Sir Fynwy Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 What on earth? Is it a serious Al Murray making a political effort or just a pisstake pub landlord style effort? He wants to revalue the pound to £1.10 so we all have extra money in our pockets, make your own judgement on how serious that is. Oh and wants to move the UK to the edge of the solar system by 2050.
Finnegan Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Oh and bricking up the channel tunnel but admitting we may need to get some Poles in to do it.
Guest MattP Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Fair enough! I hadn't even read it.I'm surprised he's doing it though given how anti-Farage he is, surely he could be potentially splitting the vote of an already very saturated seat that in reality can only be won by 3 parties. Unless he is of the genuine opinion UKIP voters don't realise the Pub Landlord is a pisstake?
Finnegan Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 I would imagine there are stupid people out there inclined to not realise the Pub Landlord is satire. Murray is near permanently in character and, well, the public are thick as ****. I'm sure he's doing it to deliberately lampoon Farage by comically making similar issues central. That much is obvious. I would imagine Farage is a shoe in for a landslide anyway and that Murray is smart enough to know that. He won't want to actually be elected, will he? He just wants negative publicity for UKIP, which he'll get. The left will have a laugh along at UKIPs expense, the right will giggle at first before becoming less jovial about it the longer it goes on and ultimately it won't sway anybody. It's just a bit of harmless entertainment more than anything else. I'm sure Farage is used to it by now.
Guest MattP Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 I would imagine there are stupid people out there inclined to not realise the Pub Landlord is satire. Murray is near permanently in character and, well, the public are thick as ****. I'm sure he's doing it to deliberately lampoon Farage by comically making similar issues central. That much is obvious. I would imagine Farage is a shoe in for a landslide anyway and that Murray is smart enough to know that. I know the public are stupid but surely not stupid enough to vote for Al Murray? He's not a landslide winner at all all mate, I think Farage will struggle in South Thanet, he'll have everything thrown at him here and there has already been a cross party agreement to work against him by all the other candidates. He might be prepared to sacrifice himself for the party as a whole though and just take it on the front pages while the others keep out the limelight. I think UKIP will hold Clacton and Rochester and they should be shoo in's for Great Grimsby, Thurrock, Great Yarmouth, Boston and Skegness and then nick a handful more in the North and Kent. The biggest chance Farage might have is stuff like this, when yet again the public see a load of rich celebs/comics plus the establishment all coming together to try and fight him, he'll be delighted Murray is standing against him.
Guest MattP Posted 14 January 2015 Posted 14 January 2015 Although Al has already been inserted as a shorter price than the Lib Dems (interestingly as I say above, UKIP move shorter in the betting with his addition with Labour lengthening , do the bookies see Labour supporters as the more primitive ones who might vote for him?) Hills. UKIP 8/13 Conservative 13/8 Labour 7/1 Al Murray 80/1 Lib Dems 150/1 Greens 150/1
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Bit of a strange situation really, have we not already wheeled out enough left wing rich celebs to tell people not to vote UKIP? He's also touring Scandinavia whilst the election is on. Anyway back to serious politics - I actually agree with Clegg. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30829220 If Cameron doesn't want to show up to these they should empty chair him. I see no reason why the British public should be denied the opportunity to watch the leaders debate just because one person only wants them on his terms.
Finnegan Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 It's obviously just a vehicle to promote the pub landlord, not anything that's going to severely impact the general election. It's just a bit of fun. Like I said, I'm sure Farage is used to. He's even been on HIGNFY and laughed along with the stick.
johnny the fox Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 this bloke is about as funny as rabies in a guide dogs home..
Jon the Hat Posted 15 January 2015 Author Posted 15 January 2015 Let's not pretend that Cameron is sticking up for the Greens; he's running scared of these debates, and this is just a handy 'get out clause'. As well he should. As Matt said, these debates are much harder on the incumbent than the opposition, unfairly so. Cameron has rightly judged that the public will punish him less for ducking the debates than for doing them and getting kicked.
Jon the Hat Posted 15 January 2015 Author Posted 15 January 2015 Bit of a strange situation really, have we not already wheeled out enough left wing rich celebs to tell people not to vote UKIP? He's also touring Scandinavia whilst the election is on. Anyway back to serious politics - I actually agree with Clegg. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30829220 If Cameron doesn't want to show up to these they should empty chair him. I see no reason why the British public should be denied the opportunity to watch the leaders debate just because one person only wants them on his terms. Bugger that, we already have the constituency boundaries against us, we shouldn't have to get killed by opposition parties who have done sod all as well.
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 It's obviously just a vehicle to promote the pub landlord, not anything that's going to severely impact the general election. It's just a bit of fun. Like I said, I'm sure Farage is used to. He's even been on HIGNFY and laughed along with the stick. Maybe, but it could actually get off the ground as an anti-Farage movement, stranger things have happened and ironically if that did occur it would probably help Farage into the HOP. As well he should. As Matt said, these debates are much harder on the incumbent than the opposition, unfairly so. Cameron has rightly judged that the public will punish him less for ducking the debates than for doing them and getting kicked. No one is really in a position to throw stones, Major was the first PM to try and initiate these debates in 1997 but Blair already had the election in the bag so refused to even entertain the thought of doing them, if I was Cameron I'd let them go ahead without me, going up in front of Miliband, Clegg and Farage isn't going to go well for him at all, obviously the Greens have huge potential to damage the Labour vote so I don't blame him for his insistence. Not to mention either that Miliband would probably still lose in a debate to an empty seat in the eyes of the public. When the first US presidential debate went ahead it was 16 years before they had another one as whoever was leading in the polls simply refused to take the risk of doing it, the same could happen here.
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Bugger that, we already have the constituency boundaries against us, we shouldn't have to get killed by opposition parties who have done sod all as well. A debate without Cameron would actually go well for him, Miliband would still lose votes for the Green and Farage wouldn't be able to out-Tory him in front of the mass public.
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Bugger that, we already have the constituency boundaries against us, we shouldn't have to get killed by opposition parties who have done sod all as well. That's interesting - you think there is anti-Tory gerrymandering? 'nother reason for you fellas to get behind electoral reform, then.
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 That's interesting - you think there is anti-Tory gerrymandering? 'nother reason for you fellas to get behind electoral reform, then. Pretty obvious isn't it from the boundaries? Labour could gain a majority with about 36% - The Tories needs around 40-41%. It's highly likely Labour will get more seats in May despite the Tories getting many more votes across the country.
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Pretty obvious isn't it from the boundaries? Labour could gain a majority with about 36% - The Tories needs around 40-41%. It's highly likely Labour will get more seats in May despite the Tories getting many more votes across the country. All the more reason FPTP is broken, then.
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 All the more reason FPTP is broken, then. Yep, it's a system for two party politics. Outdated. Unfortunately the hoardes of left wingers who used to crow about the merits of Proportional representation have now vanished from our society since it became obvious it would lead to a UKIP-Tory coalition instead of a Lib Dem-Labour one.
leicsmac Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Yep, it's a system for two party politics. Outdated. Unfortunately the hoardes of left wingers who used to crow about the merits of Proportional representation have now vanished from our society since it became obvious it would lead to a UKIP-Tory coalition instead of a Lib Dem-Labour one. Really? I thought it was because the campaign for it was piss poor. I for one am still all for it. And perhaps after this coming election there may be more clamour for it.
Guest MattP Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Really? I thought it was because the campaign for it was piss poor. I for one am still all for it. And perhaps after this coming election there may be more clamour for it. Barely heard it mentioned since 2011. Maybe, if we are going to settle in for non stop coalitions we may as well change the voting procedures to reflect what the public will be electing.
ADK Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 I wouldn't want to be part of a live debate as an incumbent. It's similar to trying to defend the great wall of china, no matter how good a job you might have done, there'll always be something that can be attacked. The opposition will have pre prepared sound bites and have readied statistics that they are going to use and it simply isn't possible to robustly defend against a half decent argument on the spot. Last time they favoured Clegg because neither Cameron nor Brown had any real ammunition on the Lib Dems at the time. A live debate would be great for Farage as there is nothing to use against UKIP other than the "racist" argument which isn't going to work at this point.
Webbo Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 As well he should. As Matt said, these debates are much harder on the incumbent than the opposition, unfairly so. Cameron has rightly judged that the public will punish him less for ducking the debates than for doing them and getting kicked. Cameron was brave to do them last time and it probably backfired against him. Ideally I'd like the debates but if they're going to help Labour we're better off without them. A debate without Cameron would actually go well for him, Miliband would still lose votes for the Green and Farage wouldn't be able to out-Tory him in front of the mass public. I thought the same.
ADK Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 The sort of people that vote based on a live debate probably aren't the majority of Tory voters anyway.
SMX11 Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Holy shit, a question time audience not full of loons for once! Even debating mixed funding NHS without hissing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.