• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

It's a good article. I think Cameron did well to learn from the last debates which seemed to give legitimacy to a party that (at the time) barely deserved it. He has to avoid letting UKIP look like anything but an extreme bunch of mentals if he is to have a chance.

I think it's smart electioneering, but makes for bad democracy. UKIP deserves a voice on the national stage, SNP, Plaid and the other regional parties don't.
 
I think it's smart electioneering, but makes for bad democracy. UKIP deserves a voice on the national stage, SNP, Plaid and the other regional parties don't.
I agree about the regional ones, but if UKIP get to join in then the Greens are just as relevant.
 
I think it's smart electioneering, but makes for bad democracy. UKIP deserves a voice on the national stage, SNP, Plaid and the other regional parties don't.
The Greens have more members than UKIP so they must have a equal voice.
 
I think the debates are bad for Cameron, and he will still yet try to avoid them. Speaking purely for strategy, he has almost nothing to gain from them because Milliband's personal ratings are so low. Therefore, Milliband probably won't come out of the debates looking worse, but there is a chance he could look better.

Even the inclusion of the Greens is a debatable plus point for Cameron. IMO, having the Greens there, with Bennett falling to bits and unable to defend her party's ideas apart from saying "just go on the website!", Milliband will look like a competent, left-of centre moderate. And it's possible that they (Greens) will take some of the 'mentals' bonus points away from UKIP. (before, it was only Farage who was in danger of looking like a loon).

I think Cameron might have been better with just UKIP there, rather than calling the bluff of the broadcasters. With only UKIP there, he'd have been able to portray himself and his party as the centre ground. In asking for the Greens, he was hoping to avoid the debates altogether on a matter of principle, but now he can't. Being 'empty chaired' would be even worse still, so he will take part and hope the hit in his approval ratings isn't too bad and doesn't push the undecided voters over to Labour.
 
I think the debates are bad for Cameron, and he will still yet try to avoid them. Speaking purely for strategy, he has almost nothing to gain from them because Milliband's personal ratings are so low. Therefore, Milliband probably won't come out of the debates looking worse, but there is a chance he could look better.

Even the inclusion of the Greens is a debatable plus point for Cameron. IMO, having the Greens there, with Bennett falling to bits and unable to defend her party's ideas apart from saying "just go on the website!", Milliband will look like a competent, left-of centre moderate. And it's possible that they (Greens) will take some of the 'mentals' bonus points away from UKIP. (before, it was only Farage who was in danger of looking like a loon).

I think Cameron might have been better with just UKIP there, rather than calling the bluff of the broadcasters. With only UKIP there, he'd have been able to portray himself and his party as the centre ground. In asking for the Greens, he was hoping to avoid the debates altogether on a matter of principle, but now he can't. Being 'empty chaired' would be even worse still, so he will take part and hope the hit in his approval ratings isn't too bad and doesn't push the undecided voters over to Labour.
I don't think Bennett will perform as badly as you seem to think.

Anything other than taking a dump on stage will be an appealing vote for the left rather than Miliband (who will be doing incredibly well not to just squint and the floor and repeat the word fairness again and again).

It at least means that if people are tempted by the fringes, they'll be tempted from both ends.
 
I think they will
Its win-win for the broadcasters.

Cameron is there - "proper debate"
Cameron is not there - "scandal"

It would take labour pulling out to stop it happening.
 
I think it's smart electioneering, but makes for bad democracy. UKIP deserves a voice on the national stage, SNP, Plaid and the other regional parties don't.
How is UKIP justified in getting into the debates, but not SNP et al? The SNP will win up to forty seats, UKIP will be lucky to win 5
 
I think they will
Its win-win for the broadcasters.

Cameron is there - "proper debate"
Cameron is not there - "scandal"

It would take labour pulling out to stop it happening.

There will not be enough time to debate if we have all of the parties who currently have an MP taking part.

This total speculation but I suspect that the Tories will keep moving the goalposts and then pull out late on saying that there is not enough time to set the ground rules. I could then see them threatening legal action against the broadcasters if they went ahead with them without them.
 
How is UKIP justified in getting into the debates, but not SNP et al? The SNP will win up to forty seats, UKIP will be lucky to win 5

The aren't a national party, they only stood candidates in 59 constituencies last time and will do the same again. The same goes for the DUP, Plaid Cymru and others. This is a national debate and should only include national parties, the SNP have every right to be included in Scottish debates and they will be.
 
The Greens have more members than UKIP so they must have a equal voice.

Party membership means nothing. In 2010 the Greens stood a candidate in only half the seats nationally, they only kept their deposit in six (SIX!!) places where they stood and three of those were in Brighton and Hove. In comparison the BNP got more than twice the number of votes nationally and kept their deposit in 72 seats, thats 66 MORE than the Greens.

The Greens are nowhere near UKIP in terms of support, to compare them is ludicrous.
 
That was Labours plan all along, copy the democrats in America and 10-15 years down the line you would have more voters, but then the way they shat on their core vote they needed to do something.

Not having a go it is smart politics a bit like how the tories would not even consider state pension reform(despite it being needed) you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
 
The general election will be my last chance to vote in a UK election as there is a rule that after you have been living outside the UK for 15 years, you will no longer be eligible to vote. I "emigrated" from the people's republic of Ealing in 2003.

I'm going to get my old man who is a staunch tory to proxy vote for me, never liked the conservative philosophy despite having strong views on fiscal responsibility, can't have the Lib gems with their pro euro stance, voted labour in 97 and 2001 but don't know if they have the leadership the country needs now and leaning UKIP but is that a wasted vote or should I just have a laugh and go monster raving looney party if they're still around.
 
The general election will be my last chance to vote in a UK election as there is a rule that after you have been living outside the UK for 15 years, you will no longer be eligible to vote. I "emigrated" from the people's republic of Ealing in 2003.

I'm going to get my old man who is a staunch tory to proxy vote for me, never liked the conservative philosophy despite having strong views on fiscal responsibility, can't have the Lib gems with their pro euro stance, voted labour in 97 and 2001 but don't know if they have the leadership the country needs now and leaning UKIP but is that a wasted vote or should I just have a laugh and go monster raving looney party if they're still around.

http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/
 
I don't think that Vote For Policies is up to date. In fact I know it isn't as it talks of raising thresholds to levels the current coalition have already brought in. It was an interesting exercise but the reality is the results are skewed. People likely to take the time to bother with it, will know many of the key policies of the party/s they are looking to support. It also is deeply unscientific because it fails to consider the following: track record, ability to achieve the policies, likelihood to actually even make good on the promises and suitability. They suggest policies over personalities which is a far too simplistic way to look at things. Alas the majority of the 'so called' unbiased political websites are anything but.
 
My two pence worth is that when the boat is being steadied the last thing you do is mutiny and give the helm to people who have spent the best part of the last 4 years simply trying to divide the country. To drag the country down, to replace optimism with pessimism, to perpetuate greed, to remind people constantly to look elsewhere other than at themselves, to covet the success of others. A credible opposition is valuable but a more credible opposition has come from within the coalition than it has the Labour Party. The Labour Party has no leadership, few ideas and will undo all that has been done. They are desperate. They are in such bad shape that they didn't even have the guts to get rid of Milliband even though the daggers are well sharpened and many wait in the wings to stick the blade in at the first opportunity.

Business don't want them. (Yes Business that dirves our economy, making everything possible). We are far from immune but better insulated now than we were against the inevitability of future downturns. Even Education are getting their teeth into what they have in front of them and don't want further change. Of course you can always find a negative example, you will always find someone to moan. Immigration of course needs to be properly managed and in a world of increasing populations, an aging British population, dwindling resources, we need to manage our borders efficiently to bring in the resources we need and ensure that we do not burden ourselves unnecessarily. Immigration is a positive, only when it is properly managed. Just like anything else is life. Of course we are driven by the media these days and they have no interest in it being anything other than good drama and good for tv. Weeks before the Scottish referendum 10 polls were taken, every single one showed the results we eventually got. One of course did not, it showed a slight edge to the Yes campaign. Did we get to hear about the 9 in the mainstream or the 1? Obvious isn't it.

It is fun listening to Milliband's latest attempts at sewing despair and misery. The NHS is dying! No, it really isn't. Certainly over the last few years we have seen only improvements. Of course there will always be cuts, there have to be. We are fortunate where we are but the service and care we have received has been excellent. On a couple of times I found myself waiting in casualty for one reason or another it was painfully clear what the problem was. It was lazy and uneducated who used the casualty department as if it was a walk-in Doctors surgery. It appeared every other person was there with a cold or a sore throat?? Many of the same people only happy to then rundown the NHS because they got politely told to go and see their GP or were made to wait until all of the clearly higher priority cases were seen to.

You hear about him 'blacklisting' countries who are tax havens for businesses. Read between the soundbites ;) You'll see he is threatening only to 'suggest' they are blacklisted. They have mostly told him to fudge off and most Intl bodies would too.

I remember how New Labour started playing their little game of division, when just before they were removed from power they raised the top level of tax to 50% :) Just a few weeks before they were gone. They knew the state of what they were handing over, we didn't because we'd been fed brick for years. They knew that to stimulate growth in the economy we needed people to invest skills and capital in Britain. They knew that the coalition would reduce the top rate back to 45% allowing them a platform from which to begin their opposition. How pathetic.
 
Back