General Election 2015

[Jonnyboy]

She didn't interview well with Andrew Neill recently either. Perhaps Caroline Lucas would make a better leader. Seems to me all the youth vote has switched from Lib Dems to Greens (after Clegg's perceived betrayl) hence their surge in membership. Unfortunately due to our voting system they could get 10% of the vote and still only get a couple of members.

[CB Fry]

She didn't interview well with Andrew Neill recently either. Perhaps Caroline Lucas would make a better leader. Seems to me all the youth vote has switched from Lib Dems to Greens (after Clegg's perceived betrayl) hence their surge in membership. Unfortunately due to our voting system they could get 10% of the vote and still only get a couple of members.

Lucas seems far more composed and credible and significantly less Australian than Bennett.

 

She's a total liability in an election where they could conceivably get five seats and a platform to overtake the Lib Dems long term.

[Wade Garrett]

The reason the leader of the Greens doesn't interview well is that her and her party's policies are slightly less sensible than those of the The Monster Raving Loony Party.

[CB Fry]

The reason the leader of the Greens doesn't interview well is that her and her party's policies are slightly less sensible than those of the The Monster Raving Loony Party.

Nah. George Galloway gives good interview. The right leader could sell the Greens to the nation. Or enough of the nation to win a seat or five in Norwich, Yeovil and some London boroughs.

[Jonnyboy]

The Greens are the only credible left wing party, they have focused on a living wage and taxing the rich, filling a gap labour have missed.

[Batman]

Lucas seems far more composed and credible and significantly less Australian than Bennett.

 

She's a total liability in an election where they could conceivably get five seats and a platform to overtake the Lib Dems long term.

 

Lucas may be that. But she will probably lose her seat anyway

[buctootim]

The Greens are the only credible left wing party, they have focused on a living wage and taxing the rich, filling a gap labour have missed.

 

More focus on quality of life rather than just standard of living too. I hope Bennett resigns because she clearly isnt up to the job as leader and they're too nice to ditch her before the election.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

The Greens are the only credible left wing party, they have focused on a living wage and taxing the rich, filling a gap labour have missed.

I'm still confused about this Citizens Income thing. They're now saying they still want to do it, but not in this parliament because it's such a big change.

 

Is it really a practical idea? I'm not convinced. Why does it need 5 years to work out a policy? The whole thing was based on idealistic assumptions about how much it would save.

 

And now again their leader doesn't know the figures. I'm not convinced they're credible at all

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Also, I'm supportive of feminism, but Caroline Lucas trying to make out that Bennett is only getting flak because she's a woman is such nonsense

[Wes Tender]

The Greens are the only credible left wing party, they have focused on a living wage and taxing the rich, filling a gap labour have missed.

 

Credible is nowhere near what the greens are. To be credible, they would have to be electable and there is no chance of that the way that they go about putting across their policies/wish list.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm still confused about this Citizens Income thing. They're now saying they still want to do it, but not in this parliament because it's such a big change.

 

Is it really a practical idea? I'm not convinced. Why does it need 5 years to work out a policy? The whole thing was based on idealistic assumptions about how much it would save.

 

And now again their leader doesn't know the figures. I'm not convinced they're credible at all

 

I read a few articles on a similar thing years ago. Then it wasn't called a citizens income and the idea came from the right of politics. It was basically that the state paid everybody a set amount , and it was then up to the individual to use this amount to buy insurance against unemployment , health insurance , and pay into a pension for old age. There would then be no welfare state , and it would be cheaper to administer than means testing everyone . It was an interesting idea for a discussion but the practicalities are that some people will spend it and not use it as a safety net. It could only work if everybody in the country was sensible and understood the importance of saving for a rainy day. The Greens seem to have taken this idea from a " small state" and money saving one into a lifestyle choice one. Their ideas is you can drop out of work or work less because of it, and we'll still have a welfare state. Therefore under them it'll always be too expensive in reality, whereas the " right wing" version was" allegedly" cost saving ( providing everybody used it for the purpose that was intended)

[pap]

At the Left Unity party conference, we had a motion on whether the party should ally itself more with the Greens. It was all going well until a representative from Sheffield got up, and gave an impassioned speech involving several examples of Green party duplicity and hypocrisy. The motion was voted down.

 

The problem for the Greens is that they've got no real control. One of this guy's points involved the hypocrisy of railing against austerity, yet practising it locally where they are in power. It's an interesting contention. We all know that practically, the Greens resisting austerity would lead to some Hatton-esque standoff, but equally, I wonder at what might have happened if places like Brighton dug in and said no. A national news story for sure, and actions speak louder than words.

Edited 25 February, 2015 by pap

[Jonnyboy]

Credible is nowhere near what the greens are. To be credible, they would have to be electable and there is no chance of that the way that they go about putting across their policies/wish list.

 

Polling suggests Bennett came across as human rather than a PR machine or walking soundbite.

 

Anyway, vote for policies not personalities:

 

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/49Jk8xyC62EPFBuWu#/personal-results

[Wes Tender]

Polling suggests Bennett came across as human rather than a PR machine or walking soundbite.

 

Anyway, vote for policies not personalities:

 

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/survey/results/49Jk8xyC62EPFBuWu#/personal-results

 

What polling? Presumably it was just a small sample of a thousand or so, comprising also those whose sympathies lie with the Green Party, who tried to put a sympathetic spin on the poll outcome, because the fact is that Bennett was a disaster in those interviews. No reasonably intelligent voter would trust her party with the economy based on their GCSE standard grasp of economics; not that the Greens stand any chance of being elected, except as part of a coalition with a senior partner that does have experience of how things are in the real world.

 

Whereas the aims of this organisation are laudable that people should vote for policies not personalities, it is quite naive. People vote for a basket of policies from a party's manifesto, because they support the majority of them. It would be rare for a voter to support every policy of a party. Also, loads of voters are going to vote tactically for parties whose policies they don't support in the main, in order to decrease the chances of a candidate being elected from a party they like even less. That tactical voting allied to the emnity that many voters feel towards the main parties gives the best hope that the Greens have of gaining a few seats. I suspect that this election is going to be less about the party manifestos basket of policies than any previous one in our history.

[CB Saint]

What polling? Presumably it was just a small sample of a thousand or so, comprising also those whose sympathies lie with the Green Party, who tried to put a sympathetic spin on the poll outcome, because the fact is that Bennett was a disaster in those interviews. No reasonably intelligent voter would trust her party with the economy based on their GCSE standard grasp of economics; not that the Greens stand any chance of being elected, except as part of a coalition with a senior partner that does have experience of how things are in the real world.

 

Whereas the aims of this organisation are laudable that people should vote for policies not personalities, it is quite naive. People vote for a basket of policies from a party's manifesto, because they support the majority of them. It would be rare for a voter to support every policy of a party. Also, loads of voters are going to vote tactically for parties whose policies they don't support in the main, in order to decrease the chances of a candidate being elected from a party they like even less. That tactical voting allied to the emnity that many voters feel towards the main parties gives the best hope that the Greens have of gaining a few seats. I suspect that this election is going to be less about the party manifestos basket of policies than any previous one in our history.

 

Please don't devalue my GCSE in economics

[Whitey Grandad]

Please don't devalue my GCSE in economics

 

Not many people can say that.

Even fewer would admit to it.

 

:respect:

[saint si]

Not many people can say that.

Even fewer would admit to it.

 

:respect:

 

Oi, what's wrong with having a GCSE in Economics?

[Batman]

Just watched PMQs from yesterday.

Cameron destroys Milliband time and time again at this gig. And yesterday he tore him to pieces.....

 

milliband is the reason why labour are not way ahead in this election race

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Oi, what's wrong with having a GCSE in Economics?

 

Nothing, keep your head high. Nearly as good as my Latin...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just watched PMQs from yesterday.

Cameron destroys Milliband time and time again at this gig. And yesterday he tore him to pieces.....

 

milliband is the reason why labour are not way ahead in this election race

 

I don't think ANYONE disputes this.

 

The trade unions have got a lot to answer for with supporting the wrong brother. David would be so far ahead now it's ridiculous.

[Batman]

Just seen on the news regarding the TV debates.

 

The SNP have stated that their policy is to debate "anyone, anywhere"

 

Except this is not really the case. Salmond steered well clear of Galloway back in September after many challenges to him

[whelk]

I don't think ANYONE disputes this.

 

The trade unions have got a lot to answer for with supporting the wrong brother. David would be so far ahead now it's ridiculous.

 

The Tory party clearly do as are running scared of a two way debate. If they thought he would destroy him why would they? No fan of Ed M however he is sharper than many give credit. Cameron is eloquent and a natural public speaker but not as sharp IMO.

Clearly people perceive PMQs differently as Ed M does well there.. He falls down by how he comes across generally though although media campaign makes him an easy target now and many don't even look at any strengths.

 

 

Totally agree the wrong MIlliband though

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The Tory party clearly do as are running scared of a two way debate. If they thought he would destroy him why would they? No fan of Ed M however he is sharper than many give credit. Cameron is eloquent and a natural public speaker but not as sharp IMO.

Clearly people perceive PMQs differently as Ed M does well there.. He falls down by how he comes across generally though although media campaign makes him an easy target now and many don't even look at any strengths.

 

 

Totally agree the wrong MIlliband though

 

The point about the debates is that Milliband is already in such a bad position, why have a debate that could strengthen Labour's bid. They will never win a bid with UKIP so that's a very bad idea.

 

If people want to see a head to head debate, there's a 30 minute one every Wednesday at midday. Don't know why you think Ed looks good there though, guess people always see things different ways though.

 

Shame about David, he could have been the one to make me move further to the left...

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just seen on the news regarding the TV debates.

 

The SNP have stated that their policy is to debate "anyone, anywhere"

 

Except this is not really the case. Salmond steered well clear of Galloway back in September after many challenges to him

 

Different leadership now innit...

[whelk]

The point about the debates is that Milliband is already in such a bad position, why have a debate that could strengthen Labour's bid. They will never win a bid with UKIP so that's a very bad idea.

 

If people want to see a head to head debate, there's a 30 minute one every Wednesday at midday. Don't know why you think Ed looks good there though, guess people always see things different ways though.

 

Shame about David, he could have been the one to make me move further to the left...

 

Just hope it backfires on the spineless fcker.

 

Saying PMQs is a substitute is ridiculous. You do know that this is news?

[Lord Duckhunter]

The Tories have made a political calculation that avoiding a debate will give them some political grief now, but are willing to put up with that to close down the debates.

 

Its not a question of being scared , but of strategy . Milliband will go into the debates as a loser, they don't want to take the chance of people thinking he's not as bad as they thought. Cameron could still win any debate , but milliband get the boost by just appearing " normal" . They want the British people to think its unthinkable that Ed could become prime minister but by debating him head to head you're actually elevating him to prime minister material.

 

Portillo had a theory on " This Week" last night. He claims Ed is poor when interviewed by political journo 's like Boulton or Neil . If there's no debates he'll have to get his face on TV with these interviewers more. If there is a debate it'll take over that role, and get him into voters living rooms ,without facing interviews thst he always comes over poorly in.

[Johnny Bognor]

At the Left Unity party conference, we had a motion on whether the party should ally itself more with the Greens. It was all going well until a representative from Sheffield got up, and gave an impassioned speech involving several examples of Green party duplicity and hypocrisy. The motion was voted down.

 

The problem for the Greens is that they've got no real control. One of this guy's points involved the hypocrisy of railing against austerity, yet practising it locally where they are in power. It's an interesting contention. We all know that practically, the Greens resisting austerity would lead to some Hatton-esque standoff, but equally, I wonder at what might have happened if places like Brighton dug in and said no. A national news story for sure, and actions speak louder than words.

 

Interesting comment regarding the hypocrisy of the Greens.

 

Watching Caroline Lucas on the Last Word last night, criticising politicians for having second jobs, stating that she spent every waking hour working for her constituents. Then the discussion moved on to her new book about politics... presumably she wrote it in her sleep???

[pap]

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interesting comment regarding the hypocrisy of the Greens.

 

Watching Caroline Lucas on the Last Word last night, criticising politicians for having second jobs, stating that she spent every waking hour working for her constituents. Then the discussion moved on to her new book about politics... presumably she wrote it in her sleep???

 

Rachel Reeves did exactly the same thing on QT. She was banging on about how she " only" worked for her voters , until Dimble pointed out she had written a book, for which she was paid . She claimed that " didn't count" as a second job.

Edited 6 March, 2015 by Lord Duckhunter

[trousers]

 

Can you rustle me up a retrospective one of those for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown too? Cheers

 

Edited 6 March, 2015 by trousers

[trousers]

The Tories have made a political calculation that avoiding a debate will give them some political grief now, but are willing to put up with that to close down the debates.

 

Its not a question of being scared , but of strategy . Milliband will go into the debates as a loser, they don't want to take the chance of people thinking he's not as bad as they thought. Cameron could still win any debate , but milliband get the boost by just appearing " normal" . They want the British people to think its unthinkable that Ed could become prime minister but by debating him head to head you're actually elevating him to prime minister material.

 

Portillo had a theory on " This Week" last night. He claims Ed is poor when interviewed by political journo 's like Boulton or Neil . If there's no debates he'll have to get his face on TV with these interviewers more. If there is a debate it'll take over that role, and get him into voters living rooms ,without facing interviews thst he always comes over poorly in.

 

It's human nature that people will turn Cameron's "reluctance" into a personal attack but, as you say, the opposition will always come across better in these presidential-esque debates because it's always easier to sell change than it is to defend the status quo (hence why Nick "promise the world" Clegg came out top last time).

 

Take the Scottish separation referendum for example...."Yes, let's create utopia" is always going to have a more positive vibe to it than "No, lets stay the same, it's worked OK for 300 years" regardless of the merits of each sides's policies.

 

Blair didn't want the debates (and succeeded in avoiding them) and neither did Brown (who didn't). And you can bet your bottom dollar that Miliband won't be clamouring for them in 5 years time, should he get into number 10 on 7th May (*shudders*)

Edited 6 March, 2015 by trousers

[pap]

Can you rustle me up a retrospective one of those for Tony Blair and Gordon Brown too? Cheers

 

 

My approach has the benefit of not having to dress up like an arse, or searching the Internet looking for people dressed as arses.

 

[trousers]

My approach has the benefit of not having to dress up like an arse, or searching the Internet looking for people dressed as arses.

 

 

I'll take that as a 'no' then

[Verbal]

Dear god - duelling whataboutery in lame pictures.

[pap]

Dear god - duelling whataboutery in lame pictures.

 

Also known as "having a laugh".

 

Look it up.

[CB Saint]

Quite frankly, I could give a stuff about these debates - if they don't happen, it wont affect my decision making, if they do, I probably wo'n't watch them as they will degenerate into the playground antics we see at PMQs.

 

What I want to see is a side by side summary of each of the parties policies on each major topic (education, health, benefit, tax, EU etc), what these initiatives are going to cost and how they then propose to fund them.

 

These debates will not tell us anything of any real value, except who is the best at bickering.

[trousers]

Dear god - duelling whataboutery in lame pictures.

 

As long as there's someone on here to keep pointing out the bleedin' obvious I'll carry on doing it. Wouldn't want to see the forum whataboutery police made redundant given the valuable public service they provide

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Just hope it backfires on the spineless fcker.

 

Saying PMQs is a substitute is ridiculous. You do know that this is news?

 

It's not about being scared, Cameron is a better debater than Ed, but more about not giving the other parties the profile and airtime they need. It's an intelligent strategy, and one that the Labour party miscalculated last time, giving Clegg a platform to increase the Lib Dems influence mostly at their expense.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Quite frankly, I could give a stuff about these debates - if they don't happen, it wont affect my decision making, if they do, I probably wo'n't watch them as they will degenerate into the playground antics we see at PMQs.

 

What I want to see is a side by side summary of each of the parties policies on each major topic (education, health, benefit, tax, EU etc), what these initiatives are going to cost and how they then propose to fund them.

 

These debates will not tell us anything of any real value, except who is the best at bickering.

 

Like a 'cheat' sheet. I agree.

[Wes Tender]

Watched Question Time from Glasgow last night and the matter of David Cameron's reluctance to enter more than one Televised debate arose. It was acknowledged that he had accepted the debate with 7 party leaders but declined the face to face debates with Red Ed. As it is the debate featuring the 7 party leaders is unjust for excluding the Democratic Unionist Party which holds more Parliamentary seats than 4 of the other parties that are represented. Scotland and Wales will have their say, but Northern Ireland won't. I thought that the reasons put forward for not having the face to face debate between Cameron and Red Ed were perfectly valid, that it tended to turn the election into a Presidential style beauty competition, more to do with style rather than substance. Anyway, why the need for these debates when the parties have their own Party Political Broadcasts and manifestos to put across their policies and indeed they have questions put across to them in programmes such as Question Time where representatives from other parties can debate the current issues that concern the electorate. As they said, on the programme, they had a debate about the debate.

 

I was surprised that the programme was quite balanced between those in the audience representing the left and right of the political spectrum, I was expecting there to be a bit more hostility towards the Scottish leader of the Conservatives, Ruth Davidson and Toby Young from the Observer. But both of them impressed with their convictions expressed strongly and seeming to gain respect from the audience, whereas, Labour SMP Kezia Dugdale often sounded weak, especially when she proclaimed that Labour would pay for more Nurses in Scotland via the expedient cure-all Mansion Tax. This drew groans from the audience, most of whom were clever enough to see that there were more Nurses required than Mansions on which to levy tax which was to be directed towards the financing of other major policy expenditures already. Humza Yousaf came across well for the SNP, but failed to satisfactorily answer the question about what they would do in the event of a hung Parliament and I was surprised that nobody in the audience pressed him on the West Lothian question.

 

The next programme from Leeds should be a corker, with Ian Hislop and Natalie Bennett included. That should be good sport for Hislop, turning the screws on the accident-prone foot-in-mouth Greens' leader.

[aintforever]

It's not about being scared, Cameron is a better debater than Ed, but more about not giving the other parties the profile and airtime they need. It's an intelligent strategy, and one that the Labour party miscalculated last time, giving Clegg a platform to increase the Lib Dems influence mostly at their expense.

 

Of course it's being scared. cameron had previously banged on about the importance of TV debates.

 

I hope the TV companies just carry on with their original plans regardless and empty-chair the pussy.

[trousers]

Of course it's being scared

 

It's not that he's "scared" of debating with Ed Miliband, per se, he's "scared" of the inevitable effect that these superficial debates have on the relative popularity of 'incumbent' vs 'opposition'.

 

They summed it up quite nicely on the Daily Politics show today: because Miliband's popularity rating is significantly less than Cameron's (not talking about the party ratings here, but the leader ratings) the levels of public expectation for Miliband performing well are much lower than they are for Cameron. As such, an 'average' performance for Miliband would actually be a ratings boost for him because people would expect him to be worse than Cameron, in terms of his oratory skills, whereas an 'average' performance by Cameron would be neutral or even negative in terms of his rating because he's starting from a higher position.

 

So, because Cameron's is rated as a substantially better orator than Miliband, Cameron would have to outperform Miliband by several factors to come out of the debate with less impact to his popularity rating than Miliband would have to.

 

So, he's not "scared" of the debate as such, he simply knows that Miliband's low starting point in the ratings will actually work in Miliband's favour when it comes to the public judging their respective performances.

 

It's a bit like Southampton getting more plaudits than, say, Man City this season....not because we're better than them but because we've exceeded expectations whereas City haven't. (although I'm sure there are plenty of holes in that analogy!)

 

Any PM would do the same as Cameron is doing regardless of which party they came from. That's politics.

 

p.s. FWIW, I was against the TV debates last time around so this isn't just me waving the Tory flag (for once )

Edited 6 March, 2015 by trousers

[Bearsy]

milibands tbf has prob got nothing better to do. If i was cameron i would say i'm too busy running the country, and send along an intern or cleaning woman or something

[Unbelievable Jeff]

milibands tbf has prob got nothing better to do. If i was cameron i would say i'm too busy running the country, and send along an intern or cleaning woman or something

 

Unfortunately Nick Clegg is busy with his own party...

[Batman]

The election after this there will be no point having a campaign. It will be all about the debates.

[Wes Tender]

Of course it's being scared. cameron had previously banged on about the importance of TV debates.

 

I hope the TV companies just carry on with their original plans regardless and empty-chair the pussy.

 

Jump to whatever conclusion you like. Labour wish to reach the same conclusion and have even started internet petitions in a vain attempt to force him to extra televised debates beyond that which he has already agreed to. Quite how they think they can force him to take part in a debate when he doesn't wish to, I don't know. As Cameron would trample all over Red Ed in a face to face debate, then he must have his own strategic reasons for declining it and those reasons will certainly have nothing to do with him being afraid of Ed, or indeed anybody else that Labour could put up.

 

Labour say that in the event that they cannot force Cameron into a debate, they would be prepared for Red Ed to face an hour long grilling by Paxman. Bring it on, I say. Paxman would eat him for breakfast.

[solentstars]

Of course it's being scared. cameron had previously banged on about the importance of TV debates.

 

I hope the TV companies just carry on with their original plans regardless and empty-chair the pussy.

agree the guys a coward in my eyes now,don,t understand why ,its part of the british system now and the voters want it..hope the tv companys go ahead and carry on without him and show him up for a fool.

[whelk]

Jump to whatever conclusion you like. Labour wish to reach the same conclusion and have even started internet petitions in a vain attempt to force him to extra televised debates beyond that which he has already agreed to. Quite how they think they can force him to take part in a debate when he doesn't wish to, I don't know. As Cameron would trample all over Red Ed in a face to face debate, then he must have his own strategic reasons for declining it and those reasons will certainly have nothing to do with him being afraid of Ed, or indeed anybody else that Labour could put up.

 

Labour say that in the event that they cannot force Cameron into a debate, they would be prepared for Red Ed to face an hour long grilling by Paxman. Bring it on, I say. Paxman would eat him for breakfast.

 

By calling him Red Ed you are giving yourself away as not much of a thinker. Bet you just hate paying taxes

[Batman]

agree the guys a coward in my eyes now,don,t understand why ,its part of the british system now and the voters want it..hope the tv companys go ahead and carry on without him and show him up for a fool.

 

I bet your left leaning views made you dead against these debates 5 years ago

[solentstars]

I bet your left leaning views made you dead against these debates 5 years ago

voted tory last election but i class myself as a independent voter and not any party's cannon fodder,i believe in social justice and am right wing on some issues like most people. and i believe anything which modernizes our system of government is a good thing .