Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
Shame they dont call it tomorrow, everyone knows who they are going to vote for anyway I expect.
I am enjoying the tears from the lefties/remoaners/commies/socialists though, most entertaining.
Clearly not the Tories are up 4% since election was announced.
Yvette Cooper spanked May at PMQs today, tbf is not hard, you can see why May is so scared of a TV debate, even corbs would best her!
What is the weather like on Planet Kimbers ?
TV debates are appalling, no upside for those ahead in polls / in-power. As I said that's why Blair refused to do them. He knew how to win and [b]it's not by doing TV pantomime.[/b]
I am enjoying the tears from the lefties/remoaners/commies/socialists though, most entertaining.
Is it just me who automatically assumes that someone is a moron the moment they use the word "remoaner"?
Is it just me who automatically assumes that someone is a moron the moment they use the word "remoaner"?
No, not just you.
Kinda makes me think of English footy fans abroad, ruling of the waves, you'll never get Gibraltar... etc...
Is it just me who automatically assumes that someone is a moron the moment they use the word [s]"remoaner"[/s] "Brexshit"?
FIFY
TV debates are appalling, no upside for those ahead in polls / in-power. As I said that's why Blair refused to do them. He knew how to win and it's not by doing TV pantomime.
yeah who wants to see a crazy old guy debating with an empty chair?
its kinda been done before
and still Mays scared!
as for the weather- its been raining ever since the oldies voted for [b]BREXSHIT[/b] 🙂
I like the whole "debates are bad for the incumbent". That's not a reason to let them avoid them, that's a reason to make them do it. You know what else is bad for the incumbent? Elections, being held to account, opposition, playing back interviews of them saying things they've totally u-turned on. Tolerating politicians avoiding things just because they might work out better for the other guy is not a good idea.
That said, TV debates are bollocks.
"debates are bad for the incumbent". That's not a reason to let them avoid them
...but it *is* the reason incumbents try to avoid them.
TV debates are appalling, no upside for those ahead in polls / in-power.
Only if you're in danger of being found out as a big liar liar pants on fire.
Jamba is correct that May will wish to run away from any real debate because there is only downside for her. She is scared that she can only lose in a debate
But she can't appear to be scared and running away.
Difficult one. 8)
so digging through the UK history of election debates and the claims it's bad for the incumbant.
There have been 2 years 2010 and 2015, 2010 Brown could have handed out fifties and still lost that one. It wasn't the debate that lost the election, it was however Clegg who probably pushed it to colaition.
2015 Did Milliband stand a chace and how did the incumbant fare?
In US debates it's much harder to tell as a lot of times it's 2 new faces.
So where is are the stats backing up the claims?
She's also in the position of having to defend Brexit , leaving aside the fact that every analysis still says it will damage the country.
Realistically there will be compromises, the many fantasies spun to Brexies about what it would deliver are obviously impossible to realise, May knows all of this sbd she knows the rabid right wing press will shred her if she fails to deliver. its why she wants an election asap and why she's been obsessed with having as little scrutiny as possible.
I don't expect there will be many cyclists who normally buy nice shiny toys to vote Conservative, given how much bike equipment has gone up since that joke of a referendum last year, especially Shimano (thanks to to the exchange rate of GBP).
So where is are the stats backing up the claims?
I doubt there would be an meaningful stats because we don't run 'control' elections to check.
So yeah, maybe rather than saying "debates are bad for the incumbent" we should probably say: "debates are generally considered bad for the incumbent".
Logically you can see why the might be. The incumbent has been doing all the unpopular stuff people in power have to do & has a record in government to attack. Plus the presence of the leader gives little known candidates a massive media platform they wouldn't otherwise have.
Bit of light reading:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-incumbents-lose-presidential-debates/442344/
I doubt there would be an meaningful stats because we don't run 'control' elections to check.So yeah, maybe rather than saying "debates are bad for the incumbent" we should probably say: "debates are generally considered bad for the incumbent".
Going back through was it the debate that lost it? The UK has very little history of TV debates, as said in the US it's quite different but you have 3 who went on to lose the election from '76 the others won.
Yes it exposes the incumbent to be held to account and asked about their record and so it should it's what we are judging them on.
Plus the presence of the leader gives little known candidates a massive media platform they wouldn't otherwise have.
Which of the leaders of the major westminster parties should not be represented. Con/Lab/LDem/SNP seem a fair bunch to be debating the issues of the day and where they see the UK going if they have control. All of these will have party political broadcasts etc.
There will be a big push by the media to have a debate - audiences to amass, soap powder to sell.
But that does not make them a good idea, especially for May.
They favour double glazing sales(wo)men - those that can give glib answers, play the room and deflect any question. It would suit BoJo, Cameron or Blair or a bullshitter like Yvette Cooper, May is a different and, I think, far better leader - she is one to quietly get on with things, to take the evidence and make a decision. You can see this during her tenure at the Home Office - it used to be permanently in the news in the form of "Home Office screws up XXXXX ( again )". She neither sought the spotlight for what she did, nor did she have the spotlight turned on her - she was efficient and stopped the culture of cock-ups.She quietly did a better job than any of her predecessors in recent history.
She already is prime ministerial, she has nothing to prove or gain in this game, the others can drag themselves up towards where she is, she can only lose.
And ultimately, these debates tell very little, other than who can talk the most bull, completely deflect a simple, straight question. The media might, for their own reasons, want these debates, but I certainly won't miss them.
Party political broadcasts don't generally attract follow-up media coverage or set social media ablaze. TV debates are much more likely to set the news agenda for days afterwards, and the 'I Agree with Nick' meme gave Clegg momentum and changed the election result.
The other problem with a debate is that there is no obvious three-party dynamic any more, so the debate will be more cluttered with different regional agendas and you end up with the PM potentially given equal billing to the likes of Paul Nuttall.
So there are no benefits to a serving PM, and plenty of risks. Which is why she is resisting it, and the other parties seem rather more keen.
You can see this during her tenure at the Home Office - it used to be permanently in the news in the form of "Home Office screws up XXXXX ( again )". She neither sought the spotlight for what she did, nor did she have the spotlight turned on her - she was efficient and stopped the culture of cock-ups.She quietly did a better job than any of her predecessors in recent history.
You what?
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/theresa-mays-record-home-secretary-isnt-reassuring/
was it the debate that lost it?
a) It doesn't matter. Even if a debate costs votes, the candidate might still win.
b) As you say, we don't have the data to know.
So there are no benefits to a serving PM, and plenty of risks. Which is why she is resisting it, and the other parties seem rather more keen.
This.
Someone who thinks debates favor the incumbent has to explain why every party leader involved is arguing counter to their own interests.
Cranberry - I agree with Mike. May has a long association with cock-up in my mind - all her dealings with Europe since becoming PM for example. All she has done is strengthen the divides in the UK and unite the EU against us with her actions.
She's already challenging CMD for worst PM ever.
As for debates, all the May / Brexy supporters are telling us on here is why it is rational for her to be scared of debates and run away. But this is the individual we are about to ask to do some very dangerous negotiations - I don't want someone who runs away when it's scary.
You can see this during her tenure at the Home Office - it used to be permanently in the news in the form of "Home Office screws up XXXXX ( again )
Waaaaaaat, cranberry are you trolling, no one could be that misinformed/deluded ??
The home office was a shitshow under May,
Off the top of my head....
Several broken pledges to reduce immigration (non EU and EU)
Go home van cock up
Passport issuing disaster
Border control delays that left 1000s delayed at airports
Her reputation among the police after her attempts at reform and managing cuts is horrendous , go ask a copper if they will be voting for May ,!
Getting the date wrong for appealing to the ECJ against the high court ruling saying Abu qatada couldn't be deported, surely the most humiliating though I'm sure there's plenty more
May is a different and, I think, far better leader
That depends on your viewpoint, doesn't it? How you define 'good'.
To me, a good leader is one that finds compromise to keep most of the people happy. May has done the opposite - pressed through with her own agenda that has just enough backing, and basically **** everyone else.
I cannot see how that will not blow up in our faces in years to come. It means that half the country is bitter and resentful of her actions. People still resent Thatcher 30 years later. Is that the legacy of a good leader? Maybe if you think half the country are moany ****s, it is.
As for debates, all the May / Brexy supporters are telling us on here is why it is rational for her to be scared of debates and run away. But this is the individual we are about to ask to do some very dangerous negotiations - I don't want someone who runs away when it's scary.
I'm not a May or Brexy supporter <shakes fist>
Equally, you could say that you don't want someone negotiating for you who will fall into an obvious trap...
May (or Crosby) will doubtless have balanced the relative risk of running away from the debate vs doing the debate. I'm sure she has factored in the small number of people who would have voted Tory but might not due to this issue.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that you were teetering towards voting Tory but have been swayed by the debate issue... 🙂
Equally, you could say that you don't want someone negotiating for you who will fall into an obvious trap
It's not a trap, is it? If you can't hold your own in a debate, you're in the wrong game. You can't call it a mendacious trap if people just want to hold you to account. She's a politician ffs.
@cranberry, do you have any actual dealings with the home office? Your review there is pretty much absolutely the office of what you'll hear from anyone I know that works with them- she institutionalised incompetence as a useful tool. For me personally it's visa clearances and holy shit, I could go on for days.
Martin - not aimed at you specifically.
As for me, I'd vote for anyone I trusted to go to Westminster and oppose firstly Brexit and secondly hard Brexit.
I live in a (presently) Tory constituency, held by a Brexy. He is pretty much lobby fodder - I doubt he chooses his underpants without checking with the whips first.
And where you can see any individual thought he comes across as a homophobe authoritarian.
Being a Tory is probably one of his lesser sins.
But yes, I'm a champagne socialist (though technically more of a Bordeaux / Bourgogne socialist - give me a decent red any day) so unlikely to pick a Tory as my first choice and May as an incompetent reactionary religious zealot of an authoritarian is a easy person to dislike.
"Equally, you could say that you don't want someone negotiating for you who will fall into an obvious trap..."
Indeed.
Given the choice between a brave decision and a considered evidence based decision I'll take the latter.
Other people will feel differently, that's why we have elections.
Holding a Brexit Referendum was a very courageous gamble. Not sure everyone agreed that makes it a good decision.
And perhaps it would be worth waiting to see what each group propose and which ones look like they could work together.
At least you know to expect the opposite of what may promises
It's not a trap, is it? If you can't hold your own in a debate, you're in the wrong game. You can't call it a mendacious trap if people just want to hold you to account. She's a politician ffs.
Politics is about the art of winning, not the art of debating, so yes, she is a politican (ffs). Cameron agreed to the debates, and to the referendum, because he wasn't a very good politician.
She's not calling it a trap. I am. Because for her, it most likely offers her no advantage and plenty of risk.
I live in a (presently) Tory constituency, held by a Brexy. He is pretty much lobby fodder - I doubt he chooses his underpants without checking with the whips first.
You on the IoW too?
York Outer. Check his voting record. Not a nice man.
Apparently May visited Bolton today and got the welcome she deserved from a gentleman who waved at her while not using all of his fingers...
She really can't open her mouth without lying:
[i] “[u]It’s great to be here in Bolton[/u], fresh from the House of Commons, fresh from winning a vote in the House of Commons, which has approved my decision to hold a General Election on 8 June.[/i]
Look, I'm quite proudly from Bolton, but I've never found the experience "great"!!
Do we know what kind of brexit mandate Chairman May is looking for yet ? the right wing press seem to think it's ultra hard yet the city seems to think it's kind of soft.
Klunk - Member
Do we know what kind of brexit mandate Chairman May is looking for yet
Depends who she is talking to.
Do we know what kind of brexit mandate Chairman May is looking for yet ?
Does she even know?
Changes her mind a lot...
[img] 
[/img]
I don't think she has a clue what she's doing.
[img] 
[/img]
party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party
That's him.
I have a lot of his HoC stationery at home.
May is a second rate Frank Underwood wannabe - that's all there is to understand about her...
I reckon she possibly watches HoC for ideas whilst she whips her hogtied husband and has him call her "maam".
Shes like a 6th formers idea of what it means to be a machiavellian political operator.
Holding a Brexit Referendum was a very courageous gamble.
it was a short-sighted, ill-conceived and complacent act of opportunism by a politician who wasn't half as clever as he thought he was. There was a reason Blair - a far far cleverer politician - wouldn't even contemplate it. He knew full well what the result would be.
And since then we've been at the mercy of a Tory party of the most blatant and self-serving opportunists. Boris's whole stance was pure opportunism. Goves back-stabbing - cynical opportunism. Mays accent to power - pure opportunism. This *ing election - pure *ing opportunism
Everything that every one of these ****s have done has been absolutely self-serving, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else!
Everything that every one of these ****s have done has been absolutely self-serving, and to hell with the consequences for everyone else!
There is a silver lining. This election is pretty much an admission that brexit is going to be a failure and is merely an exercise in extending their time in government by a couple of years. The damage would be done by brexit early election or not, so another couple of years is no big deal. Also it allows an early resolution (probably) to the Corbyn situation. The question is whether labour would be better off choosing a new leader this summer, or in 2020?
After his back-to-the-70's speech before, someone raised a nightmare scenario. The more I think about it, the more I think it's not only plausible, but actually pretty likely...
Corbs leads labour to a catastrophic election defeat, but then refuses to resign, saying he needs to finish the job. He could even call a leadership election, where the 6th formers vote him in again.
The result.... 5 years of Theresa and co to get on with whatever the hell they like, with no opposition at all. Effectively a single party state run by a bunch of hard right nut-jobs.
Something to look forward to eh?
After his back-to-the-70's speech before
Is saying that the tories represent the establishment elite now a hard left 1970s viewpoint? Your hatred of Corbyn really doesn't do your objectivity any favours sometimes. There wasn't much in that speech that the vast majority of people wouldn't agree with.
I agree with most of what he said. But since when did we need it pointing out that the Tories are a bunch of soulless, self-serving ****s who exclusively serve the interests of their rich mates
Well.... like... der!
What I don't hear any is viable ideas about how he's going to change it. Its all pie-in-the-sky 6th form nonsense, that relies on the discovery of a forest of magic money trees
There is a silver lining. This election is pretty much an admission that brexit is going to be a failure and is merely an exercise in extending their time in government by a couple of years. The damage would be done by brexit early election or not, so another couple of years is no big deal.
I'm still looking for the silver lining in this...
There really isn't one. We're all totally ****ed!
I can envisage the nightmare scenario of a Tory party pureeing a calamitous hard right agenda through Brexit, and Corbyn still insisting on clinging on to the leadership, thus meaning there effectively is no opposition
If so, I'm leaving the country!
[quote=binners ]There really isn't one. We're all totally ****ed!
I can envisage the nightmare scenario of a Tory party pureeing a calamitous hard right agenda through Brexit, and Corbyn still insisting on clinging on to the leadership, thus meaning there effectively is no opposition
If so, I'm leaving the country!
Come to Scotland. We'll need more people to pay for all our loony leftie ideas!
I agree with most of what he said. But since when did we need it pointing out that the Tories are a bunch of soulless, self-serving ****s who exclusively serve the interests of their rich mates
Well considering that many working and middle class people vote for them despite it clearly not being in their interests I'd say it needs to be pointed out an awful lot more. The challenge is doing it in a way that people can relate to that cuts through the rabid propaganda of the right wing press and supposedly impartial mainstream media.
Well considering that many working and middle class people vote for them despite it clearly not being in their interests I'd say it needs to be pointed out an awful lot more.
Exactly. Keep pointing it out for the next 7 weeks, plus NHS every other sentence and people may start to think about what the tories are actually doing for them
I'm still looking for the silver lining in this...
Obviously the silver lining is that in 5 years time the tories are f*****. It's always been the case that whoever the leader is, labour only really have a chance of success when the tories have run everything down to the point where the general public wake up and realise they're much worse off than they were before.
[quote=martinhutch ]It is bizarre that Scotland's left is so unrepresented either in its own Parliament or Westminster.
[quote=yourguitarhero ]Come to Scotland. We'll need more people to pay for all our loony leftie ideas!
🙂
Do people up there still see SNP as a Left of Centre party?
Well considering that many working and middle class people vote for them despite it clearly not being in their interest
People vote Tory as they are the party that's good for the economy and business. No business no job for the working class. A Labour Govt helps no one if the economy is daffy ducked by their looney policies. Blair understood that and hence his center-ist approach especially to business. Corbyn would be a disaster for the Middle Class.
There was a reason Blair - a far far cleverer politician - wouldn't even contemplate it. He knew full well what the result would be.
So he signed the Lisbon Treaty enabling ever closer Union and an effective EU constitution in the full knowledge the UK wanted out of the EU. Democracy eh ?
the last time this happened it was the banking sector which did us all in and the Tories were proposing even less regulationA Labour Govt helps no one if the economy is daffy ducked by their looney policies
Whilst I accept there is a general perception that the tories do better on the economy I do not think it is actually true any govt - for it was a world wide recession- ws on trouble then and it had little to do with who was in power at the time - GO agreed to match labour spending plans for example
even you predicted a loss for leave so the claim we wanted out and we all knew it is just not true.in the full knowledge the UK wanted out of the EU
I thought you would love him for it as dont forget
The Treaty for the first time gave member states the explicit legal right to leave the EU and the procedure to do so.
Before it there was no way to leave so he opened the door for the glorious march to freedom [ via economic ruin and a litany of broken promises that we must all pull behind]
the last time this happened it was the banking sector which did us all in and the Tories were proposing even less regulation
On Peter Hennessey's Reflections Nigel Lawson said that regulations he'd put in places would have prevented the crash and New Labour removed them.
I've no idea if that's true but I think politicians are typically honest when they go on Reflections.
martinhutch - Member
Do people up there still see SNP as a Left of Centre party?
As Westminster has moved, and is still moving, the centre to the right, it's not that difficult to be "left of centre".
Further left than May? Yes.
Further left than Cameron? Yes.
Further left than Brown? Yes.
Further left than Blair? Yes.
jambalaya - Member
There was a reason Blair - a far far cleverer politician - wouldn't even contemplate it. He knew full well what the result would be.So he signed the Lisbon Treaty enabling ever closer Union and an effective EU constitution in the full knowledge the UK wanted out of the EU. Democracy eh ?
Yep. Representative parliamentary democracy. Preferable to a bipolar referendum that splits the country. IMO of course.
If you don't like it you are welcome to move. I believe Switzerland has lots of things with a referendum (that they then weasel past when the result isn't right) 😉
On Peter Hennessey's Reflections Nigel Lawson said that regulations he'd put in places would have prevented the crash and New Labour removed them.I've no idea if that's true but I think politicians are typically honest when they go on Reflections.
Given that there is a counter-argument that it was the Tory banking deregulation that created the space for that crash, I think a pinch of salt is in order.
He may be telling the truth, he may be deluded but truthful, or he may be ducking responsibility - I do not know.
However I do recall that Brown got the economy back into growth before he left, which Cameron and Osborne unfortunately turned around into a second slump.
Whilst I accept there is a general perception that the tories do better on the economy
The party of business implementing brexit=does not compute.
He may be telling the truth, he may be deluded but truthful, or he may be ducking responsibility - I do not know.
Can't believe I'm wasting my life googling this. The Banking Act 1987 was under his tenure as CofExc. So I guess that what he's talking about. No idea if he had a point or not.
OOB - nor do I. Some have said the problems date back to then, but everyone with an opinion and knowledge has a vested interest and I tend not to trust anyone either way.
The brutal reality of austerity, poverty and the heartless tory party...
People vote Tory as they are the party that's for some reason still able to convince people they are good at the economy and business, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary
FIFY
Lack of regulation of the banks and more importantly consumer lending was the primary issue imo. It was that regulations where not properly applied rather than regulations where removed per-se. Labour and Brown as Chancellor certainly could have done more to minimise the impact of the US lead 2007/8 crises but their big crime was failing to react appropriately, basically imo Brown knew the election was coming in 2010 and he tried to bluff through without reigning in spending.
if he was a tory, he would have done less.
And we have to remember that Brown got growth back into the economy that the Tories then killed.
"but their big crime was failing to react appropriately, basically imo Brown knew the election was coming in 2010 and he tried to bluff through without reigning in spending."
IIRC Blair explicitly states in his book that they couldn't cut spending early in the term because Brown was going to take over and was considering an early election.
Basically if you have one eye on an election for a whole term it's pretty hard to get a grip on spending - there's never a right time.
Nothing any other party does with the economy can possibly compete with the disaster for business that is Brexit.
People vote Tory as they are the party that's good for the economy and business.
In your head
Corbyn would be a disaster for the Middle Class.
Better for the middle classes to suffer a bit than the poor and disabled though isn't it. The middle classes are only middle class/well-off by luck, they could have been born to an alcoholic single mother. People need to remember that and be a bit more generous with their lucky positions.
To understand that requires empathy and the last I heard the tories were trying to make the word illegal.
I do wonder whether taking money off the disabled is actually a vote winner. Some orrible ****ing ****s out there.
@Kerley. Can you explain to me how damaging the middle classes will help social mobility?
Or are you happy for the poor to stay poor, but with a few more scraps of handouts?
I'm happy to pay more taxes to be clear, but i don't see it achieving much more than applying a slightly bigger plaster and not actually solving the problems i want to see fixed.
I do wonder whether taking money off the disabled is actually a vote winner. Some orrible * * out there.
They've been told by the daily fail they all frauds and con artists duping hard working families out of their cash and jumping queues with bogus blue badges. You only have to read the comments on the recent [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39575293 ]Motorbility story on the beeb[/url] it's very depressing
Piemonster - it seems to work in most european countries where income tax on the middle classes is much higher ( remember they pay for their healthcare on top of tax)
It works in some European countries, I'm happy for you to evidence whether it's most.
And to be fair, it's not what I'm really getting at. If you want more tax income don't start with punishing the middle classes, look at how you grow the middle classes then tax accordingly.
Ideally I don't want people in full time work to be reliant on the state. They're working, pay them enough to live on rather than state top ups.
I do wonder whether taking money off the disabled is actually a vote winner. Some orrible * * out there.
Ring fencing the NHS budget is is popular, if the NHS gets more, everyone else has to get less. So taking from the disabled is a vote winner, just in a round about way.
And we have to remember that Brown [s]got growth back into the[/s] [b]was lucky enough to ride the worldwide economic boom that was starting in 1997[/b] that the Tories then killed.
I'm no fan of Tories or Labour, but the China and credit driven boom of the early noughties could have been a success for any chancellor in power at the time.
How you then deal with the risks and opportunities that boom offers a government/country in the medium to long term is how the economic management should be judged.
And while the seeds of the banking collapse may have been sown by Tory deregulation, by the time it happened in 2008, Brown and Bliar had been in position to address the issues for 10 years, if they were as canny as some like to think they were*. Turns out they only had eyes on extending their reign of power, not doing what was best for the country. Same as the bastard Tories before them.
*Fair play, he kept us out of the Euro.