General Election 2015

[drew]

Amazing the future of the country gets 75 pages, Ched Evans now on 133. Shows what interests some peeple..

There are numerous threads looking at politics over the years but there is probably only one on Ched Evans. Besides, the Evans thread is not about him but about the justice system in this country and consequences of that and, to a certain degree, 'mob rule'

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I have absolutely no idea how North Korea is any way relevant to anything in this thread, however seeing as I'm being ACCUSED of "advocating" fascism, cult of personality and so on - I have to reiterate my views.

My opinion on North Korea is one that continuing and harsh sanctions only cause greater excessive suffering to its people. This approach hasn't worked for 60 years towards liberating its people and it isn't going to start working now. It would be more sensible to make peace with it in any way we can, if only if it gives us more room to deliver aid, information and free speech.

In regards to the Middle East, I believe that the only solution is a peaceful approach. More bombs lead to more violence, more terrorism and insurmountable suffering to the civilians. In an ideal world, we would not have contributed to the downfall of its secular leaders and the demise to the warzone that it has become... but it's too late for that. I have spoken about how we should approach the current situation in other, more relevant threads.

Hope this helps, and I would appreciate if in future you would not speak for me, especially when you are talking such absolute nonsense.

Apart from in Syria where you advocate backing Assad militarily to restore "peace".

 

[Machiavelli]

Came here to say exactly this. Win/win.

Why? Cameron doesn't want to do these debates, that's been pretty clear for a long while. He's just using the Greens as a smokescreen (he's used green issues as a smokescreen before but, rather, than being a reflection of his shrewdness, it's more a case of the electorate's gullibility, coupled with the favourable manner in which Tories are treated in this country by many but especially the press).
What this does illustrate is the flux that our party political system is in, after about a century of Tory-Labour duopoly.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why? Cameron doesn't want to do these debates, that's been pretty clear for a long while. He's just using the Greens as a smokescreen (he's used green issues as a smokescreen before but, rather, than being a reflection of his shrewdness, it's more a case of the electorate's gullibility, coupled with the favourable manner in which Tories are treated in this country by many but especially the press).
What this does illustrate is the flux that our party political system is in, after about a century of Tory-Labour duopoly.

This is the way I saw it. Making such a big deal out of, what to be honest and in the grand scheme of things right now, is quite a minor issue makes him look like he is running scared. It's a classic diversion technique. What will be funny is if OfCom call his bluff and do this at the last minute.

 

[Machiavelli]

This is the way I saw it. Making such a big deal out of, what to be honest and in the grand scheme of things right now, is quite a minor issue makes him look like he is running scared. It's a classic diversion technique. What will be funny is if OfCom call his bluff and do this at the last minute.

He'll be there, to avoid the empty chair scenario.

 

[Bozza]

This is the way I saw it. To me he now looks like he is running scared. What will be funny is if OfCom call his bluff and do this at the last minute.

If the Greens get a spot then surely the Democratic Unionists, SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru should too.

These debates are clearly not top of Cameron's "must do" list for 2015, but surely all but the most politically-blind must also see that there is something not quite right about OFCOM getting to decide who does and doesn't merit appearing in what are quite key events in the course of the election process.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If the Greens get a spot then surely the Democratic Unionists, SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru should too.

These debates are clearly not top of Cameron's "must do" list for 2015, but surely all but the most politically-blind must also see that there is something not quite right about OFCOM getting to decide who does and doesn't merit appearing in what are quite key events in the course of the election process.

True. I agree.

 

[drew]

If the Greens get a spot then surely the Democratic Unionists, SNP, Sinn Fein and Plaid Cymru should too.

These debates are clearly not top of Cameron's "must do" list for 2015, but surely all but the most politically-blind must also see that there is something not quite right about OFCOM getting to decide who does and doesn't merit appearing in what are quite key events in the course of the election process.

The question then should be who should decide which parties are in attendance! As for the parties you mention, they are all regional and there could be an argument that they should only be involved in regional debates, probably between the leaders of the main parties in those regions. Obviously, the argument against this is that those parties may well hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. That said, could it also be argued that the Greens, Ukip, Tories, Lab and LDs are the 5 main parties if you include European elections?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The question then should be who should decide which parties are in attendance! As for the parties you mention, they are all regional and there could be an argument that they should only be involved in regional debates, probably between the leaders of the main parties in those regions. Obviously, the argument against this is that those parties may well hold the balance of power in a hung parliament. That said, could it also be argued that the Greens, Ukip, Tories, Lab and LDs are the 5 main parties if you include European elections?

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.

 

[ROSM]

The big issue here is that Cameron came under a lot of criticism from his own cabinet and advisers for his performance at the last set of debates. Basically it allowed Nick Clegg a leg up and partially saved Brown from a landslide. It was an open goal for the tories and they muffed it. Bluntly for all his PR background he isn't a good performer in terms of debating as Pmqs also shows.

No wonder he doesn't want them. But I believe they will happen and without him if necessary

 

[drew]

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.

Inclined to agree. Unfortunately, the analysis of the debates is not about policies but always who looked better on camera!

 

[drew]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-30740956

Perhaps another reason CMD might want to avoid a debate!

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

We could have a Britain's Got Politics show on Saturday nights.

Start with ten party leaders, and have panellists like Paxman insulting their abilities, after which we can use the Red Button to vote them off, one each week.

Fantastic TV

 

[Simster]

The big issue here is that Cameron came under a lot of criticism from his own cabinet and advisers for his performance at the last set of debates. Basically it allowed Nick Clegg a leg up and partially saved Brown from a landslide. It was an open goal for the tories and they muffed it. Bluntly for all his PR background he isn't a good performer in terms of debating as Pmqs also shows.

No wonder he doesn't want them. But I believe they will happen and without him if necessary

I broadly agree. I think this is the real reason why Cameron refuses to get involved unless the Greens are there - so either these debates don't happen, or they happen without Cameron, or the Greens are there giving him that safety in increased numbers.

But I don't think Cameron is being anything like as clever as [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] suggests by refusing to appear in these things, and for two reasons:

1) Whilst Cameron is a truly dreadful performer, Ed Milliband is probably worse - they are both utterly woeful. Clegg isn't anything like as bad, but actually contrary to what you say, it didn't end up giving him the leg up he'd hoped for before the last election. So what does Cameron actually fear? He's just making himself look weak.

2) 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. But nevertheless, it puts the major parties at a disadvantage, who can't afford to make too many promises they can't keep. Look at the trouble they all get into when they renege on one or two!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

We could have a Britain's Got Politics show on Saturday nights.

Start with ten party leaders, and have panellists like Paxman insulting their abilities, after which we can use the Red Button to vote them off, one each week.

Fantastic TV

Maybe they can all sit under a gunge tank?

 

[Buzzer]

I broadly agree. I think this is the real reason why Cameron refuses to get involved unless the Greens are there - so either these debates don't happen, or they happen without Cameron, or the Greens are there giving him that safety in increased numbers.

But I don't think Cameron is being anything like as clever as @Buzzer suggests by refusing to appear in these things, and for two reasons..:

I think it's a clever move for several reasons:

1. UKIP are the biggest challenge to the Tory party IMO. Get enough voters back from UKIP and the Tories have got the next election won. That in mind, Cameron has to give people the perception that UKIP are a minor party, NOT a major one. Look at the language CMD used when describing the Greens and UKIP yesterday ('the minor parties'). Makes UKIP seem small-time, somewhat transient and less than the Tories.

2. CMD doesn't like debates but he's a smooth operator and will have the better of Miliband whereas Farage will play up to his bloke in pub image and Clegg will just be as irrelevant as ever but bringing in another party means less time for everyone. Less time for CMD to have to talk, less time for people to attack the Government, more attacks on their opponents.

3. From 2, the Greens don't need to attack the Government, their voters are not natural Tories or UKIP, they're the ones voting Labour or Lib Dem. When the Tories or Lib Dems criticise Labour a lot of people can (quite rightly) conclude that it's a bit rich when they're all following the same policies. The Greens have the moral high-ground over LD and Lab and offer a real alternative for LD and Lab voters. 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. All the while CMD sits back and watches Lab and LD try to explain that they are different from the establishment. The Greens don't need to attack the Tories, there's no votes to be won there.

4. Lastly, CMD can be seen to be inclusive and empathetic and democratic by insisting the debate be widened to include the Greens. We all know why he wants the Greens there (points 1-3) but he can deny all that and just say that it's good for British democracy and the right thing to do. PR victories aplenty and looks good to floating voters in the middle.

I stand by my comments. It's a very, very clever move by the Tories.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I broadly agree. I think this is the real reason why Cameron refuses to get involved unless the Greens are there - so either these debates don't happen, or they happen without Cameron, or the Greens are there giving him that safety in increased numbers.

But I don't think Cameron is being anything like as clever as [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] suggests by refusing to appear in these things, and for two reasons:

1) Whilst Cameron is a truly dreadful performer, Ed Milliband is probably worse - they are both utterly woeful. Clegg isn't anything like as bad, but actually contrary to what you say, it didn't end up giving him the leg up he'd hoped for before the last election. So what does Cameron actually fear? He's just making himself look weak.

2) 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. But nevertheless, it puts the major parties at a disadvantage, who can't afford to make too many promises they can't keep. Look at the trouble they all get into when they renege on one or two!

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.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think it's a clever move for several reasons:

1. UKIP are the biggest challenge to the Tory party IMO. Get enough voters back from UKIP and the Tories have got the next election won. That in mind, Cameron has to give people the perception that UKIP are a minor party, NOT a major one. Look at the language CMD used when describing the Greens and UKIP yesterday ('the minor parties'). Makes UKIP seem small-time, somewhat transient and less than the Tories.

2. CMD doesn't like debates but he's a smooth operator and will have the better of Miliband whereas Farage will play up to his bloke in pub image and Clegg will just be as irrelevant as ever but bringing in another party means less time for everyone. Less time for CMD to have to talk, less time for people to attack the Government, more attacks on their opponents.

3. From 2, the Greens don't need to attack the Government, their voters are not natural Tories or UKIP, they're the ones voting Labour or Lib Dem. When the Tories or Lib Dems criticise Labour a lot of people can (quite rightly) conclude that it's a bit rich when they're all following the same policies. The Greens have the moral high-ground over LD and Lab and offer a real alternative for LD and Lab voters. 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. All the while CMD sits back and watches Lab and LD try to explain that they are different from the establishment. The Greens don't need to attack the Tories, there's no votes to be won there.

4. Lastly, CMD can be seen to be inclusive and empathetic and democratic by insisting the debate be widened to include the Greens. We all know why he wants the Greens there (points 1-3) but he can deny all that and just say that it's good for British democracy and the right thing to do. PR victories aplenty and looks good to floating voters in the middle.

I stand by my comments. It's a very, very clever move by the Tories.

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.

 

[ROSM]

1) Whilst Cameron is a truly dreadful performer, Ed Milliband is probably worse - they are both utterly woeful. Clegg isn't anything like as bad, but actually contrary to what you say, it didn't end up giving him the leg up he'd hoped for before the last election. So what does Cameron actually fear? He's just making himself look weak.

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.

 

[beorhthelm]

But how many people have the opposing view that he flunked this last time and is simply using this as an excuse?

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.