You're blinkered. Cameron's rhetoric seemed robotic and unconvincing.

You're blinkered. Cameron's rhetoric seemed robotic and unconvincing.

 

Purposely done though I think. I think for both the Milliband and Cameron this type of debate is a lose-lose. Neither can really have the same conviction in their speeches as the other minority party leaders as both of them are the only people who could actually be Prime Minister. Both tried to attack and score points off each, but it's a bit more difficult when you have others trying to wade in as well. I think David Cameron tried to put his points about as best he could, and Ed Milliband saw it as an attempt to try and boost his general popularity (yes Ed we can definitely see you have had some very creepy media training!!!).

Indeed Cameron purposely sat in the sidelines and couldnt wait for the proceedings to end. He was like a footballer who played the 90mins with the ball at the corner flag. Hope people seen how shifty he was.

I did. When asked a direct question about financing the NHS he completely avoided giving an answer and instead rattled on about his son for some sympathy and to divert attention. Most of his answers were well-rehearsed "usual suspect" soundbites. There was no sincerity, no personality, it was media-speak-boll*cks.

 

What I'd like is to hook them all up to an electric-shock podium, and everytime one uses cliches like "hard working families" or fails to answer a question yes or no (assuming it is one that can be answered that simply), they get a shock and buzzers and lights go off, and they lose their ability to comment.

 

Would be a very short programme.

Indeed Cameron purposely sat in the sidelines and couldnt wait for the proceedings to end. He was like a footballer who played the 90mins with the ball at the corner flag. Hope people seen how shifty he was.

Which, of course, is why he didn't want a two-way debate with Miliband or a three-way debate with Miliband and Clegg. Both formats would have meant that he would need to say more, thereby giving people more chance to see how poorly he performed.

You're blinkered. Cameron's rhetoric seemed robotic and unconvincing.

 

His delivery/performance was not great, but I feel the Tories' main message of "we need to keep cutting spending to get the deficit down" is getting through. If you asked random people on the street, I think quite a few would say that if you asked what the Tories' main message was (even though many would disagree with that message). On the other hand, if you asked those same people what the main message of Labour's campaign was, I think you'd get blank stares all round.

Which, of course, is why he didn't want a two-way debate with Miliband or a three-way debate with Miliband and Clegg. Both formats would have meant that he would need to say more, thereby giving people more chance to see how poorly he performed.

 

 

Exactly i hope Milliband can point this out more to people but he cant even do this in the opposition debate. Typical the PM gets away with dominating the timing and the make up of the debates - democracy my arse.

His delivery/performance was not great, but I feel the Tories' main message of "we need to keep cutting spending to get the deficit down" is getting through. If you asked random people on the street, I think quite a few would say that if you asked what the Tories' main message was (even though many would disagree with that message). On the other hand, if you asked those same people what the main message of Labour's campaign was, I think you'd get blank stares all round.

 

 

Its understanding theres a deficit that will be brought down but ensuring theres growth in the economy and creating a more fairer capitalism that government intervenes in to create markets that work for people!

Miliband has a positive approval rating (more people saying they think he's doing well as leader than say he's doing badly) for the first time since his first few weeks as leader in 2010.

 

Still a few points behind Cameron, though.

Its understanding theres a deficit that will be brought down but ensuring theres growth in the economy and creating a more fairer capitalism that government intervenes in to create markets that work for people!

Catchy.

Straight from Edwards mouth ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/S...id-Cameron.html

 

Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/S...id-Cameron.html

 

Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...

In many ways, a dream scenario for the next few years for the SNP would be

 

1) A Tory majority in May

2) A vote to leave the EU in a 2017 referendum with no provision that all four nations have to vote to leave

3) A new referendum on independence

 

The likelihood is that Scotland would prefer to remain in the EU rather than staying with a UK outside the EU. This is the big paradox for Tory right-wingers. Their dream of leaving the EU could well lead to the break-up of the UK. One day, some of them might begin to understand that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/S...id-Cameron.html

 

Taking this with a pinch of salt, but a lot have been wondering...

 

I thought this was common knowledge!? A Tory win is the best option for the SNP long term. It only strengthens their core message and power in Scotland. A Labour win will lessen their power as they would make concessions that a Tory government wouldn't.

I thought this was common knowledge!? A Tory win is the best option for the SNP long term. It only strengthens their core message and power in Scotland. A Labour win will lessen their power as they would make concessions that a Tory government wouldn't.

It's common knowledge that strategically a Tory win would help the SNP a lot more than otherwise, but it would harm them if they were seen to be doing anything to make that happen given so much of their current vote is the anti-Tory vote transferring from Labour to the SNP. Given how fanatical so much of the SNP vote is though I can see it just being dismissed as a conspiracy theory, even though there's no obvious reason for the Telegraph to make this up - they want to see the SNP do well as it's in the Conservatives' interests that they take as many seats off Labour as possible to reduce Labour's legitimacy when it comes to confidence and supply talks.

It's also common knowledge that Ed Miliband isn't Prime Minister material.

It's also common knowledge that Ed Miliband isn't Prime Minister material.

Are you actually related to Grant Shapps or is it just a weird crush?

It's also common knowledge that Ed Miliband isn't Prime Minister material.

That isn't so much knowledge as an opinion. What is Prime Minister material, having a square jawline and saying 'Let me be very clear about this' while holding your fist in front of your tits?

Gosh, it's just a joke. Lighten up!

It's common knowledge that strategically a Tory win would help the SNP a lot more than otherwise, but it would harm them if they were seen to be doing anything to make that happen given so much of their current vote is the anti-Tory vote transferring from Labour to the SNP. Given how fanatical so much of the SNP vote is though I can see it just being dismissed as a conspiracy theory, even though there's no obvious reason for the Telegraph to make this up - they want to see the SNP do well as it's in the Conservatives' interests that they take as many seats off Labour as possible to reduce Labour's legitimacy when it comes to confidence and supply talks.

 

They won't have made up the memo, but the civil servant who wrote the memo says he suspects Sturgeon had not actually said it and that it was probably lost in translation! It's pretty desperate stuff for Labour to be trying to make hay out of this.

 

 

It's also common knowledge that Ed Miliband isn't Prime Minister material.

 

Also, tbf, it's possible to think Ed isn't PM material, while still preferring him over the greater evil of Cameron.

Edited April 4, 201510 yr by Danny