saintbletch

It's the shame-filled look over her shoulder as she walks away that gets me. I just hope he said "It's not you, it's me..." or she is going to be scarred for life.

Which TSW poster is this?

Is Toke really a suitable father?

********. Sold out.

Off to see Calexico (for which I owe my adoration to The Arts forum) on Tuesday at the Shepherds Bush Empire. Very much looking forward to that.

Just to show my political balance... * Farage's one looks photoshopped. In the original he was apparently he was standing in front of a sign about the Cury hUNT ** I looked for one about the Lib Dems, but apparently in the history of childish twitter photo-memes, nobody could be bothered to satirise Clegg, he's already doing a good enough... (you know the rest).

I know, trousers. I had my bags packed, and had completed my citizenship application form too. I guess I was trying to, somewhat sarcastically, point out the many and varied sides of Andrew Marr's bias.

I think Marr just hates all right-wingers like Salmond.

Yep, I can see that point of view, but I'm talking more about my reaction to the interview. Bearing in mind that I can see that Marr set out to bully and hector the PM, and I acknowledged his potential bias, I was analysing my own reaction to seeing the PM react that way. I'm not dealing in an abstract or academic analysis of how interviewers that approach interviews, Wes. I'm telling you what I saw in this interview. Did you see it? What did you think? I think my surprise stems from becoming used to watching the PM handle PMQs in effective the way he does/did. You know, avoiding answering specific questions, the reliance on triplets of positives from the economy whilst banging the despatch box with a cheering chamber behind him. Then, if Miliband does manage to land the odd glancing blow, the PM hits him with the "I won't be lectured by the party that left us in this mess" donkey punch.* I don't find that particularly edifying, but you can't help but acknowledge that the PM has owned Miliband using these tactics throughout his tenure. Now that I'm watching David Cameron attempt the same sort of sleight of hand and obfuscation with proper interrogators, only to see him not allowed to get away with it (perhaps due to bias), I've found myself looking at our Prime Minister afresh. He looks like a parliamentary candidate, and one that gets flustered - just like Miliband. Personally, I actually love interviewers that won't let politicians settle into a pre-rehearsed, rhetorical rhythm. I like to see how they react under pressure. I like to see the option of the soundbite and the party line removed from their arsenal. I don't even mind bias (it's a fact of life) - as long as I can see it for what it is, and that the same bias isn't overtly represented across the wider media. I also acknowledge your view that Cameron might have looked even weaker had he let himself be bullied, but when he said what amounted to - "I'm finding this interview difficult, my tactic of repeating policies and slating opponents isn't working, please let me stop answering difficult questions and instead give me the chance to repeat policies and slate opponents.", I found that I expected better from our Prime Minister. I expected better from David Cameron. *I'd acknowledge that you have to give 'credit' for those positive economic figures in the first place. I'd also acknowledge that it would likely be no different under any other government or leader.

Our Prime Minister is getting a bit of a kicking from Andrew Marr right now. He's just appealed to Marr to stop interrupting his long lists of soundbites so that he has a chance to answer, by which he presumably means give him a chance to not answer the question, but instead provide a further list of soundbites. He's also pointed out to Marr that he didn't interrupt his previous guests in the same way. He might be right, and Marr looks particularly feisty (biased) this morning, but it makes DC look weak, and being attacked aggressively and then complaining like this makes him look just a little less prime ministerial.

:-) For the record I agree with your analysis of the apparent inequity of the number of Scottish MPs compared to the absolute share of UK votes. It seems wrong. Then again, it's the fact that all those seats in Scotland have (apparently) swung toward a single party that makes it look so wrong. Perhaps Labour and the Conservatives should change their product to meet market demand? I mean the market is there for the Conservatives, they have an equal opportunity to win over Scottish voters. I hope you'll also forgive me a little schadenfreude that a) certain parties campaigned aggressively to keep those Scots inside the tent, and b) certain parties campaigned aggressively against voting reform. :-)

Could any party grabbing 1.5m votes be described as crackpot, trousers? Surely it would've have led to a more 'legitimate' expression of immigration concern - such that the rise of UKIP would have come about more quickly,or major parties would have morphed to address those concerns. PR represents the ratio of views amongst the electorate. It seems arrogant or even churlish to then try to interpret the results to reach a more palatable result. I do recognise that we've been 'spoiled' with this version of coalition in that the Tories have said "Bend over" and the Lib Dems have often asked "How far?". PR might deliver a more fractured coalition which might lead to impasse and schisms. Overall though, and realising that unless I move, my vote will likely be worthless, something like PR has to be introduced.

I agree. Targeted communication in this election is doing exactly as you say. But it does need the no-entry sign of the predisposed mind to ensure it is consumed whilst other channels are ignored. But our politicians have to take most of the blame / responsibility for allowing us to abstract complex and subtle arguments into a single, favourite colour. Surely?

Wise words indeed,CB Fry. To be fair, she is simply saying the things that we're all thinking, but are too cowed by the PC brigade and the Westminster elite to say.

That's a sound observation, and a good qualification, Lord Duckhunter. I guess, a left-wing ideologue might point out that as long as the least well off in society are protected by the State, then absolute wealth is largely irrelevant.

Balanced? Yep, I agree. I was particularly impressed with how she managed to simultaneously channel Mother Theresa and Hitler, and then ignored Mummy T. Well thought through? Yep, and she impressively seems to answer all of the problems of immigration, without causing a single other problem. You could say that it's close to a final solution. I would also like to say that I will remember the phrase "this plague of feral humans" for some time.

An interesting 'piece' by Katie Hopkins on her approach to illegal immigration...

Well, Doctoroncall, I'm not sure I'm an expert on either left-wing ideologies or the Labour manifesto. Comrade pap might be along soon to help me out, but I'd say that someone on the left might search the Labour manifesto for policies that try to reduce the gap between the wealthiest and the poorest. They'd also probably search for measures to protect the weakest in society at the expense of the strongest. They'd likely want to see policies that attempt to flatten some of the social and economic strata that many perceive stop 'social mobility'. Some may expect the exit from trade agreements (European Union) that artificially lower wages, and make life difficult for British workers. And they'd likely want to see something that restores confidence that our country is not overly beholden to large corporations or media organisations. On another matter, as party treasurer for The Johnny Bognor Party, I need to inform you that your subscription is overdue. I'll PM you the bank account details. Also, we have some vacant positions that you might help to be able to fill. We've got the corrupt treasurer (moi), but to be taken seriously as a centrist party in modern British politics, we still need a peadophile, an expense fiddler, a lobbyist-interface-operative (must have experience of handling cash), a racist, a tree-hugger, a lesbian, a dwarf, a unionist, a republican, a royalist, an anarchist, a conspiracy theorist (I've had someone recommended to me for this role), oh and a sexual deviant (must be able to zip self into overnight back, and must have own orange). Thanks.

Makes sense.

I think the point is that this was the Alternative Vote. Not strictly PR.

I see where you're coming from. Thanks again. But, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, the only thing you have put forward as a reason that Labour doesn't represent your centraist/mean-centralist views is in fact an historical feeling, based on Labour governments of the past. I'm not saying that it isn't a a genuine reason for not voting Labour. Far from it, we all bring that sort of historical experience/baggage to the decision. It seems sensible for you to not vote Labour if you don't trust their economic record - or perhaps their economic team (Ed Balls anyone?). But, it does seem to leave my contention intact - that Labour does now represent a mean-centre-ground in British politics. Doesn't it? Put me down as party treasurer. I'll post you my Monaco address by PM.

Yep, see this post from earlier this morning. I think the question is whether the audience was designed to represent the general electorate, or to ensure that each of the 5 leaders was represented in a ratio commensurate with their seats/poll position/etc. If it is the latter, then it would be inherently left-wing without the balancing impact of the Tories.

Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts down. I really appreciate it, and it really helps debate on here. From your views, I can see how you (legitimately in my view) see yourself as occupying the centre ground. I guess we might agree that there is no such thing as a single "centre ground" when politics covers such a diverse range of topics? So perhaps it's better to suggest that you occupy some form of notional "mean-centre"? i.e. left of centre on some issues, right of centre on others. On average, centre. That's fair. I can respect that. Not that you need my approbation. However, in true political style you failed to answer my question. (smiley thing) I specifically asked that, given your claim to feel unrepresented (my term, not yours) in the centre ground, and ignoring political history and baggage (as much as is possible) what specifically about Labour's manifesto makes you suggest that they don't represent this mean-centre ground. Perhaps you can answer that in the context of my new definition of a mean-centre (some left+some right=averagely centre)? My contention is that Labour has consciously moved to the centre to grab votes from the like of you, and that perhaps it is your historical view of Labour that stops you seeing them as representing a "mean" centre view?

I disagree with none of that KRG, but it certainly looks like the BBC may have a question to answer. I do agree that Nigel is deliberately employing some tactics in the debate to ensure a share of the headlines. In the first debate, some saw the AIDs comment as a dropped ball, but if I were advising Farage (as a leader of a minor party) on communication, I'd have given him something like that to ensure a share of the headlines the next day. It's not going to upset his core voters, and it will ensure it gets discussed, and probably debated in the workplace and on forums such as this. Last night, castigating the audience and then suggesting that his real audience wasn't there in the 'studio', but were instead the voters at home - a) ensured he got headlines and b) shows that he's happy to say unpopular things and shove it to The Man - thus sticking up for those that feel repressed by Left sensibilities. It won't hurt him, or UKIP I feel.