Printable View
Watched it live and I think Clegg triumphed solely on how he conducted himself. It seems like he made the most effort to engage - addressing the crowd and closely paying attention to the other speakers.
He didn't even have to do much to be fair. He just had to sit back and let Brown and Cameron bicker.
It was funny seeing Cameron mimic Clegg's approach of addressing the individuals in the crowd personally, the chameleon
Lib Dems second
Of course, this will only be a one-day wonder, and the other parties will gang up to crush Clegg, but for 24 hours at least, it's a genuine three-way contest:
Tories 33%
Lib Dems 30%
Labour 28%
Naturally, because Labour come last, they're the largest party:
Labour 263
Tories 254
Lib Dems 101
The Daily Mail (of all papers) reporting that the Lib Dems are - get this - in the lead, with 32%; the Tories have 31% and Labour 28%. What a crazy result, that would never have happened without the debate.
It'll probably change before the election, but is already highlighting the inherent unfairness in the system here because that result would still leave them about 150 seats behind Labour, who would emerge as the biggest party despite having the third-highest vote share. :doh:
Nick's still an idiot then? :pQuote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Yes. Although he probably doesn't put any credence in what the Daily Mail says.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
Continuing it's tradition of classy reporting, here's the Mail today: The United Nations of Nick Clegg .Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
Joking aside, that's a nasty, creepy little article.
I read the first paragraph, remembered where I was, and have spent the intervening period trying to figure out why I clicked it in the first place.
The Lib Dems are polling well because Clegg has moved the party towards the center, period. In a bad way. Funny that, it sounds familiar...
Even YouGov (which is rated the most reliable) is putting the Libs first now, but I'd say the Mail piece will be tame compared to what follows. The next debate's on foreign affairs, and since being pro-EU and anti-nuclear weapons won't go down well in Middle England, expect the Tories to regain a five-point lead, Labour to improve and LD to fall back to around 25%.
I am struggling to get enthusiastic about the Lib Dems. Everything we know from previous elections is that the LD's poll well early but then enough people get buyers remorse to vote for the "safe" option. He didn't win the debate - he won the battle of relative expectations
A very long way to go
Yeah, the unionists in bed with the Tories;as bigoted, paranoid, arrogant and detached from reality as each other.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
But could see that right enough.
On the current polling figures the likely outcome would be that the Lib dems would be in a coalition with Labour, able to extract a lot of concessions because of their 100+ seats. Clegg hasn't really moved the party towards the centre in my view - they're still quite leftist on a lot of issues, and their headline support for tax reform, scrapping tuition fees and homosexual marriage (as opposed to civil partnership) would sit better with Labour than the Tories.
That said, current figures are likely to change. I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems retained their current ratings throughout the campaign. Also, at the death, people will go with their instincts and so a lot of people are likely to switch at the last minute back ot Labour or the Tories.
A good result for the Lib Dems would be to establish themselves as serious contenders, even if that means finishing third. 25%+ of the vote would still be a good result considering that they usually poll no more than 21%.
I'll be sticking my vote down for whoever stands for the UUP/Tories. Purely through a process of elimination, the rest of the candidates do not appeal to me at all.
UTV putting their NI leaders debate head-to-head against the Sky News one- whether that's brave or just plain daft is another question.
I imagine most people will watch the NI one cause people in NI cannot vote for the mainland parties (except in the UUP/Tories case but that's different).Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
There's a limited audience for political discussion programs, even in Northern Ireland. UTV's timing risks losing that proportion of it which looks wider than the single-issue headcount applying here.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
Some NI parties have formal or looser links with larger national parties (Alliance-LibDem and TUV-UKIP, as well as the UUP/ Conservatives).
http://twitpic.com/1he6lp
But in many ways, it's Brown who really needs a clear win in today's debate. Cameron and Clegg just need to break even to maintain their support while Labour have been third all week. A weak performance could see voters defect to the other two parties, throwing tomorrow's polls into chaos.
The second debate appears to have made no impact- the Tories have made progress but would still have fewer seats than Labour, the Lib Dems have consolidated the previous week's gains, while Labour are still on course to be largest despite making little headway. The polls are reflecting this, varying little over recent days as voters are actively chosing a hung parliament.
You mean 'programmes'....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Lol.
And my Nordy-based contacts tell me it's the LD's & the SDLP. The Alliance Party have no relevance in British (or even probably in a notional UI one) elections, given their support is so tiny.
Your Nordy "contacts" are wrong. The Alliance Party are linked with the Liberal Democrats and are members of Liberal International and the European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Whereas the SDLP is affiliated to the Socialist International and a member of the Party of European Socialists (which is largely misleading since they're recognised by everyone in NI as a nationalist party whose basic aim is to abolish the border , but hey. That doesn't make them LibDems).Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
There is currently an Alliance mayor of Belfast. Their support, though small can be influential as a balance between larger blocs.Quote:
The Alliance Party have no relevance in British (or even probably in a notional UI one) elections, given their support is so tiny
Not sure what you mean by this. They've always been in the center in the sense of being the balance between two larger blocs, and also in coming second to either Labour or Tory in large parts of Britain. Where, depending on their main opponent, they can variously pretend to be either anti-one or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by dahamsta
They might be affiliated, but the policies of the LD's are closer to those of the SDLP (despite the typical paranoid illusions!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
And the Alliance Party, beyond an occasional ceremonial role, are a largely irrelevant nonentity in the context of Westminster, for reasons which should be obvious, even to you FFS.
And it's "centre".....
The horsetrading has begun in earnest already - Cameron has sent out feelers to the Lib Dems by saying he was open to PR, before changing his mind 24 hrs later, while Clegg said on the Beeb that he wouldn't vote for Brown if Labour finished third. This is just tactics as many marginals are between the Tories and Lib Dems, so denying the vote Clegg get Brown argument is all about attracting floating voters.
Cameron more and more strikes me as an even more dangerous successor to Tony Blair. He stands for nothing, drifts in whatever direction the wind is blowing on a given day and would say anything to get elected.
It makes me nostalgic for the days of Maggie and Tebbit, at least you knew exactly why you hated them as they stood for something!!
Agreed, I think the Tories are probably scarier than they've ever been- it's just that Cameron hides it very well.
Would you like to name one?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
All the Northern Ireland parties except the DUP (or previously the UUP) are irrelevant in Westminster votes, since they have a handful or less of MPs. If Cameron or whoever is leading Labour in a fortnight's time need two votes for a majority, they're unlikely to approach the SDLP first.Quote:
And the Alliance Party, beyond an occasional ceremonial role, are a largely irrelevant nonentity in the context of Westminster, for reasons which should be obvious, even to you FFS
They seem to have a similar attitude towards education, especially those in HE and student fees.
More importantly, they are both of a similar relative strength in their respective electorates and unlike the AP, even the SDLP could have a very small influence in a 'balanced' British Parliament, regardless of their long-term aspirations.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Just like NI is irrelevant to people in Great Britain. The proper business is done at Stormont.
I agree that Labour and the SDLP are linked though, not the Lib Dems.
There's a great letter here which sums up the nature of politics up north
All three leaders are some of the worst in recent history. Clegg is worse than Kennedy or Ashdown, Brown is worse than Blair (or at the very least the same) and John Smith, Cameron (the defintion of slime) is worse than Hague or Major...
Have any of the Northern dailies or local papers done any polling yet?
Fair enough Dan, though New Labour are so embarassingly right-wing in certain respects, they must almost be closer to the unionists in some respects, let alone the SDLP....Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman
And that letter is spot on;Ultimately beyond using the UUP to bolster any majority, Cameron doesn't give two f*cks, rightly about the North as even he's already highlighted it as a major drain on the Brits economy!
Trouble is a UI is not that economically viable just now, not to mention all the other, er, 'baggage' involved.
Still it's all about the longer game;Even 'I.K.P.' referred to it as "The North of Ireland" in his retirement address, the other day.
Needless to say, the usual whataboutery merchants were nowhere to be seen...
Is there any point? Unless something changes there'll be about two marginals.Quote:
Originally Posted by culloty82
In a normal democratic system, polling is a reasonable barometer of how voters react to policy statements and debates. In the knuckledragging-tribal-Groundhog Day that is Norn Ireland politics, its simply a depressing reminder of how some things haven't changed.
It depends whether you mean '1-2% between the two leading candidates', in which case given the basic zero likelihood of anyone swinging from green to orange or vice versa there aren't really any, or alternatively are thinking of one side's main candidate winning with tactical votes from its other party (as in Belfast South in 2005), where there could be quite a few. Particularly if all three main unionist parties poll strongly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Predictable cliched moaning. The Conservatives are putting more effort into Northern Ireland because it's potentially 11-12 more votes for them overall. For them at least, it isn't about the border at all ( or 'honest brokerage in the peace procession' as Brian Maguire and Dan would presumably prefer), but the slightly more important issue of who runs Britain. Of which Northern Ireland is a trifling 3% of the population in a backwater, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by dantheman
By engaging in tactical arrangements and pacts with other parties they have effectively made it "about the border" whether they want or acknowledge this or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Make no mistake, the Fermanagh South Tyrone decision is an awful opening salvo by the Tories in Norn Ireland politics and shows Cameron up for the slippy, spineless lightweight that he is.
More like cynical and desperate by the Conservatives, in a hopefully futile attempt to get power, nothing to do with the border.....Though those outdated cretins will be lucky to win 1-2 seats, even with their natural constituency in the North. Even the DUP may be more credible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even the AP would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
And what ORA said re.Cameron.
I expect they're fairly relaxed that you and others think it's about the border. For them it's about getting another nine or 10 seats, which might be crucial in the shake-up at Westminster. If they didn't stand at all, or didn't acknowledge the reality that almost all unionist politicians are at least small 'c' conservatives if not actually autonomous local representatives of the party, then presumably that would be about the border too?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Many of us over here knew how slippy he was as soon as he became Tory leader. I'd have preferred he stood 18 NI candidates in principle (I vote Green over here, but I've always argued that all the big British parties should stand in every part of the country).Quote:
Make no mistake, the Fermanagh South Tyrone decision is an awful opening salvo by the Tories in Norn Ireland politics and shows Cameron up for the slippy, spineless lightweight that he is.
In the short-term, I expect the Tory/UUP/ FST deal to win at least those one or two (maybe also Antrim South and Strangford). In the mid-term (ie next election?) they could win many more. The DUP got local power partly by promising to be more hardline, and on the back of a personality cult for Paisley. The one's been outflanked by the TUV, the other will obviously fade. Financial and other scandals won't help them either.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
You're right that the only border DC is really interested in is the one on the swingometer.
Except that they won't win 9-10 seats and the north of Ireland is not like the rest of Britain, so why should the latter's main parties waste time on an electorate most of them or their voters don't especially want!
Apart from the Tory/UUP seats, Cameron will almost certainly be able to call on those won by the DUP and TUV. Of the likely 10-11 Unionist and Tory MPs, only one (Sylvia Hermon) has admitted a preference for new Labour.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Cameron isn't wasting much time on it, he doesn't really need to.
Labour and the LibDems (and UKIP, and Green) should stand across Northern Ireland. In the case of the bigger two, it offers everyone the chance to vote for or against the likely government; even for the smaller parties, it would strengthen their claim to be nationally representative. For national parties, the extra costs for deposits etc. are small beer.
http://static.ow.ly/photos/original/1g5M.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by TheBoss
Ha! And to think somebody said Cameron didn't waste time thinking about NI politicians.
Except they and their voters aren't interested. It's only the dinosaurs and theirs that are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Though the unionist (& Tory) voters and their aspiring leaders are well summarised by Schumi's photo....though c*nts might be more apt!
The media seem to have gone haywire about "bigotgate" - can't see it changing things in the long term, but Labour might be down 2% for a few days.