Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Leaders' Mass Debate

Who won it for you?


  • Total voters
    97
Which party is that? Do you mean the single-issue nationalist party, traditionally rightist, which has borrowed anti-capitalist clothes in order to attract former Labour voters? In that case, you'll have to be clearer, as there are two of those in the mix right now - UKIP and SNP. And neither is particularly attractive.
The SNP isn't "traditionally rightist", it's traditionally portrayed by Labour as rightist.
 
...the fact remains that in order to get their legislation through, there will need to be an arrangement involving the SNP.

I'd agree whatever is meant by 'an arrangement' would need to be loose to the extent of discussing votes on particular policies on an ad hoc basis, or it would indeed look slippery.

The gamble Labour are making is that Sturgeon would not be willing to burn off the current good will towards her by voting against policies they currently have in common (or similar to common policies) with Labour. It's a trade-off between lost votes in Scotland and trying to pull in marginal seats in England/Wales.

edit: What Miliband absolutely won't be able to afford is (on the off chance he ends up in No. 10) is compromising on stated manifesto points to appease the SNP. That would be seen as doing a total Clegg.
 
Last edited:
it was founded on a fairly rightist basis, but it hasn't been so for at least 40 years. Of course its leftism is overstated as well, it doesn't really take much to be left of Murphy's Labour
Indeed. There's no advantage to inaccuracy, though. The SNP has been social democratic for decades. That's way to the right of "leftist", but neither is it "rightist".
 
All this stuff with the snp is a kind of strategic mistake by Miliband. Should probably have taken the risk and gone with 'we'll work with progressive forces, anyone who wants social justice.. but I won't countenance the break up....'. But this is really the endgame of New Labour, sharing Cameron's essential view of the world - as well as their monumental fuck up over several years in Scotland. He's got very little room to manoeuvre because of who he is.
 
edit: What Miliband absolutely won't be able to afford is (on the off chance he ends up in No. 10) is compromising on stated manifesto points to appease the SNP. That would be seen as doing a total Clegg.
Indeed, but the SNP don't want a close arrangement that means any damaging compromise on their part. They have no desire to be the Lib Dems in this arrangement. They want to be free to pick and choose. (And frankly it'll be mostly pick. Look at their manifestos; the degree of concordance belies their animosity).

We know all this, it's just that Miliband's performance gave a different impression.
 
Indeed, but the SNP don't want a close arrangement that means any damaging compromise on their part. They have no desire to be the Lib Dems in this arrangement.

That's not the impression I got from Sturgeon's overtures towards Miliband.

But anyway, if the 'arrangement' is just voting in common where goals are in common I don't see how Miliband is going back on anything he has said.
 
That's not the impression I got from Sturgeon's overtures towards Miliband.

But anyway, if the 'arrangement' is just voting in common where goals are in common I don't see how Miliband is going back on anything he has said.
Her intention was to see if he'd paint himself into the corner he's just painted himself into.

"Will you let me help you lock Cameron out of number ten?" Is what she said. Her actual words.

His reply is going to be portrayed as "no".

And I'm sure she didn't actually expect that.
 
Yeah. I think that's exactly the card Miliband was trying play.

Problem is I don't know who was playing to.

I haven't come across any "fear" of SNP power down here (and I'd guess those who I know who might would vote Tory anyway). At most there's some vague support for the vague idea that Labour won't be able to govern without the support of other parties. A kind of instinctive "check and balance".

Last nights posturing won't have impressed this audience.

Frankly I'm not sure who it will have won over.

People are smarter than that, and saw straight through it.

The only people who fear (or need fear) the SNP south of the border is English politicians. The idea of a supposedly subsidiary (to the mind of many unionism-inclined Tories, anyway) nation having leverage on UK policy is causing apoplexy in elements of the political class, and a good thing too!
 
It's not running a country when you're only accountable for spending money, rather than raising it. It's more like running a local authority, which all sorts of weirdos do.
 
I think Miliband's position is pretty sensible. He could have explained it better last night to the baying mob of mill-owning six-fingered grotesques, but he didn't have ideal circumstances in which to do so.

As the owner of a child labour-using blacking mill yourself, did you attend, along with your fellow inbreds and acromegaly sufferers?
 
Her intention was to see if he'd paint himself into the corner he's just painted himself into.

This seems doubtful.

"Will you let me help you lock Cameron out of number ten?" Is what she said. Her actual words.

His reply is going to be portrayed as "no".

And I'm sure she didn't actually expect that.

She already said she would not join up with the Tories, so jumping at a coalition deal could be seen as a poor use of political capital.
She is not as popular South of the border and his reply will be interpreted as many as simply denying an audacious attempt at a power grab.

It will, nevertheless, be curtains for Miliband and is coterie if the gamble leads to 5 more years of Cameron, though.
 
Him. As in who would be doing the jumping in that sentence.
Ok. But since the SNP have said coalition isn't on the table, and he later superfluously said he wouldn't go into coalition with them, why did he feel the need for last night's rhetoric?

He should have stuck to "I can't stop them supporting our legislation if they want to".

He cocked up.
 
Ok. But since the SNP have said coalition isn't on the table, and he later superfluously said he wouldn't go into coalition with them, why did he feel the need for last night's rhetoric?

Largely because not everybody is watching every single thing that happens.
 
Largely because not everybody is watching every single thing that happens.
Not what I meant. I meant, why not say the same again? Why go for this:

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015...t-be-in-government-than-make-a-deal-with-snp/

That sounds like he's saying not just no coalition, but nothing at all, zip, nada, zero. I'd rather not be in government.

He might as well have said "I'm going to pass a law to stop myself from talking to them".

What he's responding to is the indignation in the Tory press that he might be propped up by the SNP. He tried to sound tough and say "no way". But yes way, it *will* happen.

He should have stuck to his old line: "that's up to them."
 
This is a very right wing audience indeed, they seem to have gone full circle from what was imo, a liberal audience of the last debate.

Stuffed with tory sock puppet scum like this vile piece of fucking shit of course:

https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/20...-who-took-down-ed-miliband-more-dirty-tricks/

Some repugnant little shit who's the CEO of a Marketing company which she set up with a tory vermin MP who was fist bumping Gideon before hand pretends she's an 'undecided voter' (maybe she is actually - between UKIP and the tories).

When the thick scum in the audience applauded Corporal Clegg's deluded self-description of his Quisling propping up of the Bullingdon Club reunion of 2010 as 'plucky and brave' I thought 'fuck this shit' and turned it off. 'Plucky and brave'? What a deluded cunt, he's less Scrappy Doo and more Shaggy (from Scooby not the pop-reggae sensation, although 'it wasn't me' would be a good theme tune for his deluded shit sell-out party).
 
That sounds like he's saying not just no coalition, but nothing at all, zip, nada, zero. I'd rather not be in government.

He was pretty clear it was a no to watering down any commitments or sharing power.
But yes, part of the reason for this gamble to blunt the effect of what the Tory press is up to in my view.

He might as well have said "I'm going to pass a law to stop myself from talking to them".

What's with all this "passing laws to stop me doing A, B, C" business that's been going on? :D
If you can pass a law you can change a law.
 
He was pretty clear it was a no to watering down any commitments or sharing power.
But yes, part of the reason for this gamble to blunt the effect of what the Tory press is up to in my view.

Which demonstrates the power of the press (on behalf of the tories) in making an issue of something that most people outside of Scotland probably don't give that much of a fuck about. Dancing on their strings like a fucking puppet. It's not strength or 'leadership'. It's the opposite of it in fact.
 
Stuffed with tory sock puppet scum like this vile piece of fucking shit of course:

https://sturdyblog.wordpress.com/20...-who-took-down-ed-miliband-more-dirty-tricks/

Some repugnant little shit who's the CEO of a Marketing company which she set up with a tory vermin MP who was fist bumping Gideon before hand pretends she's an 'undecided voter' (maybe she is actually - between UKIP and the tories). <snip>

Wonder how many other Tory shills were in the audience under false pretences?

Has the smell of something organised about it ...
 
He was pretty clear it was a no to watering down any commitments or sharing power.
Let's say he's not the largest party but he knows he can form a government because the SNP and Plaid will vote with him and against the Tories, what should he do? Go to the Queen, or say to Cameron: "it's all yours"?

Because it sounds like he said the latter. That's his problem.

What's with all this "passing laws to stop me doing A, B, C" business that's been going on? :D
If you can pass a law you can change a law.
It's Clegg's fault. He spoiled "pledges" for everyone.
 
Wonder how many other Tory shills were in the audience under false pretences?

Has the smell of something organised about it ...

It doesn't matter really because he still should have been able to handle the question, regardless of who was asking. The 5000 small business leader's letter was a transparent and clumsy stunt organised and collated by central office and presented as some sort of grass roots support, and it wouldn't have harmed him to point this out (maybe in politer language). On economic stuff he could also have pointed out that the tories inherited a growing economy recovering from the recession and choked it for another three or four years. The facts will stand him up on this.
 
I don't care about Milliband, but I'm interested if there's any evidence of organised manipulation of state broadcaster media events.
 
Back
Top Bottom