General Election 2015

[Herr Tubthumper]

But public perception is that red ed is awful. So he only needs to be better than awful and people start to listen. As incumbent prime minister Cameron has everything to lose.

Whenever ukip have debated against the tories toe to toe, they have won.

This. And if was Ed's advisor I'd say step back and let Cameron and UKIP do the work for you.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

who seriously, objectively holds this view? it was widely considered that the only person to come out of the debates badly was Brown. Clegg was winner and Cameron neutral. what it does tell us in hindsight was they didnt count for much in what we got from the leaders post election, cf Clegg's fall.

I dont know, hence my question. I've not picked up on the press today. I'm sure as the issue unfolds today we will get a feel for what people think of this move. I would do a straw poll of my friends but they all say "Cameron is ****" regardless of the question.

 

[beorhthelm]

This. And if was Ed's advisor I'd say step back and let Cameron and UKIP do the work for you.

which is exactly why Cameron doesnt want UKIP there without some think on Labours flank to balance.

 

[Titanic]

Latest Populus VI: Lab 34 (-2), Con 33 (-1), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 14 (+2), Oth 11 (+1). Tables here: popu.lu/sVI09012015

 

[Gwylan]

But public perception is that red ed is awful. So he only needs to be better than awful and people start to listen. As incumbent prime minister Cameron has everything to lose.

Miliband regularly gets the better of CMD at PMQ and Cameron knows this - it's not a gimme but he knows that there's a good chance he can come worse against Ed M. Last time round Cameron was up against Brown - and he was a terrible debater. CMD knew he was on a winner there and pushed hard for the debates. In reality, Clegg muddied the waters and Cameron didn't have as much of an advantage as he thought.

The Tories are in a terrible position here: it's much harder for an incumbent party in the first place, they have a PM who frequently loses his cool and displays a bullying tendency. And, this time round, he's up against Labour (with a better performer than last time) and two minor parties, both of which are sniping at him. He's got everything to lose and is delighted to have an excuse to pull out.

Cameron's absolutely right that the Greens should be there - it was a shocking decision by Ofcom - but it's given him an opportunity to play a Get out of Jail card and he shouldn't really have been given it

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'd scrap the tv debates. For all the effort and the inherent issues such as deciding who takes part etc I'm not convinced about the value or benefit they deliver. If a party wants a live debate fine, debate away with your chosen party and pop it on social media.

I have to disagree. I want to see party leaders put each other on the spot, I want to see how they each stand up to pressure. Yes it is a bit shiney and American like but it's BBC QT but leaders only. CMD doesn't want to do it because he's pretty poor at debating when put on the spot, Milliband is going to make himself look like a complete plum and Natalie Bennett can hardly string a coherent argument together. Ironically I think the biggest winner will be Clegg who does come across well normally and the entertainment will be provided by him trying to make amends for his failure to tackle Farage in the EU debate. What's not to like ?

 

[Buzzer]

But how many people have the opposing view that he flunked this last time and is simply using the Green issue as an excuse? It would be a shrewd move if people were thinking along your lines but I'm not convinced many people are.

It doesn't matter if people think along my lines. The Greens will attack Lab and Lib Dems far more effectively than CMD. As ROSM has said, the debate will have to happen and so any damage limitation by the Tories which is what bringing in the Greens will be, is good news for the Tories as I've already outlined.

 

[ROSM]

who seriously, objectively holds this view? it was widely considered that the only person to come out of the debates badly was Brown. Clegg was winner and Cameron neutral. what it does tell us in hindsight was they didnt count for much in what we got from the leaders post election, cf Clegg's fall.

Lynton Crosbie holds the view that Cameron didn't do as well as he wanted. Nick Robinson reported yesterday that many of the PMs aides have heard Cameron be vocal in saying he shouldnt have done itv last time and doesn't want to do it this time.
[MENTION=25]Gwylan[/MENTION] has it spot on that Pmqs is not a happy place for Cameron.

Also dont forget last time there was a chancellor's debate too. So cable v Osborne v balls would be interesting...

 

[Ernest]

Ed just needs to get Cameron in Bullingdon Bully mode which he does weekly on PMQ's and the Tories are FINNISH, Cameron has too much to lose hence he is FRIT

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It doesn't matter if people think along my lines. The Greens will attack Lab and Lib Dems far more effectively than CMD. As ROSM has said, the debate will have to happen and so any damage limitation by the Tories which is what bringing in the Greens will be, is good news for the Tories as I've already outlined.

We will have to disagree. There is a feeling our there that Cameron has found an excuse and is running scared. To have the public thing this is not a shrew move IMHO.

 

[Buzzer]

We will have to disagree. There is a feeling our there that Cameron has found an excuse and is running scared. To have the public thing this is not a shrew move IMHO.

If he doesn't want the debate and feels that running is less damaging than debating, he's now been given a get-out clause as Gwylan has said whilst taking the moral high ground about democracy. If the Greens do get invited then it deflects attacks from him and also makes UKIP look as big/small as the Greens. How is this a bad thing for the Tories? It's win-win for him.

 

[Triggaaar]

The Greens and UKIP and other small parties can afford to say all sorts of popularist things about what they would and wouldn't do if they found themselves in charge, as it is easy to do when your chances of being in power are broadly in line with the probability of opening an oyster with a bus ticket.

I agree (weird analogy though).

The Greens don't need to spell out in detail their policies either - they're not going to be in power so they can afford to really go on the attack about Lab and LD and how let down a lot of people on the Left now feel and force home that a protest vote for the Greens could send a very powerful message.

On the one hand we want a platform for minority parties, so there's always the opportunity for change, but how does it help our country if they just use the platform for making false promises? Each party needs to make its promises, along with the figures showing how it'll be paid for, in advance, so they can be grilled on them at debate time.

 

[Simster]

I'd suggest whoever decided the NHS is THE topic is the shrewd person. There is now a perfect storm brewing on this issue and it wont go away soon. The correct topic, at the correct time, now that's shrewd.

Shrewd maybe because it benefits Labour, but not very good for the country. The NHS is in dire need of an overhaul, and because of this popularist scaremongering from Labour, nobody can be seen to want to touch it. One chap on the QT panel got it right last night - it OUGHT to be a infrastructural/management issue rather than a political one.

 

[jimbob5]

If as it seems likely this is still going on in May, will it be the longest thread?

 

[ROSM]

Shrewd maybe because it benefits Labour, but not very good for the country. The NHS is in dire need of an overhaul, and because of this popularist scaremongering from Labour, nobody can be seen to want to touch it. One chap on the QT panel got it right last night - it OUGHT to be a infrastructural/management issue rather than a political one.

I agree that the nhs needs reforming but it needs to be a transparent, consultative process that looks end to end at the service. What we have had over the last 4 years has been money wasted on changes that weren't joined up and actually impacted each other.

I think Andy Burnham actually makes sense on this and doesn't seem against the idea.

Like education and maybe immigration, health shouldnt be a political football but all the time it relies on treasury funding decisions then it will be.

Dont forget that pfi was actually started by John major and accelerated by Tony Blair. Academies were a labour construct and acceleration happened under Gove. It's the nuances led by ideological financial decisions that are the problem

 

[Triggaaar]

I agree that the nhs needs reforming but it needs to be a transparent, consultative process that looks end to end at the service.

No, no, no - what we need is a new government coming in and saying that the NHS has been ruined by the last government, so they're going to change it all. Then in 5 years when it's no better, we need to change government again, and have them say that the last government were inexperienced and messed it all up, and they're going to fix it by changing everything.

If everything isn't changed every 5 years, something is wrong. The last thing we need is a cohesive plan that spans governments and leads to stability.

 

[ROSM]

I will declare an interest here in that my family have used the nhs more in the last 8 years than ever before. My wife has had 3 children and they in turn have needed health care. Also my elderly parents both needed hospital care and eventually had life ending illnesses treated by the nhs.

I can honestly say the level of nursing care (both quality and numbers),add on services like physio etc and general cleanliness and food, have all got much much worse in that time from a point as I saw them of leading edge to now struggling.

When my dad was in hospital last year i saw nurses crying on shift as they physically couldn't deliver the level of care they wanted due to structural decisions made around them.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If he doesn't want the debate and feels that running is less damaging than debating, he's now been given a get-out clause as Gwylan has said whilst taking the moral high ground about democracy. If the Greens do get invited then it deflects attacks from him and also makes UKIP look as big/small as the Greens. How is this a bad thing for the Tories? It's win-win for him.

Looking like a bottle-job is not a win in my mind. He is supposed to be the leader. Looking like a crafy shitter is much more damaging than actually doing the debate in my opinion.

 

[Buzzer]

Looking like a bottle-job is not a win in my mind. He is supposed to be the leader. Looking like a crafy shitter is much more damaging than actually doing the debate in my opinion.

Yeah, but as you've already indicated you and all your friends think he's a c**t, whatever he does. You're not looking at this objectively.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Shrewd maybe because it benefits Labour, but not very good for the country. The NHS is in dire need of an overhaul, and because of this popularist scaremongering from Labour, nobody can be seen to want to touch it. One chap on the QT panel got it right last night - it OUGHT to be a infrastructural/management issue rather than a political one.

The danger is that the politicking gets in the way of the solution.

No-one seems to have noticed that, this year, MORE patients are being treated in A&E in under four hours than were being treated in the same weeks a year ago. That's a success for the service, not a failure.

The problem is that many more patients are presenting themselves to A&E than should be the case. Why's that? It's because it is getting increasingly difficult to get to see a GP and people have no option but to show up at A&E.

I don't want to listen to politicians promising to throw more money at A&E. I want to see the crisis in the GP service recognised and someone in the NHS coming forward to solve it. And d'you know what? I reckon the solution might save the NHS money.