Good stuff! Will be following.
The live stream, but it looks like you need Microsoft Silverlight installed:http://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/leadersdebatelive
It's about Nick Clegg-end. That was supposed to sound like legend...
I thought the official ICM audience was a ratio of Labour - Tory - Lib Dem 7:7:5 - Where are your Labour fans!?Or do you just not have any Labour friends/ Nouse staff writers?
Actual quote from Pete "loose cannon" Benbow: "If I get mentioned in this blog I'm actually going to become a journalism... er... journalist."
Yeah, body language is really important - but also very subtle. You won't suddenly not vote Tory because of bad body language, but it might help create a generally less positive image of Cameron for example.
The mere idea of a television debate between candidates goes completely against my views of what a general election should be about... But i cant get enough of the drama!
At least the set for the debate doesn't look like a reject 70s gameshow
My younger sister is watching the debate and said of Gordon Brown, while laughing: "He's so ugly". Sums it up nicely I think.
This is going to be my only post as I'm blogging for http://theyorker.co.uk (also Vision is doing one to remain impartial :P) - sorry!
Clegg's hammering them on Europe. Christ.Good call on announcing he's pro-Referendum.
Thanks for that ~J...anyone else want to randomly tell us why they're only going to post once tonight?
Another HILARIOUS gag there from Fugly Brown.
Nick is anti-American and David is anti-European. Well that's nice and rational, not that Gordon is scare-mongering at all!
Brown's bathtime plug's so painfully pre-prepared it hurts to watch.
I'm sorry, how is Nick Clegg going to get the right equipment by reducing defense spending?
OMG fuck you Nick Clegg, the Eurofighter Typhoon is sick
Alastair Campbell's Twitter feed's a barrel of laughs.http://twitter.com/campbellclaret"GB bath-time jibe very good. Looking substantial as other two look a bit weak and out of their depth"
By spending less on the things that he believes aren't needed, as he said. So the money is being saved there. Then it's feasible (if he's getting rid of Trident and the Eurofighter Typhoon) to have money to properly equip troops.
cameron and brown decide to agree on something they are unreal
I'm on a train so this is really helpful- thanks guys
"Get Real, Nick"...Has he prepared every answer in advance?
I'm sorry, but how does what the Prime Minister's carbon footprint have to with their ability to govern the UK?
Don't panic everyone, Gordon has a solar panel.
cameron tries to joke his attempt at climate change are the joke he isn't interested in climate change just making false economic claims
Cant choose : it has a massive effect there view once elected is own view
@@Can't Choose: Trident itself isn't expensive to maintain, and I'm assuming either party will buy trident on credit. Also equipping troops is very normative, the answer is to stop involving our armed forces in different nation's conflict
thats it bring up the dead man unreal
The last word on Europe. Good Good
Big Society at home...Little Britain abroad.His speech writer should get a job with the Daily Mirror.
Nick Clegg *is* Hugh Grant in Love Actually.
OMG HE IS!!!
To be fair you can't criticise Nick Clegg for saying he won't equip troops properly by cutting defence and then suggest we don't go to war. Surely not entering into war is a result of cutting defence, and vice versa. Clegg wouldn't take us to war.
there is a gut yawning in the audience while brown speaks can relate to that :)
You cant say he wouldnt take us to war given the situation he may approach it differently if war was an absolute know one would fail to send us but there are ways and means to every situation
True true, it does depend on circumstances. I didn't mean that to sound quite so dogmatic, I just meant to defend Clegg's views on the militiary. Brown doing pretty well tonight I would say.
PS59 a week.....That truly is shocking! That has gone down in line with income since 1997...
brown has much more presence tonight although doing well is debatable :)
Ah! The Big Society returns.
camerons savings he's unreal he brings the tax front up again his economic plans will take us to the pits but because he mention lowering job tax will we all jump with out assesing the repercutions
Hung Parliament's have been so successful in the past... remembering winter of discontent because of an inability to act. I'd rather Labour win than a hung parliament...
"a budget deficit the same size as greece" ok that did it - get outside posh boy
@Jo, how is increasing the cost of employing British workers by increasing the social security contribution of businesses going to help our economy?
Go Clegg with the immigration send them where there needed purpose and place spot on
I'm glad you haven't got Laura "Red til' I die" Connor blogging this. Her non-objectivity makes me wince
@Can't Choose I'm not saying increase or decrease tax what im saying is cameron puts out false ploys he uses it like bait on a hook suggesting he will decrease but if people bite and he takes power tax wont be our major issue avoiding total ruin will
He's done well there with the "You don't even know where they live" line. Go on Nick!
I'm sorry, we're not isolated now? After a war which split Europe and has encouraged extremism in our own country??
I'm voting BNP, this was poor
Wow! Ali Matheson....can I have your number?? You're looking fit!
Leave off ladies, he's mine ;)
It's so on Hogarth-Jones!
But he is fittttttttttttt though
Well Done Charlotte & Ali, really impressive blogging!!Shame the debate wasn't more interesting
Nick Clegg wants to get rid of trident? Brilliant! Let's allow the North Koreans and other irresponsible governments have nuclear weapons and leave us vulnerable to attack, fantastic. Also, the ambiguety of all their immigration policies needs reforming, I actually like Labour the most in that respect. Regional based immigration or an unknown cap (could be cripplingly small). Neither sound progressive.
Not sexually gratifying at all, wished i had seen gordons nipples.
Just in case anyone is thinking of voting for him because of this here is the maths.....Number of UK students in UK universities: 1.96 million (lets call it 2 million)Tuition fee's per year: PS3200ish (call it PS3000)That makes total tuition fees paid....PS6000 millionAmount Clegg is putting up to 'scrap' tuition fees in 2010: PS600 millionThis is only 1/10th of the amount needed (or in other words PS300 per student).By the end of his 5 years this will increase to PS1700m, but that is still only one third less, not all.Don't be taken in!
Nouse you have done a fabulous job, huzzah!!!
"I'm glad you haven't got Laura "Red til' I die" Connor blogging this. Her non-objectivity makes me wince"You should try her cooking...
@Still Apathetic Potential missile range of North Korea. http://www.nti.org/images/photo_e_issue1a.gifThe american star wars thing in Poland or wherever there gunna build it would protect us anyway innit.Atleast now you are informed as well as apathetic.
@Still ApatheticNorth Korea and Iran aint gonna be attacking us soon. We are more likely to be attacked by a dirty bomb by an enemy by a group who has no 'state' to strike back against. In terms of the 'we dont know what will happen in the future' argument, Trident will still defend us for the next 20 years. We need to live in the here and now. We have an enormous budget deficit, under equipped troops with massive cuts in public spending coming our way. We could really do with the Trident money to divert it into more urgent issues.Once the economy is fixed and our house in order, we can then think about developing our nuclear deterrent. We at least need a debate about the issue, something which Labour and the Cons are refusing to do. Why does this government always ignore the advice of independent specialists unless its what they want to hear?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Socialist_Party. the future.
"Once the economy is fixed and our house in order, we can then think about developing our nuclear deterrent..."> Our nuclear deterrant is not something to play around with based on the state of our economy. As long as nuclear weapons exist in the hands of potential rogue states and proliferation amongst other states continues (Iran, Syria), we keep ours. Simple. R.E- Typhoon/major defence projects- All are vital to maintaining the ability to project power around the world. A seat on the UN Security Council and the second-largest military in NATO gives us a duty to maintain and develop these capabilities. Where we could realistically cut back troops (or redeploy troops) are on the border plains of Germany where we still insist on basing 12,000 men and heavy armour. The real reason for this though is that there are not enough bases in the UK to keep them all.Finally, in fairness to Labour, troops are the best equipped they have been for many, many years. Barracks are increasingly of a high standard and the weaponary and protection now offered to troops operating in Afghanistan is extremely high. Now, they need to work on how troops are treated on returning from conflict, the decline of military-only hospitals and continuing to repair the military covenant that has been completely neglected by this government, inspite of the fact they have used our forces on such a frequent basis.
Anybody else surprised that the papers are saying that Cameron won? I would say that out of all three of them he was the one that clearly lost.In my living room it came across like this:Cameron - looked like a Civil Servant - he knew what he was talking about, he's just such an idiot that I wouldn't want him with any decision making powerBrown - looked like an expert - he knows his stuff, and he knows it well. Get that man in the house of Lords and give him some QUANGOs to play withClegg - looked like a statesman - again Clegg had the balance and charisma that the others massively lack. Totally agree with the Hugh Grant in Love Actually commentsSo how does Cameron come out on top?
Unless you were being sarcastic about Brown looking like an expert.
He looked like an expert when in the same room as Cameron, who looked like he knew less than Clegg. Impressively poor performance *again* from Cameron despite dubious polls suggesting he did well. The "common people" just prefer Tory immigration policies, as we all knew. Economy is the big one, however, and it could go any way. The election still hangs in the balance.
"The "common people" just prefer Tory immigration policies, as we all knew"Nice and enlightened there ~J
Hi ~J, you're right, the economy is the big one. However, I'm going to argue your last point that this is an issue on which all parties are equal and I'll be surprised if you can bring up a good counter-argument to this point.Normal economic theory states that while boom and bust is inevitable, borrowing can and should be used to make the bust less painful.Brown has often stated (and continues to state) that no-one could have predicted the recession.That's part true, because while few people were predicting it happening like it did when it did, Brown must have been incredibly arrogant and complacent to believe he had solved boom and bust.The fact is that under Brown as Chancellor we did not obey the above economic rule. The government continued to borrow even while we were in a boom (and should have been paying off debts).Now we have entered the inevitable recession, it doesn't look like we'll get out soon, we're in debt, and the pension's crisis is on the horizon.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3333125.stm* Obviously, these views and opinions are mine personally, and are made solely in my capacity as a normal student
"The fact is that under Brown as Chancellor we did not obey the above economic rule. The government continued to borrow even while we were in a boom (and should have been paying off debts)."Ali, this particular assertion is not correct. Regardless of boom and bust, every government needs to borrow - and that's because the quickest and surest way to raise money is by issuing government bonds. As long as interest rates are low and the debt-GDP ratio is low, this course of action is perfectly reasonable.Prior to the recession, the UK's debt stood at 40% of GDP. This was actually quite low - one of the lowest in the developed world in fact. It was well bellow the EU-recommended limit of 60-80% and much lower than the national debt of France (70%), Germany (78%) Italy (115%), not to mention Japan (190%).The main problem the UK faces right now is not its debt (which is still not disproportionately large), but its deficit. During 2010, the British government will have to spend PS160bn more than it has. That's of course necessary in order to sustain growth, but the fact remains that for every 4 pounds the government will spend, one will be borrowed.So, unless this deficit is cut quickly and dramatically, Britain's debt will become a serious problem; it will exceed 100% of GDP within the next 4-5 years. This will mean that, on an annual basis, you will have to commit more money than you spend on defence just to pay interest rates.
> this particular assertion is not correct.Well I don't think you disproved what I wrote, more provided examples that we weren't the only ones.
You are not the only ones in this situation, that's of course true. It is not true, however, that Britain had large levels of debt prior to the recession. It is also not true that governments only need to borrow money during times of economic downturn. As for Brown's performance as Chancellor, the UK's national debt (as % of GDP) did in fact fall over the 1997-2007 period - http://tiny.cc/bi5os
Ali, your point on Brown not obeying the economic rule is correct - but during the decade before that (under both Major and Thatcher) the rule was ignored too. Indeed the Conservatives agreed with what Labour were doing, for the most part. There were a minority (and I am included in that minority) who disagreed with Labour even whilst it was accepted in general by economists; Vince Cable among them. This is *not* an issue on which all parties are equal but it's an issue that could end up leaning to any party because, hey, life's not fair.Gordon Brown has been the instigator of several policies adopted by other world leaders. Gordon Brown was doing his job in a similar way to many others in similar positions. The economic issues were started, for the most part, in the USA and the recession is international - ergo Labour could do well.Cameron and the Conservatives were not in charge during the collapse and disagreed with several Labour economic measures. They disagreed with getting us into this amount of debt and, though I would argue that the debt was necessary in stopping us from suffering further, they could do well in the debate.Lib Dems have Vince Cable and most people know that he was the only one of the main three that knew what was going on - but at the same time the Lib Dems don't have as much experience and it's not Cable out there fighting for them. So whilst my automatic response would be the guess that the Lib Dems are likely to win this debate as well, it's not clear cut!
Make sure you i want to know in the event that you're searching for a creator for ones web site. You've several really good threads and I think We is a beneficial resource. If people wish to get some of the heap off of, I'd really like to publish a few product to your weblog inturn for the hyperlink to quarry. Make sure you blast me a contact if fascinated. Appreciate it!http://connerbghj420863.shotblogs.com/a-review-of-web-design-development-company-1229374