Poll: General election voting intentions poll

[Dolph]

It's not clear that broadcasting impartiality laws are being violated if Cameron refuses to take part. The broadcasters would have offered him completely equal opportunity to defend his ideas that he's then refused. And, yes, despite your obsession with partisanship, if Miliband was refusing to take part in the debates then I'd support empty-chairing him too.

See, I wouldn't support empty chairing milliband either. It gives the broadcasters too much power to dictate and makes the process to easy to manipulate, as both milliband and Cameron have tried to do.

The debates were a vibrant and successful last time and should feature this time. It's true that the broadcasters have fumbled it this time, and we need an independent body to decide the format for future elections, but Cameron is clearly and deliberately playing silly with this. Honestly, the 4:3:2 option originally aired was the best option put forward so it's a pity that didn't fly in the end.

No, it should have been 5:3:2, there has never been any reason to include ukip without including the greens as both stand nationally and have a similar parliamentary presence.

If it had been 5:3:2 at the start, I would be sharing the exasperation at them not going ahead. For me though, any doubt that the attempt to bias the panel was simple incompetence was removed when the broadcasters did the same thing a second time by ignoring the larger dup and including the snow and plaid leaders.

 

[Mr Jack]

No, it should have been 5:3:2, there has never been any reason to include ukip without including the greens as both stand nationally and have a similar parliamentary presence.

UKIP have much greater support, and just came top in a national election. The case for including them and not the greens was pretty strong. This is backed up by the fact that Ofcom has included UKIP but not the greens in the list of major political parties for both this and the last election.

If it had been 5:3:2 at the start, I would be sharing the exasperation at them not going ahead. For me though, any doubt that the attempt to bias the panel was simple incompetence was removed when the broadcasters did the same thing a second time by ignoring the larger dup and including the snow and plaid leaders.

DUP don't compete against any of the other parties, so they're not comparable. It would be unreasonable to include the DUP and not the other NI parties. This, btw, cannot be the basis of Cameron's objection since he's agreed to the 7-way but rejected the smaller, later debates.

Oh, and how is including SNP/Plaid biasing the panel in any way similar to including UKIP and not the greens? They're opposite "biases", if biases they be.

 

[Dolph]

UKIP have much greater support, and just came top in a national election. The case for including them and not the greens was pretty strong. This is backed up by the fact that Ofcom has included UKIP but not the greens in the list of major political parties for both this and the last election.

The greens have a similar party membership, and when the decision was made, an mp in Westminster that UKIP did not. Confirmation of a bad decision by another statutory body doesn't make the decision less bad (and yes, I have put my feelings across in ofcom's consultation on the matter

DUP don't compete against any of the other parties, so they're not comparable. It would be unreasonable to include the DUP and not the other NI parties. This, btw, cannot be the basis of Cameron's objection since he's agreed to the 7-way but rejected the smaller, later debates.

The other NI parties are dwarfed by the dup in terms of seats. Also, if you actually read the letter from downing street, they argue that the dup must be allowed to make a case for inclusion.

To answer your edit, it is similar in the inclusion of parties more likely to draw from or go against the government than the opposition, while excluding those who side with the government or draw from the opposition

 

[Mr Jack]

To answer your edit, it is similar in the inclusion of parties more likely to draw from or go against the government than the opposition, while excluding those who side with the government or draw from the opposition

No, it's not. UKIP are the only party which draws more from the Tories and is more likely to side with them. ALL three of the parties included in the revised version are more likely to draw votes and take seats from Labour. It's a total inversion.

 

[v0n]

Nigel was on LBC this morning and changed their proposed immigration policy again - he now wants 5 year ban on unskilled labour and "flexible" 20,000 - 50,000 a year cap on skilled labour via "points system".

Shows basic lack of understanding of UK market, now importing labourers and paying over the odds for unskilled positions in construction sector just to finish existing projects but also swiftly alienates hundreds of thousands of students every year who would be left without any means to support themselves...

 

[Kimi]

They chose the wrong Milliband

 

[eatcustard]

Nigel was on LBC this morning and changed their proposed immigration policy again - he now wants 5 year ban on unskilled labour and "flexible" 20,000 - 50,000 a year cap on skilled labour via "points system".

Shows basic lack of understanding of UK market, now importing labourers and paying over the odds for unskilled positions in construction sector just to finish existing projects but also swiftly alienates hundreds of thousands of students every year who would be left without any means to support themselves...

I will bite.

Plenty of UK people who can be laborers, its just immigrants do it for minimum wage.

Students are here to learn, not to work, they should have enough money to cover the course they are doing.

 

[Destination]

The trouble for Labour is that Ed Milliband would lose the debate with an empty chair.

I mean come on, the poor chap is behind on the charisma stakes before the questions even begin.

So true, thank God.

 

[elmarko]

While Ed Miliband is indeed lacking in the charm & charisma department, Cameron is hardly likeable by any stretch of the imagination & over half the population despise Farage or Clegg.

This isn't what I'd call a 'battle of personalities' election.

As it stands, if Labour or the Conservatives had fielded a likeable & charismatic leader it would be in the bag already.

 

[Judgeneo]

Indeed, they are all incompetant, hapless or detested.

 

[eatcustard]

Wover half the population despise Farage

Can you back that up?

 

[v0n]

I will bite.

Plenty of UK people who can be laborers, its just immigrants do it for minimum wage.

How much are you willing to pay for large chips for the potatoes to be picked, shipped, prepped and served to you NOT at minimum wage at any stage?

Students are here to learn, not to work, they should have enough money to cover the course they are doing.

So - education for trust fund kids only then? Totally reasonable...

 

[Mr Jack]

Can you back that up?

53% of the population tick the “dissatisfied with the way Nigel Farage is doing his job as leader of Ukip” box which is about as close as we get.

Farage is certainly a very marmite figure; adored within UKIP, despised by many outside of it.

 

[Trifid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31771198

Broadcasters have said plans for three TV debates before the general election will go ahead, despite David Cameron saying he will only take part in one.

Well I am glad they are going to continue. It's going to be very embarrassing for Cameron either way.

 

[Mr Jack]

Well I am glad they are going to continue. It's going to be very embarrassing for Cameron either way.

Excellent

 

[Skidder]

While Ed Miliband is indeed lacking in the charm & charisma department, Cameron is hardly likeable by any stretch of the imagination & over half the population despise Farage or Clegg.

This isn't what I'd call a 'battle of personalities' election.

As it stands, if Labour or the Conservatives had fielded a likeable & charismatic leader it would be in the bag already.

Cameron is highly likeable in my opinion. I think he comes across as a jolly good egg and a thoroughly decent sort.

 

[platypus]

I do not think that they were either vibrant or successful. The format was fairly bland and obviously stage managed. Personally I would prefer a professional interviewer putting hard questions to party leaders on a one to one basis.

Exactly what I feel. It's a crossover from American politics that I don't want.

Set Paxman on them one on one.

 

[Hagar]

So we will have the Conservatives, standing back and saying judge us on our record, our manifesto and our election statements.

The others will be arguing between themselves on live TV with their main target not there.

Seems like interesting times. I agree with platypus above^^ though. We had the experiment, it was not very edifying (no pun) or enthralling and even the Americans tried it once and forgot about it for a decade thereafter.

 

[Judgeneo]

Exactly what I feel. It's a crossover from American politics that I don't want.

Worse, its diluted in the wrong way.
Over there each debate is proceeded by an analysis with "fact checkers", which try to substantiate all the rhetoric that the leaders spout. Over here we just let the soundbites be headlines.

 

[scorza]

Exactly what I feel. It's a crossover from American politics that I don't want.

Set Paxman on them one on one.

10 million people tuned in to watch the first debate on ITV, we can't have that can we? Ordinary people getting interested in politics.