Wes Tender

I was minded to recall similarities with the Paxman/Howard interview where Paxman continously pressed Howard for a answer. Kirsty Wark wasn't quite as persistent, but it still made Burnham look evasive and weak, as you say. That will be the overriding impression that the interviews leaves in most people's memories.

Given Liverpool's history with our players, I'm inclined to believe that we could pursuade them of the merits of a direct swap, no strings, for Lambert.

I think this is rather bizarre. You're telling us that the club would say that tickets were sold out before the event even though there would be people applying for tickets right up to the kick-off who would buy them if they weren't told they were sold out? This is complete nonsense.

I can see that this morning you're in an argumentative mood, judging by your contributions to the Jack Cork thread. So i'll leave you to it until your medication kicks in.

Who's getting their knickers in a twist? You're the one who seems to be a bit agitated, judging by your tone.

Sorry to see hom leave, as he always gave 100% to the cause. I'll miss him, but wish him luck with Swansea.

Exactly. As Redslo indicates, it isn't as feasible for a Billionaire to come in now and spend barrow loads of dosh to get a team into the top four because of the FFP rules. So the mention of clubs having to have billionaire owners is largely redundant, although the Mail's scribe doesn't seem to realise that our owner was one.

Usual idiocy for the Mail. "Only the traditional big five clubs and those funded by Billionaires qualify for the Champions League. Not the likes of Southampton". So our Billionairess not good enough, eh?

But Trousers, don't you see? That's a massive 20% increase!

Brighton and Hove's recycling record is hardly a shining beacon to be held up, as although the Council is run by the Green Party, I understand that their record is amongst the worst in the Country

I'd be disappointed to see him go, as I've liked him as a player because of his attitude and commitment. But my disappointment will be tempered by the calibre of player we bring in to replace him.

You and me are of a similar mindset. I was thinking along very similar lines. I'm all for option two.

There's actually a thread on here entirely dedicated to how the defectors are doing. But oh no, Lardy has to start a new one instead of posting there. Is he suffering from a lack of attention and needs to say, hey, look at me, please don't ignore me?

There's already a Lidl a stone's throw away from there in Goldsmith Avenue

His recent scoring record doesn't look great. But perhaps Koeman can get him firing on all cylinders again.

The debate between Farage and Clegg was during the European Elections and effectively Farage represented a very large tranche of the electorate who wish to have a referendum on whether we ought to stay in the EU or not. Clegg was the self-appointed front man for the coalition trying to make himself look good, but getting walloped in the process. The difference is that there were just the two of them in the debate and that each put across opposing views. UKIP wants a referendum on the EU, whereas the SNP have already had their referendum on independence and lost it. The SNP do represent a number of people who share the same opinion, largely Scots who want to leave the UK. UKIP have a much larger number of voters who they represent all over the UK, who would like to have a referendum too on their own burning issue. Trousers, Lord D and me have given several reasons why we feel that they should not be given space in a debate. You think that they should. So just different opinions where opposing views are obviously entrenched. Yes, the SNP have a realistic chance of forming the next government in coalition with Labour, but everybody knows what their policies are on most things, having had to endure Salmond telling us all during their referendum debates. And if they do form a coalition with Labour, then there will be the deepest resentment in England if they use their MPs votes on English matters, so if it brings that matter to a head at long last, then at least that is something.

Yes, it's a UK Election with debates on UK television and you are trying to make out a case for a party whose main reason for existence is to leave the UK. Don't you see anything ironic in that? No, of course refusing the SNP air-time in the TV debates does not solve the West Lothian question. But it would be sheer hypocrisy for their MPs to vote on English matters after the GE when we cannot vote on theirs, wouldn't it? What would be fun if they are to be included in a national TV debate, would be for the other parties who represent mainly English constituencies to ask them whether they will act in an honourable way and refrain from voting in English matters, or will they be despised and worthy of contempt for being hypocrites? Polls are likely to be wide of the mark for the reasons I gave. And 1000 is quite often the sample size. As I said, I was not advocating that air-time was to be allocated based on number of seats or indeed number of votes cast. These were just alternative methods which could be argued for. Numbers of seats would give the SNP more time, whereas number of votes cast would give them very much less.

I'm just contributing my opinions to this debate on the forthcoming General Election and had not particularly followed other debates sufficiently to know your thoughts on the West Lothian question. But to my mind it is pertinent to the debate about what the SNP's part should be in the national TV debates to mention that their potential position in a future coalition government of the UK would be farcical given that they wish to leave the UK and that they would be allowed to vote in English matters when we couldn't vote in Scottish affairs. The polls are far from infallible when it comes to forecasting something that is still 100 days away. I just read earlier today that the most recent projections for the UKIP was about 15 seats, although going back to the time of the European Elections there was even one forecast of 128 seats for them. What opinion polls cannot take account of is tactical voting, agreements between parties to co-operate together to their own mutual advantage and for parties to put in extra affort in targeted specific seats. I don't particularly dislike the SNP any more than I dislike the Scottish Labour Party. What I dislike is their hypocrisy with the West Lothian question which has rumbled on for over 38 years. You're not sure what my point is? It is that regardless of the fact that the SNP will probably achieve far more seats than UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems, nevertheless voters in England will be unable to vote for them unless they have residency in Scottish constituencies and the numbers of voters voting for those other parties will almost certainly exceed the numbers of SNP voters by some considerable distance. The other point I made, was that it could also be argued that the number of MPs in each current party should determine the amount of air-time each had. So no, it isn't necessarily odd to allocate air time on the basis of the number of votes their party received during the last election, rather than allocating them on the basis of some projections from polls of samples of just typically 1000 random people. As for the SNP, as I already suggested, let them have their own debate on Scottish TV.

What is bonkers is having a party who might potentially hold the balance of power in the governance of the UK and yet wishes to break away from the UK. Secondly they will have the right to vote on exclusively English matters when the English are disenfranchised from voting on Scottish matters. So don't come this "it isn't fair" viewpoint, it doesn't wash. Furthermore, your guess as to the number of seats the SNP might have against those that UKIP or the Greens might end up with is purely a speculative punt at the outcome, but it is almost certainly going to be the case that those two parties will have many times the number of votes overall that the SNP will receive. Scotland is pretty well a two-horse race, whereas UKIP and the Greens in England are up against the big two as well as the Lib Dems who will probably get slaughtered, but still also poll far more votes than the SNP. If the SNP do end up holding the balance of power, then pressure should be put upon them by all the other parties over the West Lothian question, otherwise there will be growing resentment against them which will fuel the rise of English nationalism

Exactly. Let the SNP and Plaid Cymru have their own debates on their regional television programmes, rather than boring we English with their local gripes. Basing the right of a party to have representation on national television on what potential percentage vote they might receive from the electorate involves an element of crystal-ball gazing. Any talk about the unfairness of parties not being equally represented can be countered by arguments that the time allotted to each party should be commensurate proportionally to the number of votes they received in the last election. Why is it fair that a small party is allowed the same amount of time to spout their spiel as a party several times bigger than them? I'm not advocating that, merely putting forward a counter argument. When it comes to Party Election broadcasts, I understand that the number of Broadcasts allowable to each party is based on the level of their support, so why should that not apply to the time allocated to them during these TV debates? The whole thing is a can of worms and perhaps there should not be any TV debates and the parties should rely on the Party Political Broadcasts instead to get their messages across, as they used to.

They had better hope that Cambridge won't raise their game against the mighty Pompey, as they did against Manchester United. Will they be up for it, as it will be like playing their Cup Final against one of the biggest clubs in English Football.

I understand that it is proposed that there be a head to head debate between Cameron and Red Ed and a further two debates for all 7 parties. I read a proposal put up by somebody which seemed fairly sensible; that the only parties to be represented in the debates should have candidates in a half or more of the seats contested. That would queer the pitch nicely in terms of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, but the Welsh and Scots have their own assemblies, so sod them.

Yes, but what the media wanted was just a debate between the Conservatives, Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP. As you say, a debate without the PM would have been a joke, so Cameron was able to force them to include the minor parties, which suits him and reduces the possibility of some fireworks, as each leader will have less time point-scoring against each other.

Interesting analogy on some of the broader aspects of potential aliances post-election and what their price for coalition would be, if there is no overall majority. http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/general-election-2015/62247/election-2015-how-long-can-this-green-party-joke-last UKIP would work with the Conservatives provided that the referendum was brought forward to this year and that only British nationals would be allowed to vote, thus excluding the 4 million or so EU citizens working over here. Both points seem pretty fair to me, especially bringing forward the referendum date. That was fixed at 2017 at the start of the last Parliament, which is ridiculous. The SNP would work with Labour, and would wish to stay in Europe. Their price would be that each of the home countries comprising the UK would have to have an individual majority to leave before the decision could be ratified. As it is the UK as a whole that has EU membership, this is obviously a nonsense. It is a vote for the whole of the UK, so a simple majority should suffice either way. Apart from anything else, the vast majority of the population of the UK is England based and the loony SNP would typically have it that the tail can wag the dog. Regarding the TV debates, it seems that Cameron has played a blinder insisting that the Greens are represented and therefore other smaller parties should also be represented too. As is pointed out, that way he will face only a much diluted assault from UKIP, whereas the other major parties will also have their airtime diluted by the Greens and SNP.