THe Leaders Debate

I thought Nicola Sturgeon rinsed the lot of them but we'll see if the results come out like that.

Have to say, thought she was brilliant. As a feminist I salute her and think she will make a great addition to HOC. Julie Etchingham was fantastic, calm, professional, unbiased and kept control through everything. Made Kay Burley look like a simpering whore.

risingsun wrote:Have to say, thought she was brilliant.  As a feminist I salute her and think she will make a great addition to HOC.   Julie Etchingham was fantastic, calm, professional, unbiased and kept control through everything.   Made Kay Burley look like a simpering whore.

What a change from Burley - night and day.

She did really well.

She used to be seen as a pretty face, now she is being given more and more important roles, and she has carried them off with aplomb, good on her.

We now have all four of the post-debate polls. Asked who performed the best, the verdicts are
YouGov: Sturgeon 28, Farage 20, Cameron 18, Miliband 15, Clegg 10, Bennett 5, Wood 4 (tabs)
ICM: Miliband 25, Cameron 24, Farage 19, Sturgeon 17, Clegg 9, Bennett 3, Wood 2 (tabs)
ComRes: Farage 21, Cameron 21, Miliband 21, Sturgeon 20, Clegg 9, Bennett 5, Wood 2
Survation: Cameron 25, Miliband 25, Farage 24, Sturgeon 15, Clegg 6, Bennett 3, Wood 2 (tabs)
The pollsters certainly don’t show a single clear winner (until we digest the tables we can’t really speculate about what caused the differences), but there’s a consistent theme across those results. Everyone has Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood and Nick Clegg trailing, everyone has Ed Miliband and David Cameron doing pretty much evenly and pretty close to Farage. The only big difference is Sturgeon, YouGov have her out in front, others have her a bit further back. But given the SNP are only standing in Scotland, how well Nicola Sturgeon did in rest of Britain doesn’t necessarily make a huge difference (though it may make the SNP a bit less scary as a bogeyman on Conservative posters).
As I wrote before the debate, one shouldn’t assume too much what the impact of the debate is on voting intentions until we see some standard voting intention polls of the general public. With the initial polls showing no big runaway winner from the debate I wouldn’t expect a big impact… but time will tell. The party I’d probably watch is UKIP – Farage wasn’t a big winner, but he outperformed his party’s national support in all of the instant verdict polls, and unlike the SNP, UKIP have candidates across GB that people can vote for.


http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/








Ed Miliband failed to break through in last night’s television election debate as the minority parties emerged as the winners of the contest.
David Cameron finished the debate as voters’ overwhelming choice to lead the country after the election, a snap poll found, despite strong performances from the SNP and Ukip leaders.
The Prime Minister kept himself above the fray as he urged voters not to send the UK back to “square one” by electing Mr Miliband.




A YouGov survey found that Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish National Party leader, was the victor in the debate, with 28 per cent of the public vote.
Nigel Farage came second with 20 per cent as he won plaudits for attacking Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband over immigration and their plans for the economy.
In a blow to his electoral ambitions, Mr Miliband came fourth after the audience turned on him twice over Labour’s economic failures and hypocrisy over zero-hours contracts.

• Leader's debate: how did presenter Julie Etchingham do?
  
  
• Highlights of TV election debate 2015
  
  

Miss Sturgeon’s victory coupled with Mr Miliband’s weak performance — he received just 14.8 per cent of the vote — will increase fears that he will be forced to rely on her after the election.
Mr Farage’s strong performance increased the likelihood of more Ukip MPs entering the Commons after the general election.
Mr Cameron came third — with 18 per cent of the vote — as he defended himself from repeated attacks on his record from the other six leaders.
However, the Prime Minister came in a clear first place – with 40 per cent - in a ComRes poll when voters were asked who “is most capable” of running the country, with Mr Miliband well behind on 28 per cent.
On a night of varied poll results, an average of the four most significant surveys gave Mr Cameron the victory, with 22 per cent of the vote. Mr Miliband was in second with 21.5 per cent and Mr Farage was third with 21 per cent.

Policy explainer: deficit

Party stance...

• Conservative: Eliminate the deficit and leave a minor budget surplus by 2019/2020.
  
  
• Labour: Balance the books and have national debt falling as soon as possible within the next Parliament.
  
  
• Liberal Democrats: Raising an extra £6bn in tax rises and £6bn from tax dodgers. Structural deficit gone by 2017.
  
  
• Ukip: Raise 40p threshold to £55,000, personal allowance to £13,000 and cut foreign aid by £9 billion.
  
  
• Green: Clamp down on tax avoidance and introduce “much-needed” extra green taxes.
  
  
• SNP: “Modest” increase in public spending, protecting NHS budget and creating more jobs.
  
  

Government spending could fall to its lowest since 1999

Telegraph verdict

Strong ground for the Conservatives who rightly identify Labour's record on the deficit as a weak spot. But both big parties need to give much more detail about their fiscal plans after the election. Voters deserve to know just what they are voting for here.

Mr Farage told the other party leaders to “get real” as he made a series of incendiary comments about foreigners with HIV using the NHS and Britain’s border controls.
He attacked the “political class” who “have never had another job in their lives”.
Miss Sturgeon said that austerity was “cutting people into poverty” and that Britain’s “scarce resources” should be invested in “our children, not new nuclear weapons”. It emerged that 1,200 people joined the SNP during the debate.

Although divisive, the Ukip leader stood out during a contest in which the main party leaders struggled to make their voices heard. He urged the public to put more Ukip MPs in Westminster to “shake up” politics. Mr Miliband faced difficulties as the audience turned on him for failing to apologise for Labour crashing the economy.
Mr Cameron was at one point heckled by a member of the audience over the treatment of homeless Armed Forces veterans.

The Prime Minister fended off attacks from the small parties and focused on the economy, warning voters about tax rises under Labour.
The party leaders faced off for two hours on the economy, the NHS, immigration, education and what they would do for future generations.
Mr Cameron used each question to focus on the recovery and Labour’s plans for higher taxes and borrowing. Miss Sturgeon repeated Nick Clegg’s feat in the 2010 debates and won plaudits for the way she challenged both the Labour and Tory leaders over their plans for the economy and the NHS.
Mr Clegg’s first intervention in the debate was to launch an aggressive attack to Mr Cameron, his Coalition partner for the last five years.
In some of the most emotional confrontations, Mr Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, called Mr Miliband “pious” and demanded that he apologise “for crashing the British economy”.




Mr Farage and Mr Cameron were involved in tense exchanges over immigration. The Ukip leader said “nothing” could be achieved while Britain was in Europe, while Mr Cameron said he was being “defeatist”.
The Prime Minister said that the Conservatives will eliminate the deficit without “reaching into working people’s pockets and taking their money” like Labour.
Both Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband faced attacks from the smaller parties over their plans for the economy.
Mr Farage said: “Our debt repayment is bigger than our defence budget. We have maxed out the credit cards and at some point we have got a dreadful debt repayment. We have got to get real. We can cut budgets like foreign aid.”

Polls open in

34	:	08	:	06	:	25
Days		Hrs		Mins		Secs

Miss Sturgeon asked Mr Cameron to set out where the £12 billion of welfare cuts pledged by the Conservatives would fall. Mr Cameron refused to do so.
On the NHS, Mr Cameron invoked Ivan, his son who died in 2009, and said that he would not forget what he had received as the father of a disabled son in terms of “unbelievable” care.
Miss Sturgeon said that she would order her MPs to vote on English health issues.
Mr Farage clashed with the rest of the panel when he raised the issue of foreigners with HIV being treated on the NHS.
Leanne Wood, the leader of Plaid Cymru, told him: “This kind of scaremongering is dangerous, it divides communities and it creates stigma to people who are ill, and I think you ought to be ashamed of yourself.”
In the immediate aftermath of the debate, there was variation in a number of snap polls.
Although YouGov, regarded as the county’s most reliable pollster, said Miss Sturgeon had won the contest, an ICM survey for the Guardian declared Mr Miliband the winner.
In a poll by ComRes, voters were asked to say which leader is “most capable of leading the country”. Mr Cameron won that poll with 40 per cent of the vote, with Mr Miliband trailing on 28 per cent.
An average of the three polls put Miss Sturgeon in first place with 22 per cent, Mr Cameron in second with 22 per cent and Mr Farage with 20 per cent.
Referring to Mr Farage’s comments on HIV, George Osborne, the Chancellor, said: “The only reason he said it is so that we would all be asked about it. I’m not going to dignify it with a response.”
After the debate, Mr Cameron said: “The UK needs to stick to the plan and not be taken back to square one.”

• Read a full profile of Nick Clegg here
  
  
• Read a full profile of Natalie Bennett here
  
  

• Read a full profile of David Cameron here
  
  
• Read a full profile of Ed Miliband leader here
  
  

• Read a full profile of Leanne Wood here
  
  
• Read a full profile of Nigel Farage here
  
  
• Read a full profile of Nicola Sturgeon here
  
  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11512267/Election-debate-2015-Winners-and-losers.html

Nicola takes it.

I won't be voting for the SNP though but I wish she was a Labour girl. Well she is really as SNP are a LW party.

Well, you never know, the left might all get together. After all, Cameron trying to demonise the SNP after tonight is going to look pretty stupid.

Just watched this. Nicola was impressive and as I once said of Salmond, its a shame the Scottish First Minister isn't up for the job of PM...

Of the Westminster lot I honestly believe Clegg did best. Farage blamed foreigners for everything and shouted people down (like he did with Clegg) when they went into the complexities of some issues. Farage normally does well in debates, but for me this was his worse showing.

Cameron did average as did Ed, but Ed is being a coward in refusing to acknowledge the past as connected to the present.

Clegg was well spoken and explained his position. He didn't back down on unpopular points and defended the Liberal record in government.

A progressive alliance of any combination of SNP, Liberal and Labour is the best realistic outcome imo.

I think Miliband should take that as a massive loss to be honest Eilzel because this should have been his platform to shine and he was clearly outshone by Strugeon and Farage (based on polls) and to top it off Cameron has come out still on top from doing very little. As 40% back him as the most capable leader.

I reckon you will start to see Labour slip from 2-3 points in the polls over the next coming days. This was his chance to show he is capable to lead and he failed. Labour have an uphill struggle to convince voters that Miliband can lead the country. As I said before, the Tories best weapon in this election is Miliband as the Labour leader. They would in my opinion be ahead in the polls if they had a far stronger leader with an abundance of Charisma of which Miliband clearly lacks. Of course this is good news to me, because I do not want Labour to win.
If they start to fall in the polls I wonder if labour will stick with him?
I think Labour may have blown this election, unless they can pull off a miracle come back.

Brasidas wrote:I think Miliband should take that as a massive loss to be honest Eilzel because this should have been his platform to shine and he was clearly outshone by Strugeon and Farage (based on polls) and to top it off Cameron has come out still on top from doing very little. As 40% back him as the most capable leader.

I reckon you will start to see Labour slip from 2-3 points in the polls over the next coming days. This was his chance to show he is capable to lead and he failed. Labour have an uphill struggle to convince voters that Miliband can lead the country. As I said before, the Tories best weapon in this election is Miliband as the Labour leader. They would in my opinion be ahead in the polls if they had a far stronger leader with an abundance of Charisma of which Miliband clearly lacks. Of course this is good news to me, because I do not want Labour to win.
If they start to fall in the polls I wonder if labour will stick with him?
I think Labour may have blown this election, unless they can pull off a miracle come back.

Labour may or may not win the electon, or be involved in the forming of the next government- however I do not think this debate will swing it either way. No polls has been decisive enough- and if it were, remember how Clegg was superman after one debate last time round? There is still plenty of time to go- the obscene claims of the Telegraph and Sun are unwarranted and almost certainly ready to print pre-debate.

For me a progressive alliance is the best outcome and still very possible, the 3 parties I mentioned have more common ground than any other. But a Conservative/Liberal alliance again wouldn't be too bad either.

And Ed will lead the Labour party at least to May 7. They wouldn't drop him before then, that would be a decisive suicide for the party this close to an election. If they lose on May 7 however, that will surely be the end of Ed's leadership ambitions.

risingsun wrote:Have to say, thought she was brilliant.  As a feminist I salute her and think she will make a great addition to HOC.   Julie Etchingham was fantastic, calm, professional, unbiased and kept control through everything.   Made Kay Burley look like a simpering whore.

A simpering whore? That's not the kind of thing I'd expect a feminist to say.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:I think Miliband should take that as a massive loss to be honest Eilzel because this should have been his platform to shine and he was clearly outshone by Strugeon and Farage (based on polls) and to top it off Cameron has come out still on top from doing very little. As 40% back him as the most capable leader.

I reckon you will start to see Labour slip from 2-3 points in the polls over the next coming days. This was his chance to show he is capable to lead and he failed. Labour have an uphill struggle to convince voters that Miliband can lead the country. As I said before, the Tories best weapon in this election is Miliband as the Labour leader. They would in my opinion be ahead in the polls if they had a far stronger leader with an abundance of Charisma of which Miliband clearly lacks. Of course this is good news to me, because I do not want Labour to win.
If they start to fall in the polls I wonder if labour will stick with him?
I think Labour may have blown this election, unless they can pull off a miracle come back.

Labour may or may not win the electon, or be involved in the forming of the next government- however I do not think this debate will swing it either way. No polls has been decisive enough- and if it were, remember how Clegg was superman after one debate last time round? There is still plenty of time to go- the obscene claims of the Telegraph and Sun are unwarranted and almost certainly ready to print pre-debate.

For me a progressive alliance is the best outcome and still very possible, the 3 parties I mentioned have more common ground than any other. But a Conservative/Liberal alliance again wouldn't be too bad either.

And Ed will lead the Labour party at least to May 7. They wouldn't drop him before then, that would be a decisive suicide for the party this close to an election. If they lose on May 7 however, that will surely be the end of Ed's leadership ambitions.

I think it would be suicide for Labour to keep him Eilzel, though understand that to drop him would be suicidal. Which to me is great news, but for Labour they are stuck between a rock and a hard place unable to replace him and yet keeping him will damage them they need Miliband to do something special to make the public think his is capable of leading. They may still win, but again to me with a stronger Charismatic leader, they would be at least 5 points ahead in the Polls.Yeah the papers are going crazy now each day over their comments on this, so I agree with your point. David would have been far more effective in leading them to be honest

Brasidas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Labour may or may not win the electon, or be involved in the forming of the next government- however I do not think this debate will swing it either way. No polls has been decisive enough- and if it were, remember how Clegg was superman after one debate last time round? There is still plenty of time to go- the obscene claims of the Telegraph and Sun are unwarranted and almost certainly ready to print pre-debate.

For me a progressive alliance is the best outcome and still very possible, the 3 parties I mentioned have more common ground than any other. But a Conservative/Liberal alliance again wouldn't be too bad either.

And Ed will lead the Labour party at least to May 7. They wouldn't drop him before then, that would be a decisive suicide for the party this close to an election. If they lose on May 7 however, that will surely be the end of Ed's leadership ambitions.

I think it would be suicide for Labour to keep him Eilzel, though understand that to drop him would be suicidal. Which to me is great news, but for Labour they are stuck between a rock and a hard place unable to replace him and yet keeping him will damage them they need Miliband to do something special to make the public think his is capable of leading. They may still win, but again to me with a stronger Charismatic leader, they would be at least 5 points ahead in the Polls.Yeah the papers are going crazy now each day over their comments on this, so I agree with your point. David would have been far more effective in leading them to be honest

David would have had a better presentation that's for sure, though in honesty he would probably have been another Blair- immense amounts of flash and smarts but a pretty conniving, egotistical PM. UKIP have a very charismatic leader too- but charisma isn't everything.

In truth I think anyone thinking Labour or Tory will get a majority is kidding themselves. There will be a coalition in May, the only real question is what form that coalition takes.

Eilzel wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


I think it would be suicide for Labour to keep him Eilzel, though understand that to drop him would be suicidal. Which to me is great news, but for Labour they are stuck between a rock and a hard place unable to replace him and yet keeping him will damage them they need Miliband to do something special to make the public think his is capable of leading. They may still win, but again to me with a stronger Charismatic leader, they would be at least 5 points ahead in the Polls.Yeah the papers are going crazy now each day over their comments on this, so I agree with your point. David would have been far more effective in leading them to be honest

David would have had a better presentation that's for sure, though in honesty he would probably have been another Blair- immense amounts of flash and smarts but a pretty conniving, egotistical PM. UKIP have a very charismatic leader too- but charisma isn't everything.

In truth I think anyone thinking Labour or Tory will get a majority is kidding themselves. There will be a coalition in May, the only real question is what form that coalition takes.

Agreed in regards to a majority for any party, unless there is some dramatic change of events and I think UKIP will decide where many seats go to Labour or the Tories based off previous majorities and who has defected from either party to backing UKIP. I think we can safely say though that Labour will be a spent force in Scotland.

No doubt, and that's why the SNP would gain major influence in a Labour government. And its ironic that UKIP's sole impact may be to bring about a coalition with zero intention of addressing the EU question.

So Ed will raise the minimum wage to £8 per hour? I wonder if that would actually happen if Labour got in.

I think it would, but probably over the course of 4-5 years so it doesn't immediately hit businesses hard. The only way it might not happen is if there was a coalition and 'compromises' caused them to reverse that pledge- as the Liberals did on tuition fees in 2010.

Eilzel wrote:I think it would, but probably over the course of 4-5 years so it doesn't immediately hit businesses hard. The only way it might not happen is if there was a coalition and 'compromises' caused them to reverse that pledge- as the Liberals did on tuition fees in 2010.

Well it would probably reach something close to that amount in 5 years anyway. The minimum wage does go up every year.

A sudden rise would have a knock-on effect on other wages too with those on more than minimum wage demanding a large pay rise too.

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:Have to say, thought she was brilliant.  As a feminist I salute her and think she will make a great addition to HOC.   Julie Etchingham was fantastic, calm, professional, unbiased and kept control through everything.   Made Kay Burley look like a simpering whore.

A simpering whore? That's not the kind of thing I'd expect a feminist to say.

Okay in a nutshell:

SNP - she was okay but all she wants is a better SCOTLAND and not interested in the UK as a whole (never heard her mention UK once) so she's irrelavant to me and hard-faced to boot

Welsh party - same as SNP but without the bollocks

Greens - bland as plain boiled rice and may as well have not been there. Get a new leader ASAP!

Libdems - as always, Clegg comes across as the most likeable person (like Farage's younger, calmer brother) but not keen on some of his namby-pamby ways, still a contender for me though, and good under pressure

Labour - Milliband had more passion than the grey Cameron but God there was too much oil - and all he kept saying was "if I'm prime minister" ...... He's another Tony Blair, I dislike him

Cameron - where did he leave his stuffing? He was a hollow grey shadow

Farage - alwsys represents the working man and passionate without preamble - siome would say course - but then we've never had course before as PM and perhaps it's better than oily and stuffy? He needs fine-tuning but not too much or he will sound like the others.


In conclusion: if I didn't listen to the crux any of them said Id say the only one who wasn't a clone, or wasn't afraid....is Farage.


I'm still undecided. I only know who I WON'T vote for!

eddie wrote:Okay in a nutshell:

SNP - she was okay but all she wants is a better SCOTLAND and not interested in the UK as a whole (never heard her mention UK once) so she's irrelavant to me and hard-faced to boot

Welsh party - same as SNP but without the bollocks

Greens - bland as plain boiled rice and may as well have not been there. Get a new leader ASAP!

Libdems - as always, Clegg comes across as the most likeable person (like Farage's younger, calmer brother) but not keen on some of his namby-pamby ways, still a contender for me though, and good under pressure

Labour - Milliband had more passion than the grey Cameron but God there was too much oil - and all he kept saying was "if I'm prime minister" ...... He's another Tony Blair, I dislike him

Cameron - where did he leave his stuffing? He was a hollow grey shadow

Farage - alwsys represents the working man and passionate without preamble - siome would say course - but then we've never had course before as PM and perhaps it's better than oily and stuffy? He needs fine-tuning but not too much or he will sound like the others.


In conclusion: if I didn't listen to the crux any of them said Id say the only one who wasn't a clone, or wasn't afraid....is Farage.


I'm still undecided. I only know who I WON'T vote for!

I'm the same as you Eddie - it's more an issue of who I won't vote for.

The Tories are out for me because of the hunting issue - I won't vote for a party which would like to bring back hunting with dogs.

The Greens are out because Natalie Bennett is Australian, and because I don't approve of her stance re ISIS.

The SNP are out because they won't be standing in my area, and also because they only care about Scotland.

Same for the Welsh lot.

Labour - technically-speaking, they would probably benefit me more than any other party, but I can never quite agree with their nannying attitude and failure to recognise reward for effort.

UKIP - love Nigel Farage, and I agree with his view that too much money is spent on unnecessary things, and that British people should come first in Britain. I'm not sure about UKIP in general though. I kind of feel that people would label me as racist or something if I voted for them.

That leaves the LibDems, and indeed I have voted for them before as a sort of compromise, but I don't want to do that again because I'm simply not sure what they stand for.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

A simpering whore? That's not the kind of thing I'd expect a feminist to say.

Also, at the risk of sounding a bit "girly", I will say that the Welsh lady, Leanne Wood, looked lovely - kind of retro with that dress and hairstyle.

Raggs we could've written the same voting bible
Your words exactly sum up how I feel!

eddie wrote:Raggs we could've written the same voting bible
Your words exactly sum up how I feel!

Yay!

I'm still watching the debate actually, so maybe something will be said to make up my mind.

I think that Natalie Bennett's speech about the NHS and health tourism was ridiculous. She's justifying it on the grounds that a lot of the employees in the health service are immigrants. What does that have to do with it?

Just listening to the bit about HIV. It's not scare-mongering to say how many people in this country are diagnosed with HIV every year, and to state what percentage of them are from other countries. It's also not scaremongering to state how much it costs to treat people.

Raggamuffin wrote:Just listening to the bit about HIV. It's not scare-mongering to say how many people in this country are diagnosed with HIV every year, and to state what percentage of them are from other countries. It's also not scaremongering to state how much it costs to treat people.

But it is one more thing of a chain of negative things said about foreigners in general. While cost are sensible, for some idiots this translates as 'foreigners bring aids'. It is also not helpful- if we stopped all forms of health tourism we wouldn't go anywhere toward solving the funding issue for the NHS. This was the problem with Farage the whole debate, he kept bringing things back to Europe and back to foreigners, but even if we did what he wanted we would still have a massive financial problem (both the NHS and the state as a whole) that Farage and UKIP would not have solved.

So he was bringing up just another dig at foreigners to get people on board with his 'simple solutions' without bothering to think big and think long term.

He would be a disaster for the UK- both economically and socially, he is making people look at the suffering of others with selfish, indifferent or even hostile eyes. He is making it them vs us on everything. Thankfully only some are buying it.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Just listening to the bit about HIV. It's not scare-mongering to say how many people in this country are diagnosed with HIV every year, and to state what percentage of them are from other countries. It's also not scaremongering to state how much it costs to treat people.

But it is one more thing of a chain of negative things said about foreigners in general. While cost are sensible, for some idiots this translates as 'foreigners bring aids'. It is also not helpful- if we stopped all forms of health tourism we wouldn't go anywhere toward solving the funding issue for the NHS. This was the problem with Farage the whole debate, he kept bringing things back to Europe and back to foreigners, but even if we did what he wanted we would still have a massive financial problem (both the NHS and the state as a whole) that Farage and UKIP would not have solved.

So he was bringing up just another dig at foreigners to get people on board with his 'simple solutions' without bothering to think big and think long term.

He would be a disaster for the UK- both economically and socially, he is making people look at the suffering of others with selfish, indifferent or even hostile eyes. He is making it them vs us on everything. Thankfully only some are buying it.

I think that it goes deeper than that tbh. People have tended to forget about HIV these days, largely because there are drugs to treat it, and so they think that if they do get it, well it's not a death sentence any more. However, it is an expensive condition to treat, and if there really are 7,000 new diagnoses in the UK every year, then that really needs to be taken seriously. If a large percentage of those are for people who are coming into this country, again, it needs to be addressed.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

But it is one more thing of a chain of negative things said about foreigners in general. While cost are sensible, for some idiots this translates as 'foreigners bring aids'. It is also not helpful- if we stopped all forms of health tourism we wouldn't go anywhere toward solving the funding issue for the NHS. This was the problem with Farage the whole debate, he kept bringing things back to Europe and back to foreigners, but even if we did what he wanted we would still have a massive financial problem (both the NHS and the state as a whole) that Farage and UKIP would not have solved.

So he was bringing up just another dig at foreigners to get people on board with his 'simple solutions' without bothering to think big and think long term.

He would be a disaster for the UK- both economically and socially, he is making people look at the suffering of others with selfish, indifferent or even hostile eyes. He is making it them vs us on everything. Thankfully only some are buying it.

I think that it goes deeper than that tbh. People have tended to forget about HIV these days, largely because there are drugs to treat it, and so they think that if they do get it, well it's not a death sentence any more. However, it is an expensive condition to treat, and if there really are 7,000 new diagnoses in the UK every year, then that really needs to be taken seriously. If a large percentage of those are for people who are coming into this country, again, it needs to be addressed.

Of course it does. My point is that Farage brought it up but it didn't really get to the crux of funding the NHS- which was the main question. Instead it brought up a 'relatively' small cost which 'sounded' much bigger, and of course, could be attributed to immigration and foreigners. That's why it is labelled scare mongering, because it is a comparatively small problem in the grand scheme of things which doesn't address the overall problems being discussed.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think that it goes deeper than that tbh. People have tended to forget about HIV these days, largely because there are drugs to treat it, and so they think that if they do get it, well it's not a death sentence any more. However, it is an expensive condition to treat, and if there really are 7,000 new diagnoses in the UK every year, then that really needs to be taken seriously. If a large percentage of those are for people who are coming into this country, again, it needs to be addressed.

Of course it does. My point is that Farage brought it up but it didn't really get to the crux of funding the NHS- which was the main question. Instead it brought up a 'relatively' small cost which 'sounded' much bigger, and of course, could be attributed to immigration and foreigners. That's why it is labelled scare mongering, because it is a comparatively small problem in the grand scheme of things which doesn't address the overall problems being discussed.

I don't think he got the chance tbh - he was shouted down straightaway re the HIV issue. It won't be a small problem if there are more and more diagnoses every year, because despite popular opinion, treating HIV does not mean curing it, and it does not mean that people with it will not be infectious. Leanne Wood accused him of encouraging stigma associated with HIV, but that was just the spin she put on it.

One of the main problems re health is the issue of getting a diagnosis. New tools to diagnose conditions are improving all the time, but they can be quite expensive to use for everyone.

For example, so many people tell me they have arthritis, and when I ask them what type it is, they have no idea. Well it matters a great deal because the treatments differ for different types.

I think that people really need to pay attention to their own diagnoses. They need to ask for specific tests, and they need to really look at the results of those tests themselves rather than just accept what they're told. They might be told that they can't have those tests, but it never hurts to ask for them.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Of course it does. My point is that Farage brought it up but it didn't really get to the crux of funding the NHS- which was the main question. Instead it brought up a 'relatively' small cost which 'sounded' much bigger, and of course, could be attributed to immigration and foreigners. That's why it is labelled scare mongering, because it is a comparatively small problem in the grand scheme of things which doesn't address the overall problems being discussed.

I don't think he got the chance tbh - he was shouted down straightaway re the HIV issue. It won't be a small problem if there are more and more diagnoses every year, because despite popular opinion, treating HIV does not mean curing it, and it does not mean that people with it will not be infectious. Leanne Wood accused him of encouraging stigma associated with HIV, but that was just the spin she put on it.

To be fair it was usually Farage who was doing the shouting down, as he did on Nick Clegg when Clegg was trying to explain how to curb immigration. Further, Farage's point, as mentioned, was not going to solve the NHS problems, so he was rightly challenged as he offered nothing to address those issues and instead diverted attention to 'foreigners' bringing HIV to the UK.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think he got the chance tbh - he was shouted down straightaway re the HIV issue. It won't be a small problem if there are more and more diagnoses every year, because despite popular opinion, treating HIV does not mean curing it, and it does not mean that people with it will not be infectious. Leanne Wood accused him of encouraging stigma associated with HIV, but that was just the spin she put on it.

To be fair it was usually Farage who was doing the shouting down, as he did on Nick Clegg when Clegg was trying to explain how to curb immigration. Further, Farage's point, as mentioned, was not going to solve the NHS problems, so he was rightly challenged as he offered nothing to address those issues and instead diverted attention to 'foreigners' bringing HIV to the UK.

I'm talking about that specific issue, where he was shouted down and told that he should be ashamed. Well there's no shame in talking about the reality, no matter how much it might offend others.

As for what would solve NHS problems, well I don't think it's one single issue. He brought up one issue, as did the others, but at least he was more specific - the others were a bit woolly on the subject.

Please bear in mind that I'm still watching the programme, so I haven't seen it all yet.

I do agree generally though that it would be good if Nigel Farage talked about issues which were not related to immigration. I think he's an intelligent bloke, and he knows his stuff, but he does risk being seen as a one-trick pony.

I'm actually liking what Miliband is saying about immigration. I can't believe that employers are breaking the law on minimum wage with impunity. That really pisses me off, as does this thing about recruiting only from abroad, which I suspect might be illegal.

I also agree with him that nobody should be able to get benefits for two years when they come here.

Why anyone falls for Nigel Farage's 'I'm a common man' mask I haven't a clue, he's a millionaire, went to private school, was a City Broker and supports fox huntinng.

Good opening answers from all the chaps on immigration, but sentimental and woolly statements from the three women I'm afraid.

Westminster IPSA confirms that Labour MPs do not use zero hours contracts. Tory media lies about that

I take issue with Cameron's claim that working pays more than being on benefits. Does it?

A single person over 21 on minimum wage would get £260 per week for a 40-hour week. The current benefits cap for a single person is £350 per week.  Even with working tax credits, would that bring the working person up to the maximum that a single person can get on benefits? Bear in mind that someone who earns £260 per week would also have to pay some tax and NI on that.

Of course the benefits cap includes housing benefit, so the maximum amount would differ from area to area.

Haha! I do like Cameron's comment that if people vote for Farage, they end up with Miliband.

This might help:

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation today looked at whether “people are better off on benefits than working”. They describe it as a “persistent myth” about poverty in the UK. Here are how the figures break down.

If you are single person aged over 25 who is unemployed, you get this weekly…
£71.70
Job Seeker’s Allowance is £71.70.
£73.22
Housing benefit of £73.22 to cover rent.
£13.24
Council tax support of £13.24, which covers most, but not quite all of your Council Tax

That leaves a disposable income of £70.47. Or just over ten pounds a day.

For a full-time job on the National Minimum Wage you get…
£236.63
Gross pay for the average working week comes up at £236.63
-£21.64
But £21.64 goes straight to HMRC in income tax and National Insurance contribution
+£5.54
You get £5.54 back in Working Tax Credit. Which sounds a lot like the state taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other at the cost of some processing which could surely be simplified.

You don’t get Housing Benefit or Council tax support, but you end up with a total income of £132.84. That’s £62.37 more than if you were on the dole.

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/03/07/do-you-earn-more-from-benefits-than-by-working-for-the-minimum-wage/

That was March 2014 but the rules are still the same.

risingsun wrote:This might help:

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation today looked at whether “people are better off on benefits than working”. They describe it as a “persistent myth” about poverty in the UK. Here are how the figures break down.

If you are single person aged over 25 who is unemployed, you get this weekly…
£71.70
Job Seeker’s Allowance is £71.70.
£73.22
Housing benefit of £73.22 to cover rent.
£13.24
Council tax support of £13.24, which covers most, but not quite all of your Council Tax

That leaves a disposable income of £70.47. Or just over ten pounds a day.

For a full-time job on the National Minimum Wage you get…
£236.63
Gross pay for the average working week comes up at £236.63
-£21.64
But £21.64 goes straight to HMRC in income tax and National Insurance contribution
+£5.54
You get £5.54 back in Working Tax Credit. Which sounds a lot like the state taking away with one hand, and giving back with the other at the cost of some processing which could surely be simplified.

You don’t get Housing Benefit or Council tax support, but you end up with a total income of £132.84. That’s £62.37 more than if you were on the dole.

http://ampp3d.mirror.co.uk/2014/03/07/do-you-earn-more-from-benefits-than-by-working-for-the-minimum-wage/

That was March 2014 but the rules are still the same.

Thank you. I presume they're averaging out housing costs and council tax, so really a single person gets about £158 a week on average?

As the article says, it doesn't take into account travel costs to get to work. I'll ignore the childcare bit because I'm talking about a single person with no children. Lunch at work? That adds up, although you could take your own sandwiches. You would also not get free prescriptions, and if you're in a job where the company doesn't pay sick pay, that could set you back if you go off sick at any point.

Have to say, this pic doing the rounds on Twitter made me really laugh, under the heading:

I'm not sure the woman signing for the deaf was totally impartial

Good points from Farage there. The EU is fine if the living standards in the member states is similar, but if it's not then you get a disparity. Still, I guess if you have money you could go and live cheaply in one of the poorer countries without having to work.

It's a bit like Eurovision really - it was good until too many countries joined in, and now nobody can remember who sang what.

I'm fed up with hearing about Wales and Scotland from those two women. The other leaders don't speak just for England do they?

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:Have to say, thought she was brilliant.  As a feminist I salute her and think she will make a great addition to HOC.   Julie Etchingham was fantastic, calm, professional, unbiased and kept control through everything.   Made Kay Burley look like a simpering whore.

A simpering whore? That's not the kind of thing I'd expect a feminist to say.

Er agreed!

In fairness to Sturgeon she did point out that voting against austerity was also in the interests of English voters

She did indeed Les.