Forum menu
ahwiles » i can only guess that you're hinting at Wales, which isn't relevant to the post i replied to.
Well you're going to have to explain that then - why is the number of seats Labour wins in Wales not relevant to whether they win enough seats to form a coalition government with SNP?
I didn't say it wasn't relevant to the overall numbers.
Labour are already doing well in Wales, they don't even have a mathematical chance of making up for the 20 (or more) seats that The SNP are predicted to win from them.
Which is why I questioned whether Labour had the chance to win enough in england (to make up for the seats won by The SNP) - and here we are.
Notice the word 'questioned'. I was asking a question, so, what do we think?
Well we are clearly following two different stories
You did not even produce an explicit quote to support your view and you followed up by asking different questions
You are better than this and I am not sure why you have taken this stance nor argued it so , uncharacteristically, poorly or passionately.
You missed the cycling analogy , strangely, could you explain how those who went riding bullied the one who tried, and failed, to dictate the ride?
As for attendance hopefully some of them are going because they think an electoral debate between leaders in an election is the correct thing for democracy rather than just for personal/party gain. I am sure they all have the confidence in their message that it will win them votes so I am not sure why they think they will be harmed.
“I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great.” – David Cameron, Sky news, 14 April 2010
“I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go someway to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country.” – David Cameron, Leaders Debate, ITV, 15 April 2010
“Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls, and when I was behind in the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” – David Cameron, Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010
"I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010
“I think these debates are here to stay. They clearly engage people in politics which is what we need.” – David Cameron, News of the World, 2 May 2010
“If you want the TV debates to go ahead you have got to do it fairly between the main parties and look, having said I want them, having challenged people to have them and quite right, Sky saying let’s have them, it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out so I thought we’ve got to stick at this, we’ve got to do it. It will be challenging, it was, but I think I came through them.” – David Cameron, Sky News, 3 May 2010
“On TV debates, I’m in favour of them, I think they’re good and we should go on having them and I will certainly play my part in trying to make that happen.” – David Cameron, Coalition mid term review, 7th Jan 2012
“I think TV debates are good. I enjoyed them last time – particularly the last one.” – David Cameron, Press Association, 10th December 2012
“You know we’ve been going on for years about let’s have these debates and I think it really vindicated having that. I think people will be asking themselves why on earth, what was all the fuss about? Why on earth didn’t we have these things before? We should have done and it’s great they’re underway now and I think we’ll have them in every election in the future and I think that’s a really good thing for our democracy.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014
“Blair pulled out against Major and Major pulled out against Kinnock, Thatcher pulled out against Callaghan. I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014
What's your point caller? He's offered to have a TV debate hasn't he?
The TV companies want a head to head with Just Cameron and Miliband for example, well, we didn't have that last time did we, so the 'precedent' isn't really a precedent at all!
[quote=ahwiles ]Which is why I questioned whether Labour had the chance to win enough in england (to make up for the seats won by The SNP)
Oh, you meant "gain". What you wrote means something a bit different from what you seem to have meant.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/picture/2015/mar/05/steve-bell-on-the-leaders-tv-debates-cartoon ]Steve Bell nails it again[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
What's your point caller? He's offered to have a TV debate hasn't he?
Did you fail to note the plural in the quotes above from Dave and his unilateral refusal to attend all the others whilst demanding to say who attends? The precedent is for DEBATES as per last time and that is what he argued for.
I am not sure why you have needed the issue explaining to you tbh
Right, but you accept that the format of the debates being proposed/demanded/threatened by the TV companies does not match the format that was agreed last time?
Therefore 'the 'precedent' set last time is irrelevant.
Right, but you accept that the format of the debates being proposed/demanded/threatened by the [s]TV companies[/s] Dave does not match the format that was agreed last time? And of course it does not match what he argued for last time either. You further accept only Dave has dictated to them [ rather poorly]what must happen and set conditions on the number and type of debates he will attend. the ride analogy shows it for what it is. He was petulant and he ALONE cannot dictate to every other "stakeholder".
TBH I forgot how you jumped around in debates when corrected and did not comment so I am off riding.
you further accept that only Dave has dictated what must happen
Well, that's demonstrably not true, as the DUP has not only demanded they are included, but taken legal action over the issue, and up till this week Miliband was demanding they all took place after 30th March.
so I am off riding.
What at one o'clock? I've just come back. I don't know about the rest of the country but the south east has been bathed in glorious almost summer sunshine/temperatures all day. What a shame it would have been to waste it debating about debates. Thanks for the patronizing comment about me being "better than this" btw.
What at one o'clock?
Like his debates, he prefers his rides closer to the election.
I would like to see a Cameron - Milliband debate as one of them is most likely to be next PM with either a very small majority, minority or coalition. I would have thought that Cameron would want a head to head as (1) he is a better debater and (2) the labour narrative has so far failed at each iteration. Either way they should both put themselves up to close scutiny.
Odd that Cameorn favours a bigger free for all. Some of the other parties merely spout BS that cannot be debated with (UKIP, SNP) and it's almost impossible to manage in a meaningful way. More likely to be a mess with no winners IMO (ad agencies apart)
As discussed above, the incumbent PM is always going to be on a loser with a televised debate - that and it's Wallace who has the biggest image problem which a debate might help fix. A big mess is exactly what CMD is after, as he's likely to lose less and Wallace likely to gain less.
Are you expecting reasoned debating of policies rather than carefully scripted punch and judy stuff?
Are you expecting reasoned debating of policies .......
Asks the man who engages in childish name-calling and repeatedly refers to Ed Miliband as "Wallace".
One can live in hope aracer, one can live in hope! But realistically no. As soon as the word austerity gets mentioned, you know you are on a slippery slope. If ever there was a misnomer used by all sides.
Surely these are totally pointless. I have never yet found a party that really cares what the voters want. Every single one just does what supposedly looks nice and might just get them a pat on the back from other leaders. So many times have we seen one leader slag another off for doing exactly what their own party did. I have yet to see a single move in the last five years that any benefit to me or was to my approval. Thing is the grinning idiot didn't either nor did the brown lump. In fact within my voting years the only thing that I remember that was worth while was Maggie duffing up the Argentinians.
As for the debates, just what do they achieve apart from a waste of hot air. If there has to be one then why more than one? That's just telly folk who are about the least responsible people you can get short of being a politician. Surely any leader who feels that they have nothing to gain shouldn't play.The whole waste of time isn't for our benefit.
FFS:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31786069 ]
[/url]A future Labour government would legislate to ensure TV debates became a permanent feature of general election campaigns, Ed Miliband has said.
way to go milibean. If in doubt, just legislate the **** out of everything. 'tard.
Must...control....everything.....
It's staggering just how bankrupt Ed Miliband and the Labour Party are of any meaningful policies to offer the British people.
I guess that as we approach the General Election we can expect more desperate and ridiculous attempts by the Labour Party and its leadership to manufacture differences between themselves and the Tories.
What at one o'clock? I've just come back.
I do martial arts in the morning.
You still failed to use the cycling analogy to show how he was being bullied.
If in doubt, just legislate the **** out of everything. 'tard
Retard is pretty offensive - no need IMHO. What else can he do to ensure the PM actually attends? He is basically ensuring he cannot do a dave and argue for them now and then duck them if he is PM. I am not sure why you think his stance is worse than Daves can you explain?
You also seem to want and expect a PM who does not legislate,whatever the hue, you are going to be disappointed.