Wednesday 18th March 2015

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:19 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Lynton Crosby and Guido are now so aimless they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP https://twitter.com/GeorgeAylettMP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How low will they go? This Labour PPC is only 19 - Ba$tards
How can you stop this kind of thing?

I don't understand - that link, it's a 'spoof'? Is that legal?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:21 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Lynton Crosby and Guido are now so aimless they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP https://twitter.com/GeorgeAylettMP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How low will they go? This Labour PPC is only 19 - Ba$tards
How can you stop this kind of thing?
I don't understand - that link, it's a 'spoof'? Is that legal?

they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP

Yes its spoof and as far as I know it's legal, but morally wrong (to me)

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:28 pm

Spacedone wrote:
Tom Clark ‏@guardian_clark 17 mins17 minutes ago

Those "tax cuts for low earners" in full – earn <£10.5K: worth £0; earn <£43k worth £120; earn >£43k worth £220

This has been known about for ages. Think it was Stephanie Flanders I saw before 2010 call out the Lib Dems on it.

Do people vote on what they think is being done for the working poor? I wouldn't have thought many did. And the working poor know they're not getting anything extra.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:30 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:
Spacedone wrote:Fraser Nelson's take on that spending cuts graph posted earlier.

yeas, that really didn't make any sense.

I pointed out that the OBR being forced to put it in just to save Osborne from the "back to the 1930s" jibe meant that they aren't independent. Why otherwise would spending go up when it's been cut for years?

Think you're harsh on the OBR there. They'll know that what they said last time became a big political trope. If Osborne changes plans to make it not true, they're within their rights to update what they said before.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:30 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Lynton Crosby and Guido are now so aimless they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP https://twitter.com/GeorgeAylettMP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How low will they go? This Labour PPC is only 19 - Ba$tards
How can you stop this kind of thing?
I don't understand - that link, it's a 'spoof'? Is that legal?

they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP
Yes its spoof and as far as I know it's legal, but morally wrong (to me)

Yes, it's wrong.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:33 pm

Goodnight, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:34 pm

I posted this elsewhere & I'm still trying to sort it all out.

I don't fully understand Mr. Robert Chote's editorial post to the Guardian published a week ago.

Robert Chote: 'It is surely better to hold governments to account for what they say they will do, than for what we guess they might.'
Wednesday 11 March 2015
"Your editorial on the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility (9 March) completely misses the point of what parliament has asked us to do.
We have been asked to assess the outlook for the public finances on the basis of the government’s tax and spending policies as it currently expresses them, not on the basis of how we think they will or should evolve.
This promotes transparency and accountability. First, it forces governments to be explicit about what their policies are. Second, it allows us to explain their potential consequences. As you say, we pointed out in December that the coalition could only achieve the budget surplus it aimed for in 2019-20 by assuming that it would cut public services spending to its lowest share of national income since before the war.
This has prompted a lively debate about whether this would be desirable and politically achievable, and what the alternatives might be – questions that rightly lie beyond our remit. It is surely better to hold governments to account for what they say they will do, than for what we guess they might."
Robert Chote
Chairman, Office for Budget Responsibility

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ke-guesses

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:35 pm

Goodnight, PF

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:37 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner · 3 mins3 minutes ago
Lynton Crosby and Guido are now so aimless they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP https://twitter.com/GeorgeAylettMP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How low will they go? This Labour PPC is only 19 - Ba$tards
How can you stop this kind of thing?
I don't understand - that link, it's a 'spoof'? Is that legal?

they've created a troll account for a Labour MP who it not even an MP
Yes its spoof and as far as I know it's legal, but morally wrong (to me)

The thing about spoofs - they need to be funny. Otherwise they're just plain lame.

Anyway I've just followed the real George Aylett. Just because.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:37 pm

PorFavor wrote:Goodnight, everyone.

Night, PF. Sweet dreams.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:44 pm

citizenJA wrote:I posted this elsewhere & I'm still trying to sort it all out.
I don't fully understand Mr. Robert Chote's editorial post to the Guardian published a week ago.

Robert Chote: 'It is surely better to hold governments to account for what they say they will do, than for what we guess they might.'
Wednesday 11 March 2015
"Your editorial on the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility (9 March) completely misses the point of what parliament has asked us to do.
We have been asked to assess the outlook for the public finances on the basis of the government’s tax and spending policies as it currently expresses them, not on the basis of how we think they will or should evolve.
This promotes transparency and accountability. First, it forces governments to be explicit about what their policies are. Second, it allows us to explain their potential consequences. As you say, we pointed out in December that the coalition could only achieve the budget surplus it aimed for in 2019-20 by assuming that it would cut public services spending to its lowest share of national income since before the war.
This has prompted a lively debate about whether this would be desirable and politically achievable, and what the alternatives might be – questions that rightly lie beyond our remit. It is surely better to hold governments to account for what they say they will do, than for what we guess they might."
Robert Chote
Chairman, Office for Budget Responsibility

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ke-guesses

Ha! That's brilliant. Read between the lines and what he's basically hinting is that of course the Tories' plans wouldn't require the level of cuts the OBR pencilled in because, as we all know, as soon as they're re-elected they'll whack up VAT to 25%. However, Osborne keeps saying he has no plans to put up VAT, therefore the OBR has to assume he'll achieve his surplus through extremely deep cuts, because that's the only scenario that fits what Osborne has actually put on the record as opposed to what everyone suspects they'll do!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 8:50 pm

I posted elsewhere on the OBR's explanation of what their Uncertainty comments are against all of the policy decisions.

And so against:
Help to Buy: ISA
Annuities: secondary market

we have...Very High.

And Very High means...

Data
Very little data
Poor quality

Modelling
Significant modelling challenges
Multiple stages and/or high sensitivity on a range of unverifiable assumptions

Behaviour
No information on potential behaviour

i.e. not a fecking clue...Treasury plucked the numbers out of thin air.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:01 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:I posted elsewhere on the OBR's explanation of what their Uncertainty comments are against all of the policy decisions.

And so against:
Help to Buy: ISA
Annuities: secondary market

we have...Very High.

And Very High means...

Data
Very little data
Poor quality

Modelling
Significant modelling challenges
Multiple stages and/or high sensitivity on a range of unverifiable assumptions

Behaviour
No information on potential behaviour

i.e. not a fecking clue...Treasury plucked the numbers out of thin air.

I'm unconvinced the OBR are an efficacious organisation. Are they fit for purpose?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:02 pm

"Anyone worried about protecting the welfare state should concentrate on kicking out the Tories"
" That’s why I was disappointed to see some of the responses to my colleague, Rachel Reeves’ interview in the Guardian earlier this week. Rachel, like me, is passionate about ensuring a model of social welfare which retains its principles of inclusion, support and security for all; protecting anyone of us should we fall on hard times, assuring us of our dignity and the basics in life, and giving us a hand up, not a hand out. In her own words she told the Guardian interviewer: "

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/anyone-wo ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:11 pm

Oh for chrissake.

March 2015
Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Briefing

Robert Chote
Chairman Office for Budget Responsibility

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Robert Chote, Chairman of the OBR, and I would like to welcome you to this briefing on our final Economic and Fiscal Outlook of this Parliament. I am going to take you through some of the highlights of the publication and then we will be very happy to answer your questions. The slides and my speaking notes will be available after we finish.

As usual, most of the action takes place in the Government’s increasingly complicated medium-term spending assumption. In this Budget, the new assumption agreed by the Coalition delivers a slightly tighter squeeze on total spending through to 2018-19 and then a much looser one in 2019-20, so that total spending is no longer on course to reach its lowest share of GDP since before the war. In addition to its tax and spending decisions, the Government has also announced significant new sales of financial assets next year that help to get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling more quickly, but at the cost of forgoing future flows of revenue.

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/word ... ook324.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(my bold)

It's like play-acting - it gives legitimacy to Osborne's crap by 'walking us through it the budget'.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:11 pm

I like Debbie Abrahams a lot. Very sharp in committees and Parliament and constructive generally. I respect John McDonnell and others like him too, but there's a place for "loyal" people like Abrahams too.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:12 pm

citizenJA wrote:Oh for chrissake.
March 2015
Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Briefing

Robert Chote
Chairman Office for Budget Responsibility

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Robert Chote, Chairman of the OBR, and I would like to welcome you to this briefing on our final Economic and Fiscal Outlook of this Parliament. I am going to take you through some of the highlights of the publication and then we will be very happy to answer your questions. The slides and my speaking notes will be available after we finish.

As usual, most of the action takes place in the Government’s increasingly complicated medium-term spending assumption. In this Budget, the new assumption agreed by the Coalition delivers a slightly tighter squeeze on total spending through to 2018-19 and then a much looser one in 2019-20, so that total spending is no longer on course to reach its lowest share of GDP since before the war. In addition to its tax and spending decisions, the Government has also announced significant new sales of financial assets next year that help to get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling more quickly, but at the cost of forgoing future flows of revenue.

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/word ... ook324.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(my bold)

It's like play-acting - it gives legitimacy to Osborne's crap by 'walking us through it the budget'.

Or trying to be understandable by the wider public?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:13 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:"Anyone worried about protecting the welfare state should concentrate on kicking out the Tories"
" That’s why I was disappointed to see some of the responses to my colleague, Rachel Reeves’ interview in the Guardian earlier this week. Rachel, like me, is passionate about ensuring a model of social welfare which retains its principles of inclusion, support and security for all; protecting anyone of us should we fall on hard times, assuring us of our dignity and the basics in life, and giving us a hand up, not a hand out. In her own words she told the Guardian interviewer: "

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/anyone-wo ... he-tories/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good. Outstanding.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Oh for chrissake.
March 2015
Economic and Fiscal Outlook
Briefing

Robert Chote
Chairman Office for Budget Responsibility

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Robert Chote, Chairman of the OBR, and I would like to welcome you to this briefing on our final Economic and Fiscal Outlook of this Parliament. I am going to take you through some of the highlights of the publication and then we will be very happy to answer your questions. The slides and my speaking notes will be available after we finish.

As usual, most of the action takes place in the Government’s increasingly complicated medium-term spending assumption. In this Budget, the new assumption agreed by the Coalition delivers a slightly tighter squeeze on total spending through to 2018-19 and then a much looser one in 2019-20, so that total spending is no longer on course to reach its lowest share of GDP since before the war. In addition to its tax and spending decisions, the Government has also announced significant new sales of financial assets next year that help to get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling more quickly, but at the cost of forgoing future flows of revenue.

http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/word ... ook324.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(my bold)

It's like play-acting - it gives legitimacy to Osborne's crap by 'walking us through it the budget'.
Or trying to be understandable by the wider public?

Okay, the budget has been changed from that awful one that caused the Tory drop in polls so Osborne's given us a different one abandoning that & this one has new features including, "...significant new sales of financial assets next year that that help to get the debt-to-GDP ratio falling more quickly, but at the cost of forgoing future flows of revenue."

That's great, Tubby Isaacs, if people understand Chote's slideshow coming hot-on-heels of Chancellor Jeff's dogs breakfast today. Everything slick as a whistle catering to current government. Just how independent can this organisation be? What bothers me here is the same thing that bothered me about Cameron's antics yesterday. He's quoted over & over again he's the Prime Minister agreeing to do the PM job & that's going to be his one special broadcast & why are Labour & the other parties holding the debates up anyway? Osborne flat out lies on the floor of the house this afternoon & Chote's slideshow presentation follows glossing over lies just like the BBC buried 'the Prime Minister was a bit premature' to suggest he's getting his way, except he isn't, in an article full of Dave's arrogance & disdain for the democratic process.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 9:57 pm

The chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, Alison Garnham, said welfare cuts would hit low income families hard. “The claim that child poverty is down is only true if you ignore the impact of the chancellor’s big benefit cuts. Official child poverty statistics for the years in which benefit levels were cut and the benefit cap and bedroom tax were introduced will be published only after the election.”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... argets-ifs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The claim isn't true. Child poverty isn't down. Child poverty is up. Thanks to current government's choices. Please let the electorate thank the Tory-led coalition government for their difficult decisions. Come on, Dave. Drop your boys & show up to the scheduled broadcasts or get empty chaired. Cameron leads an offensively inadequate & self-indulgent pack who finagled & lied their way into positions unfairly taken. Osborne's claim that child poverty is down is only true if black is white & up is down.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:04 pm

Nick Clegg: Lib Dems are too 'male and pale'
Deputy prime minister laments lack of female MPs and those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds in radio interview

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... female-mps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just shut the hell up, you Tory-enabling loser. Don't talk anymore, Nick, it's ending badly. More noise from you brings further despair.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:06 pm

Who ate all the welsh cakes, please?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:09 pm

I don't want to be none PC or deemed to be an armchair diagnostic attemptee But....
Is it possible RR is a little on the Asperger's spectrum? She hardly blinks, talks in a fast but measured way, sort of - I will say this because this is what I want/ need to say, and holds her head up in a stiff, almost disciplined way. She is exceedingly clever and it seems girls/women are the most adapt at concealing AS, as they try so hard to conform, and normally succeed.
It springs to mind as I have a relative who - in a lot of ways - is a lot like RR and after years of "blunt" speaking (that caused a lot of rows & misunderstandings!) at the age of 48 paid for a test and was found to be border line AS.
Just a thought because although I am a tribalist, she does leave me thinking Oh NO! Why did you say that, in that way! there are so many nicer ways you could have put it!

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:15 pm

I've never heard Rachael Reeves speak.
I've read Hansard & her other writing but I realise tonight I've never heard her speak.
I've never found her words objectionable.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:18 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:I don't want to be none PC or deemed to be an armchair diagnostic attemptee But....
Is it possible RR is a little on the Asperger's spectrum? She hardly blinks, talks in a fast but measured way, sort of - I will say this because this is what I want/ need to say, and holds her head up in a stiff, almost disciplined way. She is exceedingly clever and it seems girls/women are the most adapt at concealing AS, as they try so hard to conform, and normally succeed.
It springs to mind as I have a relative who - in a lot of ways - is a lot like RR and after years of "blunt" speaking (that caused a lot of rows & misunderstandings!) at the age of 48 paid for a test and was found to be border line AS.
Just a thought because although I am a tribalist, she does leave me thinking Oh NO! Why did you say that, in that way! there are so many nicer ways you could have put it!

As I said to somebody on Twitter today, when I posted the fuller Amelia Gentleman version, if Reeves had put the word "simply" into that sentence ("....we are not simply the party of people on benefits") it would have made more sense and fitted the context and sentiment of the article; that, I suspect, was what she meant. Oh, needless to say I was told to sod off.

Post by **adam** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:31 pm

YouGov/Sun

Lab 34 (-2)
Con 33 (-1)
Ukip 14(+2)
Lib 8 (+1)
Green 6 (-)

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:36 pm

Doesn't this say everything?

Dan F Hodges has the lead story on the DT front page.

George Osborne got the economics right. That's what has killed Labour
Labour's foxes have been killed in the most boring way imaginable: sensible economic policy

With all of the writers that the DT have and had at their disposal how the fuck did this tosser become their lead political writer?

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:39 pm

CON 33%, LAB 34%, LD 8%, UKIP 14%, GRN 6%

tonight's Yougov

eta: oops, someone beat me to it.

Post by **adam** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:39 pm

RobertSnozers wrote: Very cheap 'brother' and 'two kitchen' gags.

Labour are suggesting that in fact they were very very expensive jokes.

Did Osborne spend £80million to make fun of Labour?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:50 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:I don't want to be none PC or deemed to be an armchair diagnostic attemptee But....
Is it possible RR is a little on the Asperger's spectrum? She hardly blinks, talks in a fast but measured way, sort of - I will say this because this is what I want/ need to say, and holds her head up in a stiff, almost disciplined way. She is exceedingly clever and it seems girls/women are the most adapt at concealing AS, as they try so hard to conform, and normally succeed.
It springs to mind as I have a relative who - in a lot of ways - is a lot like RR and after years of "blunt" speaking (that caused a lot of rows & misunderstandings!) at the age of 48 paid for a test and was found to be border line AS.
Just a thought because although I am a tribalist, she does leave me thinking Oh NO! Why did you say that, in that way! there are so many nicer ways you could have put it!
As I said to somebody on Twitter today, when I posted the fuller Amelia Gentleman version, if Reeves had put the word "simply" into that sentence ("....we are not simply the party of people on benefits") it would have made more sense and fitted the context and sentiment of the article; that, I suspect, was what she meant. Oh, needless to say I was told to sod off.

Had the same experience.

To be fair, opponents of all sorts seize on slips like that. Miliband went after Kenneth Clarke for "serious rapes", which sounded awful but he meant the most serious ones very clearly. Sentencing varies, so the system already recognized that some rapes were more "serious" than others. I didn't like Miliband doing that.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:50 pm

Hmm...Duncan Weldon on Newsnight said that the reduction in debt interest was due to lower interest rates.

Well up to a point Lord Copper - there's a significant reduction due to Osborne taking the interest saving from the debt owned by the Bank of England back into the Treasury.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 10:57 pm

David Gauke trying to justify Osborne's boast about Britain "paying its way in the world"...with a chart behind him showing our current account deficit getting worse. But look at unemployment! And other squirrels!

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:02 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Doesn't this say everything?

Dan F Hodges has the lead story on the DT front page.

George Osborne got the economics right. That's what has killed Labour
Labour's foxes have been killed in the most boring way imaginable: sensible economic policy
With all of the writers that the DT have and had at their disposal how the fuck did this tosser become their lead political writer?

Because everyone else there has quit/been fired?

Hodges has no journalistic principles so is happy to just parrot whatever the Barclay Brothers feed him. I imagine he's also pretty cheap.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:06 pm

Leaders' debate: Cameron and Miliband set to face Jeremy Paxman next week

http://gu.com/p/46nxc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' The plans appear to have emerged from back-channel negotiations at the weekend.

Broadcasting sources confirmed that the announcement would be made on Thursday morning. '

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:15 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Leaders' debate: Cameron and Miliband set to face Jeremy Paxman next week

http://gu.com/p/46nxc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' The plans appear to have emerged from back-channel negotiations at the weekend.

Broadcasting sources confirmed that the announcement would be made on Thursday morning. '

Paxman, June 2014, said he was a One Nation Tory.

How can he be put up to interview Cameron?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:15 pm

It isn't often Crace manages to be amusing; but...

And please do sit down.....

This is quite good.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ing-rabbit

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:23 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Leaders' debate: Cameron and Miliband set to face Jeremy Paxman next week

http://gu.com/p/46nxc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' The plans appear to have emerged from back-channel negotiations at the weekend.

Broadcasting sources confirmed that the announcement would be made on Thursday morning. '

Ruddy hell. Who on earth wants Paxman and a boring ruddy interview? We get interviews all the time, all year round. I've really enjoyed the Ask the Leaders and Free Speech shows precisely because they've been something different. And I still don't see how you can offer twice as many debates to the minor parties than you are offering to Labour, the main opposition.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:26 pm

TechnicalEphemera wrote:It isn't often Crace manages to be amusing; but...

And please do sit down.....

This is quite good.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ing-rabbit

Bit lame at the end but yes a great improvement! What strikes me is that he isn't writing to some proscribed story (e.g. Miliband is weird) but actually describing what he saw. Good satire.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:26 pm

Goodnight everyone
love
ja

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:32 pm

Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Leaders' debate: Cameron and Miliband set to face Jeremy Paxman next week

http://gu.com/p/46nxc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' The plans appear to have emerged from back-channel negotiations at the weekend.

Broadcasting sources confirmed that the announcement would be made on Thursday morning. '
Ruddy hell. Who on earth wants Paxman and a boring ruddy interview? We get interviews all the time, all year round. I've really enjoyed the Ask the Leaders and Free Speech shows precisely because they've been something different. And I still don't see how you can offer twice as many debates to the minor parties than you are offering to Labour, the main opposition.

Didn't Cameron want confessed Tory Paxman to stand for Mayor? He's so not impartial.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:39 pm

Interviews with big name interviewers should happen all the time, as they used to.

That they're now considered a special favour for the elections tells you a lot.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:45 pm

Caroline Lucas ‏@CarolineLucas 8 mins8 minutes ago
RT @azulklein: Thanks @CarolineLucas for supporting ucu lobby today to support adult education < pleased to - FE needs more resources! @ucu

You might wish to bring this up with Nicola Sturgeon next time you're providing her with free rebranding.

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:46 pm

Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Leaders' debate: Cameron and Miliband set to face Jeremy Paxman next week

http://gu.com/p/46nxc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' The plans appear to have emerged from back-channel negotiations at the weekend.

Broadcasting sources confirmed that the announcement would be made on Thursday morning. '
Ruddy hell. Who on earth wants Paxman and a boring ruddy interview? We get interviews all the time, all year round. I've really enjoyed the Ask the Leaders and Free Speech shows precisely because they've been something different. And I still don't see how you can offer twice as many debates to the minor parties than you are offering to Labour, the main opposition.

I think the plan is:

Miliband and Cameron do this non debate with Paxman
Then we have the 7 way debate
Then the minor party one with UKIP, Greens, SNP and Plaid
Then a 3 man Question Time like thing with Cameron, Miliband and Clegg (separately obviously, because otherwise Dave might cry).

So Miliband and Cameron get 3 events each, while the others get 2 (and Clegg gets one last ego massage from being on the big boy show with Miliband and Cameron, rather than forced to go on the minibus with the other minor parties)

I may be wrong, but I think that's where we are now.

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:52 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:Leaders' debate: Cameron and Miliband set to face Jeremy Paxman next week

http://gu.com/p/46nxc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

' The plans appear to have emerged from back-channel negotiations at the weekend.

Broadcasting sources confirmed that the announcement would be made on Thursday morning. '
Ruddy hell. Who on earth wants Paxman and a boring ruddy interview? We get interviews all the time, all year round. I've really enjoyed the Ask the Leaders and Free Speech shows precisely because they've been something different. And I still don't see how you can offer twice as many debates to the minor parties than you are offering to Labour, the main opposition.
Didn't Cameron want confessed Tory Paxman to stand for Mayor? He's so not impartial.

The other problem with Paxman is that he turns everything into a showboating confrontation. The great thing about the debates last time was having questions from the public, rather than the same old Westminster tittle tattle stuff you tend to get from the media. Hopefully Paxman's role in this will just be facilitating questions from the audience rather than his usual barracking act.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Wed 18 Mar, 2015 11:53 pm

So Paxo, confessed Tory for Miliband.

Suspected Labour supporter Eddie Mair for Cameron.

That's fair.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 12:11 am

Interesting fact gleaned from Newsnight when discussing the "better off than in 2010"...

The metric that Osborne used for this not only has a forecast in for 2015 but also includes an amount for imputed rent based on house prices so if house prices rise so does household "income"!

Sounds like cheating to me - people feel richer when house prices rise so therefore they are even if that is only on paper and not realised.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 12:17 am

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 12:18 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Interesting fact gleaned from Newsnight when discussing the "better off than in 2010"...

The metric that Osborne used for this not only has a forecast in for 2015 but also includes an amount for imputed rent based on house prices so if house prices rise so does household "income"!

Sounds like cheating to me - people feel richer when house prices rise so therefore they are even if that is only on paper and not realised.

And of course house prices should rise normally. Just like kids should get taller every year.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 12:19 am

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

But then a 4.3% increase in 2019/20 which makes no sense whatsoever.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 19 Mar, 2015 12:27 am

Well, in a funny sorda way, it makes perfect sense.