• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Is Cameron running scared?

It's turned into a complete farce with the inclusion of UKIP, The Greens etc. And exactly why the SNP are even getting air space considering they don't even want to be a part of the UK is just plain stupid. I personally think Cameron has missed a perfect opportunity to test Milliband in debate away from the dispatch box and he may well live to regret it.
 
It's turned into a complete farce with the inclusion of UKIP, The Greens etc. And exactly why the SNP are even getting air space considering they don't even want to be a part of the UK is just plain stupid. I personally think Cameron has missed a perfect opportunity to test Milliband in debate away from the dispatch box and he may well live to regret it.
SNP point is a bit like UKIP getting air space at the EU elections....

agreed on Cameron testing Milliband - not taking that opportunity is just plain wrong
 
What has amused me is that I have just that No 10 claim Ed doesn't want a 7 way debate because he is frightened of The Greens. Reality is that Ed has agreed the multi leader debate AND wants the one on one debate that Cameron is refusing. Is Cameron unaware of&nbsp;the Green's leader Natalie Bennett's car crash stuttering interview and IS membership clangers - at the moment politicians would be queuing up to debate with her not running off.<br><br>Of all the bogus excuses that one is hilariously transparent.
 
Strange though that he sees the best mode of debate is the one that allows him as little time to speak as possible.
Spend millions on electioneering then when a chunk is offered for free try to use as little of it as possible. Not sound economics there.

Not really that strange. The millions they spend on electioneering is on their terms and, in theory, only serves to help their cause. The debates on the other hand could have an adverse affect on their position of strength so they will try and engineer it to suit their needs the best, include parties that could take votes from the competition etc.
 
It's turned into a complete farce with the inclusion of UKIP, The Greens etc. And exactly why the SNP are even getting air space considering they don't even want to be a part of the UK is just plain stupid. I personally think Cameron has missed a perfect opportunity to test Milliband in debate away from the dispatch box and he may well live to regret it.

The problem for Camerscum is that away from the dispatch box he can't claim parliamentary privilege when he lies, or just gets it plain wrong like he did when he didn't know the difference between deficit and debt.
 
The problem for Camerscum is that away from the dispatch box he can't claim parliamentary privilege when he lies, or just gets it plain wrong like he did when he didn't know the difference between deficit and debt.

Agreed and more to the point, why on earth does he want to force this debate before the manifestos come out..That alone is ridiculous. He was quiet happy in 2010 to push for these debates now he is running like a rat into a sewer.
 
Debates will go ahead.:smiles:

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.
The BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky News said they would forge ahead with plans for three debates in April.
Two of these are scheduled to include seven party leaders with a head-to-head between David Cameron and Ed Miliband.
The broadcasters have urged Mr Cameron to reconsider his decision only to appear in one seven-way encounter.
The BBC's political correspondent Alex Forsyth said the broadcasters were saying they were prepared to "empty chair" the prime minister by going ahead without him.
She said the broadcasters believed there was still room for negotiation with No 10 but that they had made the "big decision" that were going to go ahead as planned.
As it stands, the broadcasters have said three debates will go ahead as originally planned on the 2nd, 16th and 30th April.
David Cameron has said he will not take part in a one-on-one encounter with Ed Miliband, which is due to take place on April 30, a week before the election.
The prime minister has said the negotiations over the debates has been "chaotic" and that his "final offer" is to appear in one debate before 30 March - alongside six other party leaders - ahead of the campaign.
Downing Street has yet to respond to the broadcasters' joint statement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31771198
 
It makes no difference tbh...turnout will be ****...no overall majority giving the tories the choice of a coalition with the snp or a national alliance government....its a sad state of affairs
 
It makes no difference tbh...turnout will be ****...no overall majority giving the tories the choice of a coalition with the snp or a national alliance government....its a sad state of affairs
Labour-Lib Dem coalition is my guess with maybe SNP adding some form of support. SNP have stated that they wouldn't support a Tory minority government and I can't foresee anyway they would move from that position.
 
Neither of these forecasts wil come true.

Mystic Meg,:winking:

I think the 1st one will and I think the tories will get the most seats. I'd be interested to know whether you think it would be right/just for a party who get the most seats not to take power because of a coalition of two other parties? I'm certainly not a tory but in my mind that wouldn't be right, I had great respect for the lib dems doing the right thing last time round when a coalition with labour would probably have been closer to their political ideals.
 
I think the 1st one will and I think the tories will get the most seats. I'd be interested to know whether you think it would be right/just for a party who get the most seats not to take power because of a coalition of two other parties? I'm certainly not a tory but in my mind that wouldn't be right, I had great respect for the lib dems doing the right thing last time round when a coalition with labour would probably have been closer to their political ideals.

You seem to forget that it came out after the coalition was formed that the Lib Dems were also secretly talking to Labour about a coalition. Their only stipulation was that Gordon Brown step down, which Labour refused, so they broke off talks.

This had nothing to do with the Lib Dems doing the right thing, and everything to do with not getting what they wanted.

As for your first question, I don't think it really matters. Don't forget that the number of seats of the coalition (should there be one) is the main point, because the party with the greatest number of MPs didn't get enough to win it outright, which means more constituencies didn't vote for them than did.

I accept it would be a bit odd, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
You seem to forget that it came out after the coalition was formed that the Lib Dems were also secretly talking to Labour about a coalition. Their only stipulation was that Gordon Brown step down, which Labour refused, so they broke off talks.

This had nothing to do with the Lib Dems doing the right thing, and everything to do with not getting what they wanted.

As for your first question, I don't think it really matters. Don't forget that the number of seats of the coalition (should there be one) is the main point, because the party with the greatest number of MPs didn't get enough to win it outright, which means more constituencies didn't vote for them than did.

I accept it would be a bit odd, but I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Is that fact or conjecture? I know it wassuggested but I never saw any report that convinced me it was the case. I knowNick Clegg said words to the effect that he thought it was the only right thingto do when the coalition was formed.

To be honest I&#8217;m uneasywith any type of coalition government, you vote for a party for their policiesand the policies you vote for may be compromised to entice a coalition partnerto form government with. To me that doesn&#8217;t seem like democracy. I think theparty with the most seats should hold office. Well actually I think it shouldbe the most votes not the most seats, but that is another discussion
 
Is that fact or conjecture? I know it wassuggested but I never saw any report that convinced me it was the case. I knowNick Clegg said words to the effect that he thought it was the only right thingto do when the coalition was formed.

To be honest I&#8217;m uneasywith any type of coalition government, you vote for a party for their policiesand the policies you vote for may be compromised to entice a coalition partnerto form government with. To me that doesn&#8217;t seem like democracy. I think theparty with the most seats should hold office. Well actually I think it shouldbe the most votes not the most seats, but that is another discussion

I believe it was reported in the press. There was certainly an article about it in the Guardian.

As for coalitions in general, I agree with you, I don't like the idea of any coalition. I just don't think the size of each party matters.
 
This topic/thread is, for me, the BIGGEST election issue; over NHS, Immigration, Defence etc. I was undecided BUT I am now strongly considering voting Lib Dem because of this issue. The tax threshold has risen & they promise more, the min wage likewise. I don't think they have cat in hells chance of winning BUT they may yet again be in a position to mediate and moderate either the loony left or right.
 
This topic/thread is, for me, the BIGGEST election issue; over NHS, Immigration, Defence etc. I was undecided BUT I am now strongly considering voting Lib Dem because of this issue. The tax threshold has risen & they promise more, the min wage likewise. I don't think they have cat in hells chance of winning BUT they may yet again be in a position to mediate and moderate either the loony left or right.

Two words, UNIVERSITY FEES.
 
Two words, UNIVERSITY FEES.

There had to be *some* price for them going in to coalition. It's the stick that everyone continues to beat them with, but whoever goes in to a coalition after this GE will also need to back down on some pre-election commitments in order to try and form a government. That's how it is going to be now so I suppose we may as well get used to it.
 
Back
Top