chance of getting the best result.

Edited March 19, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Cameron is scared of anything where he could get a question he's not fully briefed on.

This ^^

He runs away from press questions all the time. He says his piece, then he's off.

He's too important to answer to the public.

More than all of the very nasty lies and lied-about policies he's been responsible for, THAT is precisely the reason why he needs to go.

[gary1979666]

You really think they weren't briefed on the debate questions last time? Even if they were, a 12 year old could guess the topics of the questions in advance, FFS. They didn't make up on the spot the stories about how the met Ranjit, a NHS nurse the other week and what a great contribution he made, etc. OK they probably made it up, but not on the spot.

To be clear - I want the debates for the same reasons as you, would love people to care more about politics. Was merely arguing against the idea that there is no scrutiny without them. The Humphries interviews on Today, are pretty rigourous and he does push a point if the interviewee doesn't answer directly (too much sometimes). Far better than the debates we saw in 2010 - but appreciate you have to be pretty engaged in politics to actually listen in the first place.

By the look of it, we'll get a debate on the 2nd April, sadly not 3.

[kaosmark2]

It's not the debate questions themselves, it's how Ed will respond to them that scares Cameron. He doesn't have the beating of him, and if he shows himself as a public school bully to more than just those who watch PMQs he'll lose a lot of image.

[eFestivals]

Was merely arguing against the idea that there is no scrutiny without them.

if the public are not listening to scrutinise, there is no public scrutiny.

[gary1979666]

It's not the debate questions themselves, it's how Ed will respond to them that scares Cameron. He doesn't have the beating of him, and if he shows himself as a public school bully to more than just those who watch PMQs he'll lose a lot of image.

Definitely a risk, but I reckon he'll be prepped well enough by Crosby to keep it under control. The gamble is if Milliband tries to provoke it - if it works a score for the reds, but if Dave doesn't bite, then it could backfire.

[gary1979666]

if the public are not listening to scrutinise, there is no public scrutiny.

Very true - and agree the debates are good way to spark the interest. But we need something better for the rest of the term to engage people to care enough so that it's not just a 5 year pique. I guess your idea of a rolling election (20% up each year) could create that interest.

Sadly the style of interview on the Beeb today or ITV yesterday are done because that's the level a lot of the public want / (can handle?).

[eFestivals]

Very true - and agree the debates are good way to spark the interest. But we need something better for the rest of the term to engage people to care enough so that it's not just a 5 year pique.

but we have this 5 year cycle, and it's all we - 'the people' - have to work with.

The political process is owned by 'the people', not by Chicken Dave.

I guess your idea of a rolling election (20% up each year) could create that interest.

it would great a better joined-up situation all-round. On-going interest, scrutiny, and held to account.

So tories like you would never go for it.

Sadly the style of interview on the Beeb today or ITV yesterday are done because that's the level a lot of the public want / (can handle?).

what you really mean is that the public are used to seeing politicians being given a free ride, so they expect to see politicians being given a free ride.

Nothing of that is what the public want.

[eFestivals]

Looking like yesterdays budget has really worked well for the Tories.

and yet Gideon refuses to give the details of yesterday's budget.

Why is that? Because it's worked well, or because he can only win via bullshit that mugs like Barry buy into?

[windy_miller]

This ^^

He runs away from press questions all the time. He says his piece, then he's off.

He's too important to answer to the public.

More than all of the very nasty lies and lied-about policies he's been responsible for, THAT is precisely the reason why he needs to go.

I was going to post the same thing. If you've been watching Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe recently, he's been showing loads of clips of Cameron just walking off when he's had enough of an interview. I.e. before they can get to ask him anything he doesn't want to answer.

[gary1979666]

and yet Gideon refuses to give the details of yesterday's budget.

Why is that? Because it's worked well, or because he can only win via bullshit that mugs like Barry buy into?

So you want details of his cuts? Yet when I challenged you about greater clarity on other manifestos, you said it didn't matter what Labour were going to cut, all that mattered was that they were going to cut less. Can't have it both ways Neil!

I think it was seen as a good budget, but in reality it's just a bit more tinkering, with not much really achieved in it - more a platform for the election (as expected).

[eFestivals]

So you want details of his cuts? Yet when I challenged you about greater clarity on other manifestos, you said it didn't matter what Labour were going to cut, all that mattered was that they were going to cut less. Can't have it both ways Neil!

that was a comment about the big picture in a discussion of the big picture.

Gideon has got into the detail, but won't actually give the detail. Its a very different thing.

I think it was seen as a good budget, but in reality it's just a bit more tinkering, with not much really achieved in it - more a platform for the election (as expected).

it's a standard tory giveaway of the poor's money to the rich.

Its what the tories do.

[kemosabe]

that was a comment about the big picture in a discussion of the big picture.

Gideon has got into the detail, but won't actually give the detail. Its a very different thing.

No chancellor ever does, its not like the Tories are breaking new ground spinning the announcement for themselves.

Ed hasn't managed to attack them anywhere near enough over the past four years either.

[gary1979666]

No chancellor ever does, its not like the Tories are breaking new ground spinning the announcement for themselves.

Ed hasn't managed to attack them anywhere near enough over the past four years either.

And yesterday's rebuttal was very poor. I'd have thought a few weeks before the election he'd be able to do far better.