Clegg v Farage / LBC Debate

[SpikeMac 10]

And why wasn't Milliband and Cameron involved?

 

Because they have more sense.

 

Clegg was only involved because he is desperate. Anyone taking Farage on about the EU needs their head examining for two reasons.

 

Firstly, he's very well briefed about the subject. It is the only real policy area for his party, so he knows it inside out.

 

Secondly, he's free to spout nonsense without the restriction of actually having to make his policies work. He knows that UKIP won't be winning UK Parliamentary seats, so he can say whatever he wants. Clegg, on the other hand, is very likely to be a cabinet minister for quite some time.

[Phanerothyme 12]

And why wasn't Milliband and Cameron involved?

 

 

Because both of them lead parties that split horribly at the mere mention of Europe.

 

Lib dems are broadly pro, and UKIP are, well, against.

 

But the reality is we're in far too deep to relinquish the influence we have. Farage won't win (m)any seats, let alone a parliamentary majority, all he'll manage to do is split the tory and labour votes in favour of the Lib Dems - so no wonder Clegg is humouring him with a live debate, mano a mano with the deputy pm. Not because Clegg would win the debate, but because labour and the tories will lose.

 

UKIP is the last refuge of the nutter tendency, as Cameron fights the battle to re-de-toxify the Tories.

 

More votes for UKIP is good news for Clegg.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 01:11 ----------

 

Clegg is something of a Euro expert too, don't forget. He spent plenty of time as Leon Brittain's euro-factotum when he was cutting his political teeth. He's also liked in Europe, whereas Farage is a figure of mirth.

[ivanava 10]

What a pity this excellent debate is tucked away on channel 80 (freeview) where hardly anyone will see it...

 

It can viewed here.

 

 

Nick did what politicians do best and ignored some of the questions and gave answerer to questions that weren't asked. He used a lot of language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect which was sadly lacking in meaningful content.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 06:57 ----------

 

On the most part, Clegg was speaking from a script while Farage was speaking from the heart

 

It appeared that way to me.

[Mr Clowning 10]

Clegg, on the other hand, is very likely to be a cabinet minister for quite some time.

 

I always think of him being more sinister than minister.

[CPC464 10]

I thought both very poor relying on figures that they know can't be verified, or have been easily proved wrong.

 

Clegg claimed 3million jobs depend on the EU - which is big distortion of an old study.

Farage claimed it costs 55m a day - without any back up - no one has been able to verify where he got this from.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/mar/26/eu-leaders-debate-live-lbc-sky has a good summary of the main points and how they dont add up

[Hal Jordan 10]

Because they are cowards and running away from responsibility.

 

I never vote so am not complicit to these cowboy monkeys we have, I blame the majority

 

by not voting you're more complicit than the ones who actually voted for the tories.

 

what if it was your vote that tipped the scales? no voting is just an extra vote for the party that win.

 

you can't moan about who's in power if you're not ready and able to oppose them

[ivanava 10]

by not voting you're more complicit than the ones who actually voted for the tories.

How does not voting for a party that as no chance of winning the seat make anyone more complicit than the ones who actually voted for the Tories.

 

what if it was your vote that tipped the scales? no voting is just an extra vote for the party that win.

I highly likely that people don't vote because they know the party they want won't win, or they don't know which party to vote for.

 

you can't moan about who's in power if you're not ready and able to oppose them

 

You can oppose them without voting for a different party. By not voting you are sending a massage that you see voting is a waste of time and effort. There are many reasons not to vote, most seats are safe seats meaning turning out to vote won't change the outcome.

[dosxuk 10]

You can oppose them without voting for a different party. By not voting you are sending a massage that you see voting is a waste of time and effort. There are many reasons not to vote, most seats are safe seats meaning turning out to vote won't change the outcome.

 

If everybody who can't be bothered to vote went out and voted for a joke party like the monster raving loonies, that would send a much bigger message to the big parties when several of their MPs get replaced.

 

There's no point moaning about a system you chose not to participate in.

[ivanava 10]

If everybody who can't be bothered to vote went out and voted for a joke party like the monster raving loonies, that would send a much bigger message to the big parties when several of their MPs get replaced.

 

There's no point moaning about a system you chose not to participate in.

 

There is when the system is designed to suit just the parties you wouldn't vote for.

[I1L2T3 10]

Because both of them lead parties that split horribly at the mere mention of Europe.

 

Lib dems are broadly pro, and UKIP are, well, against.

 

But the reality is we're in far too deep to relinquish the influence we have. Farage won't win (m)any seats, let alone a parliamentary majority, all he'll manage to do is split the tory and labour votes in favour of the Lib Dems - so no wonder Clegg is humouring him with a live debate, mano a mano with the deputy pm. Not because Clegg would win the debate, but because labour and the tories will lose.

 

UKIP is the last refuge of the nutter tendency, as Cameron fights the battle to re-de-toxify the Tories.

 

More votes for UKIP is good news for Clegg.

 

---------- Post added 27-03-2014 at 01:11 ----------

 

Clegg is something of a Euro expert too, don't forget. He spent plenty of time as Leon Brittain's euro-factotum when he was cutting his political teeth. He's also liked in Europe, whereas Farage is a figure of mirth.

 

Truth is that Labour is pro-EU. That is core policy and they never hide it. The Tory core policy is also very pro-EU. That is what business and banks tell the main parties to have as core policy so that is what the parties do. It doesn't matter what dissenting voices say in either party.

[tzijlstra 11]

Reading some of the posts here it is pretty clear that no matter what the debate is, there will be people for and against and a debate like this isn't going to change opinions. As you can guess I think Clegg did a good job and won the debate. I doubt anybody not supporting either UKIP or LibDem would have an opinion on it so'exit-polls' are quite irrelevant.

 

What Clegg did was say unequivocally: If you don't believe that the EU is a bad thing and want to ensure we dont screw up and leave it - vote LibDem.

 

He had to do that, it is what will get the LibDems votes at the next election, whether it is enough to win seats remains to be seen though.

[Anna B 1,401]

How does not voting for a party that as no chance of winning the seat make anyone more complicit than the ones who actually voted for the Tories.

 

I highly likely that people don't vote because they know the party they want won't win, or they don't know which party to vote for.

 

 

 

You can oppose them without voting for a different party. By not voting you are sending a massage that you see voting is a waste of time and effort. There are many reasons not to vote, most seats are safe seats meaning turning out to vote won't change the outcome.

 

Unfortunately, not voting will be interpreted as apathy, when nothing could be further from the truth. Much better to spoil your paper (I believe this figure has to be read out at the vote,) than not to vote at all.