General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

sid waddell

Labour's plan to plant 2 billion trees is an excellent policy. Native trees hopefully - I'm a bit of a tree racist myself.

PopePalpatine

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

it's a joke of a 'debate'.
typical Ch4 nonsense, "let's find a minority agenda, any minority agenda and pretend the whole world cares about it".

once climate change emergency becomes mainstream, they'll be opposed to it.

That's funny, I haven't seen them go to bat for the Tories' disaster capitalist backers.

jaykay74

Boris sending his dad & Gove in his place is very weak tonight, rightly laughed out of town. And avoiding Andrew Neil as well. This is a strong leader ?

prawnsambo

jaykay74 wrote: »

Boris sending his dad & Gove in his place is very weak tonight, rightly laughed out of town. And avoiding Andrew Neil as well. This is a strong leader ?

There's a rumour going around that they've looked for Andrew Marr to replace Neil. If true, not exactly something Marr wants to put on his CV...

Letwin_Larry

jaykay74 wrote: »

Boris sending his dad & Gove in his place is very weak tonight, rightly laughed out of town. And avoiding Andrew Neil as well. This is a strong leader ?

this was nothing more than a pointless Ch4 stunt.
he was spot on to give it a wide berth.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Farage shouldn't be asked to any debate. He has zero MPs.

He's the most influential UK politician in the past 40 years - and commands the respect of millions of people.

That's why his perspective is important.

His decision to give 317 seats to the Tories is what has confirmed their majority.

Farage determined the election outcome, in other words.

What have Plaid done other than nothing?

beggars_bush

Deleted User wrote: »

He's the most influential UK politician in the past 40 years - and commands the respect of millions of people.

That's why his perspective is important.

His decision to give 317 seats to the Tories is what has confirmed their majority.

Farage determined the election outcome, in other words.

What have Plaid done other than nothing?

I just spat my tea across my 2 year old

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

He's the most influential UK politician in the past 40 years - and commands the respect of millions of people.

That's why his perspective is important.

His decision to give 317 seats to the Tories is what has confirmed their majority.

Farage determined the election outcome, in other words.

What have Plaid done other than nothing?

Plaid got MPs elected. Nigel got none. He's a nobody in this election. As to the bit in bold, so Nigel could have prevented the Tories getting 317 seats? Okaaaaay.

Infini

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's a bit of stupid debate.

This is a General Election. Focussing on one very specific issue is ridiculous.

If you care about the environment and it's your #1 priority, vote Green and that's that.

No need for a 1-hour long debate.

Except voting Green is ultimately meaningless in the British FPTP system without outmatching the Tory candidate because if a Tory gets the most votes in a consituency they get elected even should the combined votes for all other candidates be far greater than that Tory: This is one of the root causes of this whole debacle. It's also why the likes of Boris shouldn't be allowed to be able to push through such a monumental shift on the British public: In truth they're a minority in reality when the votes are tallied up nationwide but the broken FPTP system gives them majority control as it's distorting their influence far more than they actually deserve. It's also because of this why many area's of the country have been abandoned by them, they actually dont have to give a damn as the system silences the opposition.

I see sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

His decision to give 317 seats to the Tories is what has confirmed their majority.

So he should celebrated for doing a corrupt dodgy deal wit the Tories?

If this happened in a tin pot dictatorship there'd be outrage about it.

Farage is a total fraud and a racist like his mate Johnson.

Infini

Deleted User wrote: »

He's the most influential UK politician in the past 40 years - and commands the respect of millions of people.

That's why his perspective is important.

His decision to give 317 seats to the Tories is what has confirmed their majority.

Farage determined the election outcome, in other words.

Farage is a Russian Asset, a Troll, an oppertunistic gobshíte and a professional shítpeddlar who up to 10 year's ago was little more than an idiot with a big mouth. The only thing he's interesed in is profiting at the expense of everyone else and praying on the ignorance of those who refuse to see reason and facts before them for his own benefit.

The only reason he's gotten anywhere in the last few years is because the conservatives have shifted from a party with some shread of credibility to essentially Posh UKIP because they didnt purge the headbangers from the ranks years ago and now the lunatics are running the asylum. That and the toxic effects from Cancer Media that push consipriacies, lies and misinformation like theyre somehow the truth when they have no merit or facts.

Infini

Infini wrote: »

Farage is a Russian Asset, a Troll, an oppertunistic gobshíte and a professional shítpeddlar who up to 10 year's ago was little more than an idiot with a big mouth. The only thing he's interesed in is profiting at the expense of everyone else and praying on the ignorance of those who refuse to see reason and facts before them for his own benefit.

The only reason he's gotten anywhere in the last few years is because the conservatives have shifted from a party with some shread of credibility to essentially Posh UKIP because they didnt purge the headbangers from the ranks years ago and now the lunatics are running the asylum. That and the toxic effects from Cancer Media that push consipriacies, lies and misinformation like theyre somehow the truth when they have no merit or facts.

That's disproportionate and lacks objectivity. Where is the evidence Farage is paid by Russia to split up the UK from the EU? It's conspiratorial balderdash.

Love him or hate him, if it wasn't for Nigel Farage, we would not have had the referendum and, dare I say, probably success at the Brexit referendum itself.

As an individual outside Westminster, to have shifted the debate and succeeded in his political ambition, means you must credit him as being a significant political leader in UK history - even if you disagree with Brexit itself.

Even arch-Remainer Lord Heseltine concedes his significance and political success.

prawnsambo

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

this was nothing more than a pointless Ch4 stunt.
he was spot on to give it a wide berth.

And I suppose running away from Andrew Neil isn't more of the same yellow streak?

sid waddell

I see it's a Tory strategy now to just shriek "conspiracy theory" at everything.

jaykay74

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

this was nothing more than a pointless Ch4 stunt.
he was spot on to give it a wide berth.

If that's the case why send daddy along?

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

That's disproportionate and lacks objectivity. Where is the evidence Farage is paid by Russia to split up the UK from the EU? It's conspiratorial balderdash.

Love him or hate him, if it wasn't for Nigel Farage, we would not have had the referendum and, dare I say, probably success at the Brexit referendum itself.

As an individual outside Westminster, to have shifted the debate and succeeded in his political ambition, means you must credit him as being a significant political leader in UK history - even if you disagree with Brexit itself.

Even arch-Remainer Lord Heseltine concedes his significance and political success.

His basic premise of simply 'leaving the EU' was always a cretinous idea. Dr Richard North, who is a Eurosceptic and who wrote a book on the subject, warned leaving would be a 5-10 year project and could only be achieved in managed stages.....otherwise it would be doomed to disastrous failure (which he believes is happening right now).

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

His basic premise of simply 'leaving the EU' was always a cretinous idea. Dr Richard North, who is a Eurosceptic and who wrote a book on the subject, warned leaving would be a 5-10 year project and could only be achieved in managed stages.....otherwise it would be doomed to disastrous failure (which he believes is happening right now).

What's that got to do with the contention - here - that Nigel Farage is, whether you like/hate his politics, a very significant political figure in UK history?

He single-handedly changed the course of UK history.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

What's that got to do with the contention - here - that Nigel Farage is, whether you like/hate his politics, a very significant political figure in UK history?

He single-handedly changed the course of UK history.

In much the same way as Typhoid Mary changed the course of food hygiene practices.

Bannasidhe

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Johnson really does think he can do or get away with anything. Not just content with ducking tonight's climate change debate - according to piece below he gave the reason that he didn't want to debate Nicola Sturgeon because she cannot become prime minister - he also seems to be making veiled threats at Channel 4 regarding its public broadcasting license if it refuses to play ball, at least according to buzzfeed anyway. That's surely crossing a line if true.

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-nigel-farage-channel-4-climate-change-debate-where-ice-sculpture-1327120

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-is-threatening-to-review-channel-4s

The Guardian are running with that story

The Conservatives are threatening to review Channel 4’s broadcasting remit if they win the general election after the channel decided to replace Boris Johnson with a melting ice sculpture during its climate change debate.

A Tory source confirmed that the party would review Channel 4’s public service broadcasting obligations if Johnson is returned to Downing Street next month. Under the proposal, first reported by BuzzFeed News, they would “look at whether its remit should be better focused so it is serving the public in the best way possible”.

Channel 4’s licence runs until the end of 2024, meaning it would need renewing under any new government if the next parliament lasts a full five years. While the media regulator Ofcom is tasked with reviewing the channel’s output, Channel 4 is state-owned and its existence is underpinned by legislation that could be altered by parliament.

A Conservative spokesman, Lee Cain, said he had written to Ofcom demanding an investigation, claiming Channel 4 had breached the broadcasting code with “a provocative partisan stunt” that constituted “making a political opinion in its own right”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_News_Feed&fbclid=IwAR25LJYyMTvCkXvqZ-eb_0YCvfBUbegER6qVc8opahhhCcNGkpaEzSnPbqo

They are not just crossing lines - they have jumped the rails.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are not just crossing lines - they have jumped the rails.

If you read what the Conservative Party have said, they are entirely reasonable in what they say.

By placing melting ice sculptures, that is a flagrant breach of their duty to remain neutral - rather than appearing vindictive.

If an invitation is issued by Channel 4, they should respect the fact that a politician may not wish to show up, rather than by performing a political stunt to draw attention to that fact.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read what the Conservative Party have said, they are entirely reasonable in what they say.

By placing melting ice sculptures, that is a flagrant breach of their duty to remain neutral - rather than appearing vindictive.

If an invitation is issued by Channel 4, they should respect the fact that a politician may not wish to show up, rather than by performing a political stunt to draw attention to that fact.

If Johnson wasn't running away from every tough interview, they might have a point. But he is and they don't.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read what the Conservative Party have said, they are entirely reasonable in what they say.

By placing melting ice sculptures, that is a flagrant breach of their duty to remain neutral - rather than appearing vindictive.

If an invitation is issued by Channel 4, they should respect the fact that a politician may not wish to show up, rather than by performing a political stunt to draw attention to that fact.

You will try and justify everything the Tories do no matter how extreme won't you?

Now threatening a broadcaster is ok.
Who should they try and bully into silence next do you think?
Perhaps the Guardian for publishing the story?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

If Johnson wasn't running away from every tough interview, they might have a point. But he is and they don't.

Prime Minister Johnson is dominating the polls.

If he doesn't wish to turn up for a debate, let the electorate decide if he should be punished.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read what the Conservative Party have said, they are entirely reasonable in what they say.

By placing melting ice sculptures, that is a flagrant breach of their duty to remain neutral - rather than appearing vindictive.

If an invitation is issued by Channel 4, they should respect the fact that a politician may not wish to show up, rather than by performing a political stunt to draw attention to that fact.

Dunno, I thought Johnson and Farage got off lightly. IMO, two turds wouldn't have been out of place.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno, I thought Johnson and Farage got off lightly. IMO, two turds wouldn't have been out of place.

And - in a parallel universe - if two turds were placed to replace Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon, would you consider that an acceptable, neutral course of action for a broadcaster?

Of course not, you'd be the first on here to complain about the lack of neutrality.

If not, you are merely proving my point that Channel 4 is overtly biased to the point where legal action may be required.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Prime Minister Johnson is dominating the polls.

If he doesn't wish to turn up for a debate, let the electorate decide if he should be punished.

Sure. But let's make sure they know about it, yeah?

Joe_ Public

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Guardian are running with that story

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/28/ice-sculpture-to-replace-boris-johnson-in-channel-4-climate-debate?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_News_Feed&fbclid=IwAR25LJYyMTvCkXvqZ-eb_0YCvfBUbegER6qVc8opahhhCcNGkpaEzSnPbqo

They are not just crossing lines - they have jumped the rails.

"A Conservative spokesman, Lee Cain, said he had written to Ofcom demanding an investigation, claiming Channel 4 had breached the broadcasting code with “a provocative partisan stunt” that constituted “making a political opinion in its own right”.

Thats "chicken man" Cain, isnt it? The guy the daily mirror used to dress up as a chicken to taunt David Cameron. He'd know all about partisan stunts anyway!

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

And - in a parallel universe - if two turds were placed to replace Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon, would you consider that an acceptable, neutral course of action for a broadcaster?

Of course not, you'd be the first on here to complain about the lack of neutrality.

If not, you are merely proving my point that Channel 4 is overtly biased to the point where legal action may be required.

Well, if they were craven liars like Johnson and Farage, I sure would. But, seeing as they turned up and are people of integrity, your point is moot.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thats "chicken man" Cain, isnt it? The guy the daily mirror used to dress up as a chicken to taunt David Cameron. He'd know all about partisan stunts anyway!

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Hypocrisy is never a good reason to justify a course of action.

prawnsambo

People need to step back from all the hand waving that's going on from the Tories about this and the risible faux=anger at a 'partisan stunt' which is literally displaying the fact that these cowards wouldn't turn up to be be faced with tough questions from their peers, and just think what Johnson did. He sent his daddy in his place. He literally got his daddy to turn up to do his job for him. The actual PM of the UK went running to daddy for help. It's pathetic.