Tonight's televised debate

[davemclaren]

Clearly something is amiss with your nose.

 

 

 

So what are your criteria then? It's clearly not that you can field sufficient candidates to win a majority in the House of Commons. If a party fields at least one candidate in each of the 4 nations is that sufficient to make them UK wide?

[leginten]

These 3 way debates are just marginalising the other parties and ensure that our democracy becomes even more personality based. Not a good thing imo.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Does anyone know exactly what the BBC's criteria for inclusion in these debates were and where one could find them?

[davemclaren]

So what are your criteria then? It's clearly not that you can field sufficient candidates to win a majority in the House of Commons. If a party fields at least one candidate in each of the 4 nations is that sufficient to make them UK wide?

 

 

Shaun is either on the phone to Nick or typing one of his tomes.

[shaun.lawson]

So what are your criteria then? It's clearly not that you can field sufficient candidates to win a majority in the House of Commons. If a party fields at least one candidate in each of the 4 nations is that sufficient to make them UK wide?

 

At present, the three main parties field candidates in every constituency and all parts of the UK except (to the best of my knowledge) Northern Ireland. That's because these three parties are the only parties capable of forming a government in Westminster.

 

If, for example, the SNP were included in the debates, their message would be irrelevant to over 90% of the audience. If Plaid Cymru were included in the debates, their message would be irrelevant to over 95% of the audience. As it is, the message of the three parties included in the debates is relevant to everyone (except, again to the best of my knowledge, those in Northern Ireland) - hence their inclusion. Clearly, for others like UKIP or the Greens to be involved, their share of the vote and seats in the House of Commons has to increase to the point whereby either or both command electoral credibility.

 

Anyone in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are free to vote for whoever they choose - and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish issues are covered in separate debates. But the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland know they're only ever going to be governed from Westminster by an administration consisting of either or some of the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats; and the only way out of that is independence.

[Commander Harris]

? Labour do not field a candidate in Northern Ireland. ?They have the SDLP there, while their MPs are under the labour whip(f'naar f'naar) they are an independent entity due to their nationalist leanings. ??

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Labour isn't fielding candidates in Northern Ireland, nor are the Lib Dems - this should disqualify both of them from taking part in Shaun World

[leginten]

I've just had a look at the BBC Trust's website and specifically their response to the complaint made by the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The response quite clearly refers to "Prime Ministerial debates". This is puzzling. Clegg has as much chance of becoming Prime Minister as I have of bedding Cameron Diaz tonight.

[davemclaren]

At present, the three main parties field candidates in every constituency and all parts of the UK except (to the best of my knowledge) Northern Ireland. That's because these three parties are the only parties capable of forming a government in Westminster.

 

If, for example, the SNP were included in the debates, their message would be irrelevant to over 90% of the audience. If Plaid Cymru were included in the debates, their message would be irrelevant to over 95% of the audience. As it is, the message of the three parties included in the debates is relevant to everyone (except, again to the best of my knowledge, those in Northern Ireland) - hence their inclusion. Clearly, for others like UKIP or the Greens to be involved, their share of the vote and seats in the House of Commons has to increase to the point whereby either or both command electoral credibility.

 

Anyone in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland are free to vote for whoever they choose - and Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish issues are covered in separate debates. But the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland know they're only ever going to be governed from Westminster by an administration consisting of either or some of the Conservatives, Labour or the Liberal Democrats; and the only way out of that is independence.

 

 

So no-one apart from the 'big 3' ( used to be 2 but I suppose you prefer 3 ) could be part of a coalition and their policies would thus be relevant nationally?

[davemclaren]

I've just had a look at the BBC Trust's website and specifically their response to the complaint made by the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The response quite clearly refers to "Prime Ministerial debates". This is puzzling. Clegg has as much chance of becoming Prime Minister as I have of bedding Cameron Diaz tonight.

 

That certainly puts it in perspective.

[leginten]

That certainly puts it in perspective.

 

 

She has to get up early tomorrow.

 

[shaun.lawson]

Labour isn't fielding candidates in Northern Ireland, nor are the Lib Dems - this should disqualify both of them from taking part in Shaun World

 

Oh no it shouldn't, as I explained in my post.

[Gorgiewave]

I've just had a look at the BBC Trust's website and specifically their response to the complaint made by the SNP and Plaid Cymru. The response quite clearly refers to "Prime Ministerial debates". This is puzzling. Clegg has as much chance of becoming Prime Minister as I have of bedding Cameron Diaz tonight.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiCRZLr9oRw

[Commander Harris]

Oh no it shouldn't, as I explained in my post.??

where your criteria has changed from "UK-wide" to not really UK-wide because Northern Ireland doesn't count?

 

 

 

[davemclaren]

where your criteria has changed from "UK-wide" to not really UK-wide because Northern Ireland doesn't count?

 

He's adapting to his new political career rather well, don't you think?

[leginten]

He's adapting to his new political career rather well, don't you think?

 

Yes, Minister.

 

[Ulysses]

Clearly, for others like UKIP or the Greens to be involved, their share of the vote and seats in the House of Commons has to increase to the point whereby either or both command electoral credibility.

 

What do you mean by the term "clearly"?

 

"Clearly" is not an analytical term. In my experience, people use the term in the hope of passing off a personal prejudice or belief as being self-evident when they have no other evidence to support the prejudice.

 

Self-serving guff, in other words, and it's particularly unedifying when it is put forward by someone who preaches about electoral reform. Or is that just more self-serving nonsense?

[shaun.lawson]

Yes, Minister.

 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Oh no it shouldn't, as I explained in my post.

 

 

So the debates are irrelevant to Northern Ireland and shouldn't be shown there by that logic?

 

What this does show is that one of the objections to the West Lothian Question - two or more classes of MPs being formed if there are only English votes on English matters is absolute rubbish. We already have distinct classes of MPs.

[Big D]

Any party able to form a UK government is not going to restrict its chances by only fielding candidates in England, is it?

 

And yet the Tories have formed majority Westminster governments with no NI MPs, 1 Scots MP, and I think 2 in Wales. Essentially their government was of English MPs. The Tories can however afford to lose deposits in an election. So is the debate between the richest parties? Some democracy that.

[shaun.lawson]

What do you mean by the term "clearly"?

 

"Clearly" is not an analytical term. In my experience, people use the term in the hope of passing off a personal prejudice or belief as being self-evident when they have no other evidence to support the prejudice.

 

Self-serving guff, in other words, and it's particularly unedifying when it is put forward by someone who preaches about electoral reform. Or is that just more self-serving nonsense?

 

Do you think either UKIP or the Greens command electoral credibility?

 

As for it being "self-serving guff": a few points:

 

1. The Tories' opposition to electoral reform is entirely self-serving, because they're terrified of being locked out of power forever.

 

2. Labour's sudden conversion to the Alternative Vote, and long opposition to electoral reform prior to that, are both entirely self-serving: because FPTP is biased towards them, and AV suits them best of any possible new system.

 

3. But the Lib Dems' belief in electoral reform isn't self-serving at all. Why? Because it'd enable many parties - hardly just us - to be properly represented, and would finally provide real choice. What a nonsense that at the moment, most Britons are effectively disenfranchised by living in safe seats; what an absurdity that many feel forced to vote not for who they want, but tactically, to keep who they most dislike out.

 

Proportional representation would end all of that. Moreover: no-one joins the Lib Dems because they want power. They'd have to be mad to do so - and consequently, self-serving is not what we do. If other parties want to be represented in UK-wide televised debates, all they have to do is be UK-wide, and secure electoral credibility. It's been hard enough for the Lib Dems to achieve that, largely because of an electoral system which is utterly insane.

 

One final point. For as long as I can remember, in order to play a part in Westminster government, someone has invariably had to be a member of either the Conservative or Labour Party. That has locked out millions and millions of talented people, and is quite ridiculous. I could understand it if it was representative of what the majority of British people believed; but it isn't. For me, that's the single most powerful argument in favour of PR; because it'd mean in future, anyone could have a chance of playing a role in government, regardless of what party they represented.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

And yet the Tories have formed majority Westminster governments with no NI MPs, 1 Scots MP, and I think 2 in Wales. Essentially their government was of English MPs. The Tories can however afford to lose deposits in an election. So is the debate between the richest parties? Some democracy that.

 

 

The Tories have never formed a government without at least 10 Scottish MPs.

[Commander Harris]

CH likes this thread.

[Gorgiewave]

What do you mean by the term "clearly"?

 

"Clearly" is not an analytical term. In my experience, people use the term in the hope of passing off a personal prejudice or belief as being self-evident when they have no other evidence to support the prejudice.

 

Self-serving guff, in other words, and it's particularly unedifying when it is put forward by someone who preaches about electoral reform. Or is that just more self-serving nonsense?

 

 

Listen to the dominie, Shaun, if you're coming out for a professional writer.

 

If I may say so, you write (on JKB) like you speak (on radio): wordily and terribly, awfully, politely.

 

"As to the adjective (and adverb): if in doubt, strike it doubt."

 

Manly prose, please. Orwell, Hemingway, Crane, etc.

[shaun.lawson]

And yet the Tories have formed majority Westminster governments with no NI MPs, 1 Scots MP, and I think 2 in Wales. Essentially their government was of English MPs. The Tories can however afford to lose deposits in an election. So is the debate between the richest parties? Some democracy that.

 

They're only rich because of the credibility built up over decades. And having the wealth to field candidates everywhere applies to all other major parties in all other countries in the Western world. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Mammon.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Do you think either UKIP or the Greens command electoral credibility?

 

Who are you to judge on that?

 

 

As for it being "self-serving guff": a few points:

 

1. The Tories' opposition to electoral reform is entirely self-serving, because they're terrified of being locked out of power forever.

 

2. Labour's sudden conversion to the Alternative Vote, and long opposition to electoral reform prior to that, are both entirely self-serving: because FPTP is biased towards them, and AV suits them best of any possible new system.

 

3. But the Lib Dems' belief in electoral reform isn't self-serving at all. Why? Because it'd enable many parties - hardly just us - to be properly represented, and would finally provide real choice. What a nonsense that at the moment, most Britons are effectively disenfranchised by living in safe seats; what an absurdity that many feel forced to vote not for who they want, but tactically, to keep who they most dislike out.

 

Proportional representation would end all of that. Moreover: no-one joins the Lib Dems because they want power. They'd have to be mad to do so - and consequently, self-serving is not what we do. If other parties want to be represented in UK-wide televised debates, all they have to do is be UK-wide, and secure electoral credibility. It's been hard enough for the Lib Dems to achieve that, largely because of an electoral system which is utterly insane.

 

The Lib Dems pro electoral reform stance isn't self-serving? Are you kidding me? In all likelihood, they would become the British version of the German Free Democrats, who basically reside permanently in the German government!

[leginten]

3. But the Lib Dems' belief in electoral reform isn't self-serving at all. Why? Because it'd enable many parties - hardly just us - to be properly represented, and would finally provide real choice. What a nonsense that at the moment, most Britons are effectively disenfranchised by living in safe seats; what an absurdity that many feel forced to vote not for who they want, but tactically, to keep who they most dislike out.

 

Proportional representation would end all of that. Moreover: no-one joins the Lib Dems because they want power. They'd have to be mad to do so - and consequently, self-serving is not what we do. If other parties want to be represented in UK-wide televised debates, all they have to do is be UK-wide, and secure electoral credibility. It's been hard enough for the Lib Dems to achieve that, largely because of an electoral system which is utterly insane.

 

Of course it's much easier to secure electoral credibility if you get more media coverage than all the other smaller parties. Anyway, as far as I can the BBC made no reference to being "UK wide" as a criterion for inclusion; it just says "Prime Ministerial debates". Which brings us back to the question: why Clegg?

 

I'm fully in agreement with your views on PR, by the way. I've wasted too many journeys to the polling station.

[shaun.lawson]

Who are you to judge on that?

 

 

 

The Lib Dems pro electoral reform stance isn't self-serving? Are you kidding me? In all likelihood, they would become the British version of the German Free Democrats, who basically reside permanently in the German government!

 

Rubbish. In all likelihood, major parties would split, and you'd be left with, at the very least, a choice of Old Labour, Social Democrats, New Labour, Liberals, One Nation Tories, Thatcherite Tories. The Greens, UKIP and others would suddenly have a real opportunity too.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Rubbish. In all likelihood, major parties would split, and you'd be left with, at the very least, a choice of Old Labour, Social Democrats, New Labour, Liberals, One Nation Tories, Thatcherite Tories. The Greens, UKIP and others would suddenly have a real opportunity too.

 

 

God, Shaun you are naive!

 

Politics is about POWER - the people with principles and ideas are the ones that get relegated to the back benches. Why, for example, did the Tories not break up in Scotland? Why do they not support PR in Scotland despite it producing almost all of their MSPs?

 

Methinks you'll get a little bit burnt by the political game,

[shaun.lawson]

Of course it's much easier to secure electoral credibility if you get more media coverage than all the other smaller parties. Anyway, as far as I can the BBC made no reference to being "UK wide" as a criterion for inclusion; it just says "Prime Ministerial debates". Which brings us back to the question: why Clegg?

 

I'm fully in agreement with your views on PR, by the way. I've wasted too many journeys to the polling station.

 

Which is a consequence of the Lib Dems generally being at around 20% in the polls before this campaign. Why Clegg? I suppose because it's considered within the bounds of possibility that his could be the largest or second largest party (in theory, a coalition could be led by the second largest party if agreement is impossible with the largest one); whereas it's not within the bounds of possibility for the other smaller parties.

 

I accept it isn't going to happen though!

[shaun.lawson]

God, Shaun you are naive!

 

Politics is about POWER - the people with principles and ideas are the ones that get relegated to the back benches. Why, for example, did the Tories not break up in Scotland? Why do they not support PR in Scotland despite it producing almost all of their MSPs?

 

Methinks you'll get a little bit burnt by the political game,

 

PR in Westminster changes the game completely. Parties aren't going to split when political necessity (ie. Westminster) dictates they stay together. No more FPTP means no more political necessity: maybe even an end to politicians having to pretend they're something they're not.

 

Oh, and I'd rather be idealistic than a cynic like you.

[Ulysses]

Do you think either UKIP or the Greens command electoral credibility?

 

What do you mean by "electoral credibility"? IIRC, the last time there was a national election in Britain the Liberal Democrats polled 2 million votes - as opposed to the 2.5 million polled by UKIP and 1.2 million by the Greens. Before the first showing of "Britain's Got Leaders" on April 15th, the Liberal Democrats were sitting on 17-18% in the opinion polls. If UKIP had been allowed on the talent show they might be sitting on 20% in the polls now and the Liberal Democrats could be heading for political obscurity. But they weren't, and now that Nick Clegg has sung his way to stardom all you want to do is make sure the other acts don't get a cut of his action.

 

 

 

But the Lib Dems' belief in electoral reform isn't self-serving at all. Why? Because it'd enable many parties - hardly just us - to be properly represented, and would finally provide real choice.

 

Just so long as the parties that the Liberal Democrats' flag-wavers regard as "wee" are kept off the TV, right?

 

 

For me, that's the single most powerful argument in favour of PR; because it'd mean in future, anyone could have a chance of playing a role in government, regardless of what party they represented.

 

Er, what about that TV thingy again? Sounds to me like all you really want is to let the Liberal Democrats join the golden circle of British politics.

[2NaFish]

electoral credibility is about the most undemocratic phrase i've heard in a long time.

[leginten]

Which is a consequence of the Lib Dems generally being at around 20% in the polls before this campaign. Why Clegg? I suppose because it's considered within the bounds of possibility that his could be the largest or second largest party (in theory, a coalition could be led by the second largest party if agreement is impossible with the largest one); whereas it's not within the bounds of possibility for the other smaller parties.

 

I accept it isn't going to happen though!

 

 

Were the polls the basis for the inclusion of the three parties, then? As opposed to current parliamentary representation? Genuine question. If so, whose polls did they use?

 

In the event of a hung parliament, the possible combinations and alliances of smaller parties in acting as king-makers are numerous - it's not necessarily just the Lib Dems who would be involved.

[Commander Harris]

Democracy is a sham. ?I nominate myself to be Benevolent Dictator For Life. ?

[Ulysses]

electoral credibility is about the most undemocratic phrase i've heard in a long time.

 

No, no, not at all. It was said by an idealist, so you must be a cynic.

[Danny Wilde]

As it is, the message of the three parties included in the debates is relevant to everyone (except, again to the best of my knowledge, those in Northern Ireland) - hence their inclusion.

 

Rather a broad brush statement to put it mildly. Are you really so completely clueless on of the nature of the devolution settlement ?

 

The first debate had a focus on English domestic matters which are devolved matters up here. In what way is a Labour, LibDem or Tory message on education, NHS , crime/justice in England - directly applicable to people up here ? Its a deceit. Its patronising. Its ignorant.

 

The second debate made a partial return to these areas in its "open" section as I'm sure will happen in the third debate. And just as your man Clegg got a turbo-boost from the first debate, you can hardly complain at others seeking to have access to the same rocket fuel. It has shaped and dominated the election campaign.

 

The BBC as a national service broadcaster has obligations. It shouldn't be its job to decide who's worthy, who the biggest parties are, who might be prime minister... we can work that out for ourselves without the establishment setting the parameters on our behalf. The Greens, UKIP and (god help us) even the BNP ... are all parties who are being treated shabbily and who should be afforded far more equitable coverage of their views without the establishment and main stream media rigging the game by way of set-piece debates.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

PR in Westminster changes the game completely. Parties aren't going to split when political necessity (ie. Westminster) dictates they stay together. No more FPTP means no more political necessity: maybe even an end to politicians having to pretend they're something they're not.

 

Oh, and I'd rather be idealistic than a cynic like you.

 

Interesting theory. You seem to think the UK would go like Italy in political terms. I respectfully disagree.

 

 

As for electoral systems,I do agree there should be a referendum on them - FPTP may have had its day but presenting AV as a fait accompli like Labour would love to do would be even less democratic.

 

Oh, and as for being a cynic, it gets you closer to reality!

[Ulysses]

Democracy is a sham. ?I nominate myself to be Benevolent Dictator For Life. ?

 

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Power to the proletariat!

 

 

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa

Bandiera rossa, bandiera rossa

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa

Bandiera rossa trionfer?.

 

Bandiera rossa la trionfer?

Bandiera rossa la trionfer?

Bandiera rossa la trionfer?

Evviva il socialismo e la libert?!

 

 

[Commander Harris]

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

Power to the proletariat!

 

 

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa

Bandiera rossa, bandiera rossa

Avanti o popolo, alla riscossa

Bandiera rossa trionfer?.

 

Bandiera rossa la trionfer?

Bandiera rossa la trionfer?

Bandiera rossa la trionfer?

Evviva il socialismo e la libert?!

 

 

good tune. I've sung it many a time, ?only ironically mind.?

 

 

why do the socialists have the best tunes?

[leginten]

good tune. I've sung it many a time, only ironically mind.

 

 

why do the socialists have the best tunes?

 

I thought it was the devil. Or are they the same thing?

 

[2NaFish]

No, no, not at all. It was said by an idealist, so you must be a cynic.

 

whilst your premises and logic are shaky i cant deny the conclusion

 

i know its cheating to mention the nazis but there something troubling about someone deciding before an election who is allowed to have a fair chance winning and those who arent. Godwins Law firmly in sight, can i just say 'thebigDOTfeller' is goebbels in waiting.

[Ulysses]

why do the socialists have the best tunes?

 

They don't, but a bit like Oasis they nick them from the best sources. The tune of Bandiera Rossa was lifted from two popular Lombardian folk songs. The tune of The Red Flag (which was written by an Irish bloke) is taken from a German folk tune dating back more than 500 years.

[Gorgiewave]

Rather a broad brush statement to put it mildly. Are you really so completely clueless on of the nature of the devolution settlement ?

 

The first debate had a focus on English domestic matters which are devolved matters up here. In what way is a Labour, LibDem or Tory message on education, NHS , crime/justice in England - directly applicable to people up here ? Its a deceit. Its patronising. Its ignorant.

 

The second debate made a partial return to these areas in its "open" section as I'm sure will happen in the third debate. And just as your man Clegg got a turbo-boost from the first debate, you can hardly complain at others seeking to have access to the same rocket fuel. It has shaped and dominated the election campaign.

 

The BBC as a national service broadcaster has obligations. It shouldn't be its job to decide who's worthy, who the biggest parties are, who might be prime minister... we can work that out for ourselves without the establishment setting the parameters on our behalf. The Greens, UKIP and (god help us) even the BNP ... are all parties who are being treated shabbily and who should be afforded far more equitable coverage of their views without the establishment and main stream media rigging the game by way of set-piece debates.

 

As I said before in this thread, they managed primary debates in America with about eight people appearing simultaneously. Some were regarded as more serious candidates than others before a ball was kicked, as here. I think Obama would have been the third favourite at best, behind Hill and John Edwards, maybe Bill Richardson as well. To me, there should be a "trivial or not" test, to avoid larking students or bored grannies standing, which is the deposit's function. What that test would be, I don't know, and it would inevitably be arbitrary. 0.16% of votes at the last election (enough to win one parliamentary seat in a pure PR system)? A minimum party membership?

[2NaFish]

As I said before in this thread, they managed primary debates in America with about eight people appearing simultaneously. Some were regarded as more serious candidates than others before a ball was kicked, as here. I think Obama would have been the third favourite at best, behind Hill and John Edwards, maybe Bill Richardson as well. To me, there should be a "trivial or not" test, to avoid larking students or bored grannies standing, which is the deposit's function. What that test would be, I don't know, and it would inevitably be arbitrary. 0.16% of votes at the last election (enough to win one parliamentary seat in a pure PR system)? A minimum party membership?

that seems almost sensible and, dare i say it, democratic.

[Gorgiewave]

that seems almost sensible and, dare i say it, democratic.

I'll speak to Vlad, see if we can arrange something.

[Danny Wilde]

As I said before in this thread, they managed primary debates in America with about eight people appearing simultaneously. Some were regarded as more serious candidates than others before a ball was kicked, as here. I think Obama would have been the third favourite at best, behind Hill and John Edwards, maybe Bill Richardson as well. To me, there should be a "trivial or not" test, to avoid larking students or bored grannies standing, which is the deposit's function. What that test would be, I don't know, and it would inevitably be arbitrary. 0.16% of votes at the last election (enough to win one parliamentary seat in a pure PR system)? A minimum party membership?

 

In a similar vein I went to a hustings last week in Edinburgh North and Leith. Eight candidates on the stage. Three of them were left-wing no hopers in terms of eventual outcome, but all had paid their deposits and - to be frank - two of them made a better fist of it than two of the supposed "slicker" big-party favourites.

 

When I walked away from the debate - and having heard the chasing LibDem candidate come out with 2 massively fudged statements - I almost despaired of a democracy where people can't speak from the heart because they're hide-bound by party policy. A bit depressing, and I almost had a Stalin-esque moment on the way home where I felt it might be better just to eliminate ALL the organised parties and their self-interests from the political process alltogether

 

However not having access to an army, tanks and gulags I'll have to make do with using my paltry 'X' at the ballot-box...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

In a similar vein I went to a hustings last week in Edinburgh North and Leith. Eight candidates on the stage. Three of them were left-wing no hopers in terms of eventual outcome, but all had paid their deposits and - to be frank - two of them made a better fist of it than two of the supposed "slicker" big-party favourites.

 

When I walked away from the debate - and having heard the chasing LibDem candidate come out with 2 massively fudged statements - I almost despaired of a democracy where people can't speak from the heart because they're hide-bound by party policy. A bit depressing, and I almost had a Stalin-esque moment on the way home where I felt it might be better just to eliminate ALL the organised parties and their self-interests from the political process alltogether

 

However not having access to an army, tanks and gulags I'll have to make do with using my paltry 'X' at the ballot-box...

 

 

Seems like nothing has changed since the 1997 election then. I was living on campus at Heriot-Watt in my last year and they had a hustings there for Pentlands. Rifkind didn't show and his election agent appeared instead for the Tories. You could understand that to a degree given that he was Foreign Secretary at the time. Lynda Clark, the Labour candidate (and eventual winner) didn't show either. It was left to the SNP candidate (whose name escapes me) and Robin Harper of the Greens to actually answer the questions put to them. Jenny Dawe, the Lib Dumb (yes, THAT Jenny Dawe) was useless.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

By the way, this is what the debate SHOULD be about!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/what-about-the-financial-crisis

[JamboAl]

By the way, this is what the debate SHOULD be about!

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/what-about-the-financial-crisis

 

Quite right Geoff.

All this nonsense about dispensing with the NI rise, giving away (to the rich) thousands from the IHT take, ?3 per week extra to married couples etc is ridiculous at this time. And all the absolute guff about a big society and change is the biggest effort to perpetrate a con on the British people ever.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Quite right Geoff.

All this nonsense about dispensing with the NI rise, giving away (to the rich) thousands from the IHT take, ?3 per week extra to married couples etc is ridiculous at this time. And all the absolute guff about a big society and change is the biggest effort to perpetrate a con on the British people ever.

 

 

Oh dear, it's deja vu all over again...