Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Oppostion Leaders' Debate - 16 April

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, the 2nd of the debates takes place tonight on BBC1 @ 2000BST (same makeup as last time but without Cameron/Clegg). Running order can be found here. I though it might be an idea to set up a thread in advance of the session so that people can start to discuss what they'd like to see from the debate, as well as use it for ongoing comments during the debate itself. For me:

1) More focus on what each leader would actually do if successful and what it would cost;
2) Will Sturgeon maintain the momentum she built up in the Big 7 debate? In a recent Scottish Leaders' debate, she apparently had a bit of a car crash as soon as people started to go into the actual policies of the SNP;
3) Will the alleged conversation between Sturgeon and the French Ambassador be raised?
 
I'd like them to talk about a plan for the long term and not just the next 5 years - highlighting what they think the main issues will be and what the plan is.

I'd like them to say something sensible about the NHS - and not just say "we will throw X billions at it".

I'd like them to stop talking like they were in a playground

I'd like them to answer questions directly, succinctly and without talking about tangent/random unrelated points they feel more comfortable with.

I'd like one of them to admit that not everything comes down to a purely financial cost.

However, I'm now a grown up and expect none of the above to occur.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Having watched some of the earlier debates I am not wasting my time on this one. The inability of any presenter to date to ask a relevant or penetrating question and secure an answer, combined with some attempt to turn the debates into a media event rather than a hustings means I would rather watch paint dry.

As none of the participants has a chance of being PM there is no point to the debate.
 
As none of the participants has a chance of being PM there is no point to the debate.

Well, Milliband potentially has. With Sturgeon as kingmaker, if you want a really scary scenario.
 
Well, Milliband potentially has. With Sturgeon as kingmaker, if you want a really scary scenario.

Being as they're of the left, surely it needs to be Royal-Person-Maker?

Otherwise you'll being shouted down as a sexist, misogynist -old-boys-club b**tard.

You can't be using non-approved words willy-nilly, you know!
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Milliband potentially has
Sorry - forgot him. (Not as serious as forgetting to talk about deficit).

I'm tracking next PM on Betfair. they have Cameron at 53%, Milliband at 47% and it has been pretty much that throughout the election build up.

Their seat forecast ( http://www.betfairpredicts.com/) is currently Con 278, Lab 275 SNP 42. I guess that this means that the betting public does not think that SNP + Lab will ever get to total 326 (the number needed for majority) and no party other than SNP would do a deal with Lab as Con will have most seats and most votes.
 
Sorry - forgot him. (Not as serious as forgetting to talk about deficit).

I'm tracking next PM on Betfair. they have Cameron at 53%, Milliband at 47% and it has been pretty much that throughout the election build up.

Their seat forecast ( http://www.betfairpredicts.com/) is currently Con 278, Lab 275 SNP 42. I guess that this means that the betting public does not think that SNP + Lab will ever get to total 326 (the number needed for majority) and no party other than SNP would do a deal with Lab as Con will have most seats and most votes.

As much as you should vote for a party and not a 'president' - i dont understand how anyone could seriously vote for Wallace.

Can you honestly picture Miliband at any meeting of World Leaders and pressing for Britains best interests? or trying to secure anything from Putin? or anyone else for that matter?

It's insane. Labour had 13 years of being totally shit and they're still shit. With the added benefit that they have the weakest Leader of any party ever.

How anyone thinks voting Labour is sensible, literally boggles my mind.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
How anyone thinks voting Labour is sensible, literally boggles my mind.

Problem is that the ability to count is based in logic.

Socialists can't count (see deficit) and thus are not logical and (plus or minus some semantics) don't think but emote.

Hence politics of envy and "charismatic" TV evangelist approach of T Blair...
 
Sorry - forgot him. (Not as serious as forgetting to talk about deficit).

I'm tracking next PM on Betfair. they have Cameron at 53%, Milliband at 47% and it has been pretty much that throughout the election build up.

Their seat forecast ( http://www.betfairpredicts.com/) is currently Con 278, Lab 275 SNP 42. I guess that this means that the betting public does not think that SNP + Lab will ever get to total 326 (the number needed for majority) and no party other than SNP would do a deal with Lab as Con will have most seats and most votes.

Not to worry - he's easily forgotten! Seriously though, I took a look at your Betfair link and one possible permutation leaps out. If they're at all accurate (and they normally are - it's how they make their living after all), then, if Clegg switches his support to Labour, a loose coalition of Lab/SNP/LibDem would give 350 seats: enough for a working majority and certainly enough to get a Queen's Speech through. What sort of nightmare that would entail, I don't want to think about!
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Clegg switches his support to Labour

Indeed, but as there is more money on Cameron being prime minister the punters have effectively said that it is a less likely outcome.

My interpretation is that if that happened, i.e the second placed party got into power on the backs of SNP and Lib Dem there would be riots, as it is I think unlikely that the nightmare combination would have achieved 50% of public vote (or anything close to that).

Certainly on that scenario I can see house prices falling in UK, plus sterling crash as a riot in Parliament Square made the poll tax riots look peaceful.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
As much as you should vote for a party and not a 'president' - i dont understand how anyone could seriously vote for Wallace.

There are more than a few Labour MP's worried about Millipede having a live brainfart and sending Labour south in the polls. They are also wondering why he did the debate in the first place as he's going to be a target for every other leader in the debate.

If Millipede performs well he's not going to have a major impact on the polls. And if he performs badly he'll put a significant dent in Labour's chances.

Wordsmith
 
Indeed, but as there is more money on Cameron being prime minister the punters have effectively said that it is a less likely outcome.

My interpretation is that if that happened, i.e the second placed party got into power on the backs of SNP and Lib Dem there would be riots, as it is I think unlikely that the nightmare combination would have achieved 50% of public vote (or anything close to that).

Certainly on that scenario I can see house prices falling in UK, plus sterling crash as a riot in Parliament Square made the poll tax riots look peaceful.

I take your point, and Cameron may well find himself as the leader of the party with the largest number of seats on 8 May. That means he will remain PM, and will be invited by HM to try to form a government. But who's he going to form it with? Even with the support of the LibDems and UKIP, he's going to be well short of the magic 326 number. That means a Queen's Speech is likely to be voted down, and that is effectively a vote of no confidence. Best case: another GE later this year.

(Edited due to fat fingers).
 
Last edited:
I'm watching with car-crash anticipation as to when Natalie Bennett crashes & burns. The f***ing moonbat.
 

NSP

LE
What's the point in including parties that aren't fielding candidates outside of their own regions in a national election debate? Leanne Wood has opened with the importance of the election for the whole nation and how Plaid will stand up for everyone - but she isn't fielding candidates outside of Wales and if winning any Westminster seats then the number will be so low that even if they're included in a coalition they'll be the runt of the litter and shunted, shunned and largely powerless.

Unfortunately this thread has been posted in CA so we can't properly express our opinions every time that mad Green bint opens the hole under her nose.
 
Sturgeon off into lala land in response to the first question: we will introduce modest spending rises but still see the debt and deficit cut...
 
Unfortunately this thread has been posted in CA so we can't properly express our opinions every time that mad Green bint opens the hole under her nose.

Sorry man, my fault!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top