@Richard_Nabavi Yes, it is bizarre for Farage to extend his comments on to multi-culturalism over this particular atrocity. France has always been pretty hot on separation of church and state and a unified culture of the French Republic. You could tell in Hollande's speech where practically the first thing he said was: "Nobody in France should think that they can behave against the principle of the Republic and harm the spirit of the Republic".
That's not to say that here the tolerance of extreme religious views isn't a problem. In my view it stems from the fact that we've never been as hot on our ability to criticise religion as we'd like to think. After all the blasphemy law was only formally repealed in 2008, with a conviction under it occurring as recently as 1977. As such we've always rather pandered to the religious desire to be devoid of criticism and that has left the left and right talking past each other. The error on the left, was rather than demand that we become more secular in our laws, demanded the same extended rights, entrenchment and freedom from criticism for other beliefs as the right often demanded (and still does on occasion) for Christianity - seeing those who'd deny them as doing so (correctly in many cases) for reasons of prejudice. Then when unpleasant groups promote more virulent strains they hide behind the privilege of religious belief.
If there's any hope from the Charlie Hebdo tragedy it's that perhaps it might unite those on both left and right who see liberty in the way of that celebrated Voltaire quote to say enough's enough, rather than leaving the arguments to those who spend their time whipping up one group of people against one another.
Ah - you seem to have your debating rather than your angry head back on.
Yes, as remarked to @Sean_F above, hold on I'll even quote myself:
A position seeking: "a possible path of: Cons lose, Cam out, Paterson (say) in, Cons win in 2020, referendum with active OUT campaigning"
is understandable.
But it is complicated and high-risk and the chances of it all playing out (when the Cons have been moving soft-and-cuddlywards for years) are very low. Plus it doesn't alter my basic thrust of this morning:
You believe that an incumbent govt campaigning for or against a position (in this case the EU) will sway the voting public because that voting public is not sophisticated enough to understand the issues and will vote according to what it is told by the party it supports.
Which is IMO arrogant and patronising. Analogous to much of the argument of the left in fact.
You are saying that if given a referendum tomorrow you would lose because the public wouldn't have been told to vote OUT. Whereas if there was a referendum tomorrow the public would vote IN.
Not at all. What I am saying is that the public opinion is far more nuanced than you give them credit for. As has often been correctly stated, the public as a whole do not like dramatic change. Therefore the argument will come down to whether or not Cameron can convince the public he has achieved sufficient repatriation of powers to overcome their general dislike of the EU. If he can persuade the public that he has then they will probably vote to stay in.
The problem is twofold. Firstly it is that whatever he gets he will say it is a huge repatriation and therefore we should vote IN. Secondly it is that we already know that whatever he gets cannot be enforced with the rest of the EU before a referendum because there is simply not enough time.
As such it is clear that he intends to lie about the significance of what he has achieved and the ability to ensure it will be adhered to by the rest of the EU and not just ignored after the referendum. He has no choice but to do that as the alternative is to recommend leaving.
Mr. Eagles, I put it to you that Jim Murphy is the best sleeper the SNP and/or Conservatives have ever had.
The Tories and SNP delivered Jim Murphy to SLAB HQ in a Wooden Horse
Have you seen that SLab are demanding to know why the SNP haven't setup an oil fund?
No I didn't know that.
I'm assuming the SNP haven't set up an oil fund because oil is now $50 a barrel cheaper than their worst case scenario?
I trust that is ironic - because oil revenue is not and will not be a devolved matter. BTW Wings also points out, as usual based on evidence kindly (but in some cases unwillingly) provided by his enemies, that Labour were, not so long ago, outraged at the very idea of an oil fund when oil cost more than twice that ...
In every single council by election from June 2014 onwards contested by the Greens the Green vote % fell compared to the previous time it fought the seat . There is NO Green surge The increase in support shown by some pollsters is a MYTH . These pollsters need to look at their methodology and discover where they are going wrong . It may help them stop getting egg on their faces in May .
Perhaps people want to vote Green at the GE, but not in local elections?
Then they would be telling all the pollsters the same thing not just 1 or 2 .
I believe all pollsters show Green is now higher than it was.
No most pollsters are showing Greens at 4/5 %
Average of this week's polls 6.4%
And how many of those polls are Yougov ? Your survey as I have pointed out before is basically a Yougov survey with the odd other poll included
And even if you take only the first of this week's YouGovs with the Populus and Opinium, the average for the Green Team is 5.7%.
Mr. Eagles, I put it to you that Jim Murphy is the best sleeper the SNP and/or Conservatives have ever had.
The Tories and SNP delivered Jim Murphy to SLAB HQ in a Wooden Horse
Have you seen that SLab are demanding to know why the SNP haven't setup an oil fund?
No I didn't know that.
I'm assuming the SNP haven't set up an oil fund because oil is now $50 a barrel cheaper than their worst case scenario?
I trust that is ironic - because oil revenue is not and will not be a devolved matter. BTW Wings also points out, as usual based on evidence kindly (but in some cases unwillingly) provided by his enemies, that Labour were, not so long ago, outraged at the very idea of an oil fund when oil cost more than twice that ...
"We've got people living in these countries, holding our passports, who hate us. Luckily their numbers are very, very small but it does make one question the whole really gross attempt at encouraged division within society that we have had in the past few decades in the name of multiculturalism."
No problem with the first bit, surely? Fifth column? Reasonable approximation? "Luckily their numbers are very, very small." SeanT would disagree.
So it must be the bit relating 'encouraged division' to 'multiculturalism'. A political point from a politician. Who'd have thunk it?
Whether the Green surge materialises depends on who exactly is driving their surge; the polls aren't really very clear in saying where their support is coming from. If their support is indeed coming from former "Red Liberals" (or "Guardianistas") then these people as Nick Palmer has often said are I think generally very interested in politics, and are very likely to turn out and vote.
On the other hand, if the surge is being driven mainly by students, I would agree they probably won't show up on the day. To be fair, there has been very little sign of some big surge in either the European elections or the recent Westminster elections.
On topic, much as I'd enjoy anything which made Miliband's life trickier, OFCOM got this right - unlike UKIP the Greens have not had much joy with real voters in real elections.....
Mr. Eagles, I put it to you that Jim Murphy is the best sleeper the SNP and/or Conservatives have ever had.
The Tories and SNP delivered Jim Murphy to SLAB HQ in a Wooden Horse
Have you seen that SLab are demanding to know why the SNP haven't setup an oil fund?
No I didn't know that.
I'm assuming the SNP haven't set up an oil fund because oil is now $50 a barrel cheaper than their worst case scenario?
I trust that is ironic - because oil revenue is not and will not be a devolved matter. BTW Wings also points out, as usual based on evidence kindly (but in some cases unwillingly) provided by his enemies, that Labour were, not so long ago, outraged at the very idea of an oil fund when oil cost more than twice that ...
The Green party is a national party which has representation in Parliament and is within touching distance of one, if not two, of the parties who will now apparently be included in debates. They should have been given equal footing with UKIP and the Lib Dems as far as major/minor is concerned and been allowed into the debates in some form of graded debate system as some have proposed on here before.
As a side note, the Green party estimates that they'll stand in 75% of seats at the election, possibly (or for them, hopefully) more.
In every single council by election from June 2014 onwards contested by the Greens the Green vote % fell compared to the previous time it fought the seat . There is NO Green surge The increase in support shown by some pollsters is a MYTH . These pollsters need to look at their methodology and discover where they are going wrong . It may help them stop getting egg on their faces in May .
Perhaps people want to vote Green at the GE, but not in local elections?
Then they would be telling all the pollsters the same thing not just 1 or 2 .
I believe all pollsters show Green is now higher than it was.
No most pollsters are showing Greens at 4/5 %
Average of this week's polls 6.4%
And how many of those polls are Yougov ? Your survey as I have pointed out before is basically a Yougov survey with the odd other poll included
And even if you take only the first of this week's YouGovs with the Populus and Opinium, the average for the Green Team is 5.7%.
and if you only take the last of this week's Yougovs what does the average come down to ?
"Paris shooting ‘product of West’s conflict with ISIS’" – Foreign Sec Hammond
What's wrong with this statement:
“What we can currently see happening – the conflict between Western values and destructive ‘values’ of the Islamic State,” said Hammond.
What's wrong with it is that it's incomplete. The values of the Islamic state are the same values of Al-Qaeda, the same values of the Muslim Brotherhood, the same values of Wahabi Muslims, the same values of Boko Haram, of Al-Shabab etc. They are values based - however correctly or incorrectly - in part on what is set out in the Koran and other sayings and apparently (at least according to IS) based on what Mohammed himself did or said.
They are based on an ideology, which has grown out of a religion, the ideology may indeed be a parasite and a cancer on it, and which has also appropriated many of the elements of fascism (which is why the term Islamo-fascism is a useful term - see, for instance, the books of Paul Berman on this latter point).
The way Hammond is descrbing it makes it sound as if it's some recent fight linked a particular event in one country.
But there again you don't get on in British politics by having an interest in ideas or ideology, even where to do so would better enable us to defend ourselves.
"Paris shooting ‘product of West’s conflict with ISIS’" – Foreign Sec Hammond
I'm not sure I've been impressed with any of our 650 elected representatives on this. How many have stuck their heads above the parapet on this? How many have offered true, brave and inspiring words about defending our values? Led by example? Inspired us to follow their example? Bravely used satire to reassure us, or incisively cut through to the heart of the issue and proposed how we can get through it, what we can do about it, and what might the solutions look like?
Where are the Churchill's, Thatcher's, Benn's, Powell's, Burke's, Lloyd-George's, even Gaitskell's and Bevan's?
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just an echo of the same tired old empty platitudes and innanities, that are so generic and meaningless that noone could but help agree with.
See this what people are afraid of with Farage's fifth columnist comments.
You're lumping all Muslims together
Here you have a chap who is apparently a Muslim has committed multiple crimes, but none of them are terrorist related, but you see Muslim and think fifth columnist.
Is this copper a fifth columnist too? I mean he committed crimes that weren't terrorist related
If there's any hope from the Charlie Hebdo tragedy it's that perhaps it might unite those on both left and right who see liberty in the way of that celebrated Voltaire quote to say enough's enough,
Given that those in power are spending the day after this atrocity trying to silence a politician millions voted for, I don;t hold out much hope.
Except that quote wasn't actually Voltaire's!
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in The Friends of Voltaire (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression.[12]
Cheers for the link PtP - some very clever and powerful cartoons there.
The 'finger' is perhaps the strongest image, but 'he drew first' combined wit with cutting comment.
The cartoons are very good indeed and kudos to the Daily Mail for pulling them together.
The plane flying into 2 pencils is very powerful, as is the one of the beheaded figure sticking its tongue out at the executioner.
They're of a very high standard, Cyclefree, and each make their point in their own various ways.
I know Marf felt honoured to be included in such fine company. Her own effort was penned swiftly as soon as she heard the news. I believe it was up on this Site within a few hours. It's from the heart, and it shows.
Great to see the cartoonists of the world rising to the challenge.
Mr. Eagles, I put it to you that Jim Murphy is the best sleeper the SNP and/or Conservatives have ever had.
The Tories and SNP delivered Jim Murphy to SLAB HQ in a Wooden Horse
Have you seen that SLab are demanding to know why the SNP haven't setup an oil fund?
No I didn't know that.
I'm assuming the SNP haven't set up an oil fund because oil is now $50 a barrel cheaper than their worst case scenario?
I trust that is ironic - because oil revenue is not and will not be a devolved matter. BTW Wings also points out, as usual based on evidence kindly (but in some cases unwillingly) provided by his enemies, that Labour were, not so long ago, outraged at the very idea of an oil fund when oil cost more than twice that ...
Yes, much truth in that. He might have added, that it will be a nightmare for the rest of us as well, since none of the scenarios is stable, conducive to good government, or compatible with good levels of business confidence.
As I've been saying for the last year, make your plans accordingly.
Cheers for the link PtP - some very clever and powerful cartoons there.
The 'finger' is perhaps the strongest image, but 'he drew first' combined wit with cutting comment.
The cartoons are very good indeed and kudos to the Daily Mail for pulling them together.
The plane flying into 2 pencils is very powerful, as is the one of the beheaded figure sticking its tongue out at the executioner.
They're of a very high standard, Cyclefree, and each make their point in their own various ways.
I know Marf felt honoured to be included in such fine company. Her own effort was penned swiftly as soon as she heard the news. I believe it was up on this Site within a few hours. It's from the heart, and it shows.
Great to see the cartoonists of the world rising to the challenge.
Indeed. Marf and Mike deserve real praise for drawing and publishing. Some small cheer in these times.
Cheers for the link PtP - some very clever and powerful cartoons there.
The 'finger' is perhaps the strongest image, but 'he drew first' combined wit with cutting comment.
The cartoons are very good indeed and kudos to the Daily Mail for pulling them together.
The plane flying into 2 pencils is very powerful, as is the one of the beheaded figure sticking its tongue out at the executioner.
They're of a very high standard, Cyclefree, and each make their point in their own various ways.
I know Marf felt honoured to be included in such fine company. Her own effort was penned swiftly as soon as she heard the news. I believe it was up on this Site within a few hours. It's from the heart, and it shows.
Great to see the cartoonists of the world rising to the challenge.
Indeed. Marf and Mike deserve real praise for drawing and publishing. Some small cheer in these times.
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks"
The words 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' are used 22 times in the article. His authorized biography is called American Terrorist. Apart from that, good job.
"Paris shooting ‘product of West’s conflict with ISIS’" – Foreign Sec Hammond
I'm not sure I've been impressed with any of our 650 elected representatives on this. How many have stuck their heads above the parapet on this? How many have offered true, brave and inspiring words about defending our values? Led by example? Inspired us to follow their example? Bravely used satire to reassure us, or incisively cut through to the heart of the issue and proposed how we can get through it, what we can do about it, and what might the solutions look like?
Where are the Churchill's, Thatcher's, Benn's, Powell's, Burke's, Lloyd-George's, even Gaitskell's and Bevan's?
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just an echo of the same tired old empty platitudes and innanities, that are so generic and meaningless that noone could but help agree with.
1) Russia Today have spun Hammond's words because they are a biased organisation and they don't like Hammond in the past calling out Putin for the thug he is
2) You haven't been looking very hard have you. Take Nick Clegg today
tom bradby @tombradby 20s20 seconds ago After the Ofcom comments today, David Cameron all but rules out to me taking part in TV debates as currently proposed by the broadcasters.
You could add that until about a hundred years ago, it was so in this country too ! After all, what are blasphemy laws ? ------------------------------------------------------ Yes we are quite mad to import people from a totally alien culture, and in numbers to swamp the indigenous culture in many places. We can blame Labour and Tory equally for this. But you are quite wrong, surbiton and RodCrosby, no one in the West pisses on Islam in the manner that Islam pisses on ALL other religions and none. Don't be Dhimmies please.
Not sure where the Dhimmie fits in. I was just pointing out the lunacy of current thinking and policy.
Giving someone from an entirely alien culture a British passport does not magically turn him into a liberal free-thinker. As I said previously, to insult their prophet is to invite DEATH. It has always been so, and we can't claim we never knew that...
So, do we carry on? Or
1) Ban Islam and its manifestations? 2) Capitulate and sacrifice even more of our freedom of speech? 3) Encourage them to leave these shores? 4) Reach some compromise, such as certain areas of this country becoming subject to Sharia Law?
Not at all. What I am saying is that the public opinion is far more nuanced than you give them credit for. As has often been correctly stated, the public as a whole do not like dramatic change. Therefore the argument will come down to whether or not Cameron can convince the public he has achieved sufficient repatriation of powers to overcome their general dislike of the EU. If he can persuade the public that he has then they will probably vote to stay in.
The problem is twofold. Firstly it is that whatever he gets he will say it is a huge repatriation and therefore we should vote IN. Secondly it is that we already know that whatever he gets cannot be enforced with the rest of the EU before a referendum because there is simply not enough time.
As such it is clear that he intends to lie about the significance of what he has achieved and the ability to ensure it will be adhered to by the rest of the EU and not just ignored after the referendum. He has no choice but to do that as the alternative is to recommend leaving.
So you square that circle.
I can't.
If you speak to people who know what they are talking about on Europe (I am not one of them) they will tell you that we have gone way too far and committed way too much to get back anything anytime soon and especially by 2017.
You are saying that as no meaningful concessions can be given in the committed time frame, to have a referendum so early is nonsensical because nothing meaningful will be able to be agreed (and so Cam will have to lie).
But my point still stands. This May the Kippers will likely contribute to a Lab victory. That will put the prospect of any meaningful renegotiation or referendum to bed for five years. They will do this because once Cam loses they hope a more eurosceptic leader will be installed (not certain) and then the Cons will win in 2020 (not certain) and then the Cons under a eurosceptic leader will hold a referendum and campaign for OUT (not certain).
But this is a(n extreme) tail event, relying on several pathways that each are low probability. Plus, as I mentioned before, you are relying on the British public not realising that Cam is lying whereas you will, presumably, realise.
But I am not sure he will lie. I have no doubt he will try to obfuscate and even if he does lie, somewhere, as a result of good journalism or a good oppostion or from the Kippers themselves, the actual details of whatever he gets or doesn't get will surface. Look at how the SNP budget was taken apart oil tax dollar by oil tax dollar. There will be nowhere for him to hide.
Yours is a compelling vision but I don't buy it. The only way even to have this whole process is to have a Cons govt.
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks"
I think he was mentioning the notorious Today front page after the Oklahoma bombing which had the headline "In the name of Allah" with a photo of the attack
Then in the next few days when the facts emerged they called it the work of "American survivalists"
Yes, much truth in that. He might have added, that it will be a nightmare for the rest of us as well, since none of the scenarios is stable, conducive to good government, or compatible with good levels of business confidence.
As I've been saying for the last year, make your plans accordingly.
The 2010 election was also billed as the "one nobody wants to win". Winning may be tough but not as tough as losing.
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks"
I think he was mentioning the notorious Today front page after the Oklahoma bombing which had the headline "In the name of Allah" with a photo of the attack
Then in the next few days when the facts emerged they called it the work of "American survivalists"
Right. Can't believe I missed that tortuous and invisible link.
Cameron trying to use Ofcom decision to run cowardly from the debates:
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 51s51 seconds ago Big on TV debates @tombradby "are you saying you are not going to go in as it stands unless at least Greens are in?' Cameron:"Correct".
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Well done to Marf. The only one of us pb'ers who actually has irrefutably stuck her head above the paraphet on this.
Fantastic work.
OMG - I've just seen my apostrophe error.
It should be cartoons, not cartoon's.
FFS - With misuse of apostrophes like that, I could replace Nigel Farage
I make typos all the time. I'd like to always blame my iPhone, and the fact this is just a blog, but sometimes it's just a case of me failing to follow the old adage of less haste and more speed.
Of course not: he's white. And even if he *had* comitted terrorist crimes, he still wouldn't get called a terrorist (see also: McVeigh, Timothy).
fifth column noun a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.
1. Carrying out sex attacks for one's private gratification is not being "at war" with our country. 2. A single individual operating alone does not constitute "a group"
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks"
I think he was mentioning the notorious Today front page after the Oklahoma bombing which had the headline "In the name of Allah" with a photo of the attack
Then in the next few days when the facts emerged they called it the work of "American survivalists"
Right. Can't believe I missed that tortuous and invisible link.
Sometimes, like my pop music references, the references are just too damn subtle.
Of course not: he's white. And even if he *had* comitted terrorist crimes, he still wouldn't get called a terrorist (see also: McVeigh, Timothy).
fifth column noun a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.
1. Carrying out sex attacks for one's private gratification is not being "at war" with our country. 2. A single individual operating alone does not constitute "a group"
Etymology of course comes from the Spanish Civil War (a "fifth column" of Nationalists in Madrid itself).
Of course not: he's white. And even if he *had* comitted terrorist crimes, he still wouldn't get called a terrorist (see also: McVeigh, Timothy).
fifth column noun a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.
1. Carrying out sex attacks for one's private gratification is not being "at war" with our country. 2. A single individual operating alone does not constitute "a group"
Tell that to MikeK who thinks a bent copper with a Muslim sounding name convicted for non terrorist crimes is a fifth columnist.
Cameron trying to use Ofcom decision to run cowardly from the debates:
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 51s51 seconds ago Big on TV debates @tombradby "are you saying you are not going to go in as it stands unless at least Greens are in?' Cameron:"Correct".
TBF to Cameron, the debates will be lopsided with UKIP in, but the Greens out.
The Greens won an MP in the 2010 GE, they didn't need by-elections (which often throw up strange results) to get in.
Surprising that the chance to have a 1 v 1 presidential type debate with Miliband and only having to face Farage in one of the three debates isn't enough of a concession for Cameron to agree to the debates.
"We've got people living in these countries, holding our passports, who hate us. Luckily their numbers are very, very small but it does make one question the whole really gross attempt at encouraged division within society that we have had in the past few decades in the name of multiculturalism."
No problem with the first bit, surely? Fifth column? Reasonable approximation? "Luckily their numbers are very, very small." SeanT would disagree.
So it must be the bit relating 'encouraged division' to 'multiculturalism'. A political point from a politician. Who'd have thunk it?
The point is that this attack having occurred in France, British political points about multiculturalism and our policies on it don't particularly apply. French policy historically has been the opposite of multiculturalism - an indivisible Republic in which you have to abide by secular laws and learn French. Of course that's not to say that the French are immune to fears about multiculturalism - in fact they're arguably more worried than we are due to having a far higher Muslim population than us due to the large number of Maghrebis who have made their home in France. But then we're into a whole new area, which Mr Farage probably wants to leave to Mme. Le Pen within French politics.
As such one disagrees with his emphasis - but I'm well aware that others won't, and that shouting him down with platitudes about 'divisiveness' and trying to shut him up isn't particularly smart or fair.
"Paris shooting ‘product of West’s conflict with ISIS’" – Foreign Sec Hammond
I'm not sure I've been impressed with any of our 650 elected representatives on this. How many have stuck their heads above the parapet on this? How many have offered true, brave and inspiring words about defending our values? Led by example? Inspired us to follow their example? Bravely used satire to reassure us, or incisively cut through to the heart of the issue and proposed how we can get through it, what we can do about it, and what might the solutions look like?
Where are the Churchill's, Thatcher's, Benn's, Powell's, Burke's, Lloyd-George's, even Gaitskell's and Bevan's?
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just an echo of the same tired old empty platitudes and innanities, that are so generic and meaningless that noone could but help agree with.
1) Russia Today have spun Hammond's words because they are a biased organisation and they don't like Hammond in the past calling out Putin for the thug he is
2) You haven't been looking very hard have you. Take Nick Clegg today
Fair enough, I hadn't seen that. Credit where credit is due to Clegg - that's well said.
I would like such sentiments said and reflected with a much higher profile, though. An address to the nation on the defence of our values by the PM/DPM, followed by further action to strengthen and defend free speech (such as repeal of the religious hatred bill) would be good.
What I really want is high-profile brave and defiant public leadership.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Right. The only shared policy between France and the UK in this area is that we've both allowed mass immigration from poor Muslim countries. That was the common mistake.
Judging by arrest numbers, about 1 in every 5000 Muslims in the UK is involved in terrorist activity.
"We've got people living in these countries, holding our passports, who hate us. Luckily their numbers are very, very small but it does make one question the whole really gross attempt at encouraged division within society that we have had in the past few decades in the name of multiculturalism."
No problem with the first bit, surely? Fifth column? Reasonable approximation? "Luckily their numbers are very, very small." SeanT would disagree.
So it must be the bit relating 'encouraged division' to 'multiculturalism'. A political point from a politician. Who'd have thunk it?
The point is that this attack having occurred in France, British political points about multiculturalism and our policies on it don't particularly apply. French policy historically has been the opposite of multiculturalism - an indivisible Republic in which you have to abide by secular laws and learn French. Of course that's not to say that the French are immune to fears about multiculturalism - in fact they're arguably more worried than we are due to having a far higher Muslim population than us due to the large number of Maghrebis who have made their home in France. But then we're into a whole new area, which Mr Farage probably wants to leave to Mme. Le Pen within French politics.
As such one disagrees with his emphasis - but I'm well aware that others won't, and that shouting him down with platitudes about 'divisiveness' and trying to shut him up isn't particularly smart or fair.
The appalling poverty endured by huges swathes of the French muslim community is not replicated here. The disaffection and hopelessness this engenders is fertile ground for seducing angry young men into zealotry. Compared the that, divisiveness or inclusiveness is a small thing.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Cam right to avoid a rigged game.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
But are consistently above the LDs in the polls. These rules will always have trouble with new parties.
Nigel Farage @Nigel_Farage · 1 min 1 minute ago Looks like Mr Cameron is a chicken running scared over the TV debates. RT if u believe we should be in the debates: https://twitter.com/tombradby/status/553218149534162944 … 0 replies . 43 retweets 7 favourites Reply Retweeted43 Favourite7 More
I would certainly consider banning organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood from operating here and taking other action to stop or make it very much harder for those spreading, funding or supporting Islamist ideology to do this here.
What we do is say that Muslims living here, born here, are British and must behave and act as British citizens. They - like every other British citizen - are entitled to the rights, freedoms and protections of British laws. But - like every other British citizen - they also have obligations and responsibilities under the law. And the most important of those is that they accept the primacy of British law and that no other law (secular or religious) applies. They are free to practise their religion. They are not free (as no-one is) to impose it on others, whether directly or indirectly, and they have to accept that that means accepting criticism of what they believe etc.
We do not need IMO to spell out what British values are. What we can say is what is wholly unacceptable: apostasy is not punished by death and threatening anyone who leaves Islam is wrong. Males and females are equal and seeking to deny women equality on the grounds of religion is wrong and will not be allowed. Ditto re gays. Ditto re Jews. Specifically, preaching and spreading anti-Semitism is wrong. Threatening violence if people don't do or say or do or say something you don't like is wrong and will be punished. Freedom of thought and speech are the foundation of democracy and a liberal order. And these things must be taught in schools and universities and lived and enforced by us all. So none of the grotesque nonsense of tolerating the segregation of women to satisfy some absurd clerical speaker, for instance.
And if people feel that it is more important for them to be able to do these things than live in Britain then they have to make their choice and move to a country where this is permitted. But what we need to stop is the idea of people living here with all the advantages of Britain but owing no loyalty to this country and with their cultural mental framework located somehere else hostile to us.
And for those who choose to come here we have to think hard about whether it makes sense for us and to those we let in we need to make crystal clear what our expectations are.
And all those Muslims living here must be cherished and treated as our fellow Britons. But as Britons above all. I do not want some 20 year old born here, whose parents and grand-parents were born here to think of himself as coming from "Lahore" and thinking that he should follow the laws, mores and culture of a foreign country.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Cam right to avoid a rigged game.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
Cluck cluck cluck.
Cowardice is not the same thing as stupidity.
Yet Cameron has plenty of both. He is running scared from Farage because he knows Farage will show up his stupid arguments about repatriation. Ironically, those arguments had to be created because of his cowardice in standing up to the EU.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
I'm not sure it was the debates that lost it (an outright majority) for him last time. It was the Tory campaign.
I think they broke his confidence in debates the same way the 2001 election broke Hague's confidence in his leadership capability.
One Tory MP who had a 1:1 with Cameron shortly after the election, and briefly raised it with him, spoke to me about it. He told me Cameron said, "Don't mention the debates! I thought I'd lost you all your seats. Nightmare!"
Surprising that the chance to have a 1 v 1 presidential type debate with Miliband and only having to face Farage in one of the three debates isn't enough of a concession for Cameron to agree to the debates.
The one v one with Miliband is probably the main worry, as it's a no win situation. Debates are all about expectations, and with Miliband they'd be low and easy to exceed - especially as he tends to do better than some would like to give him credit for when debating with Cameron - he has a nice line in probing on detail in a reasonable tone and letting Dave work himself into a frenzy. Plus of course it automatically gives Ed equal stature. If you're basing most of your campaign strategy on depicting your opponent as an incompetent weird looking fool, putting him on a stage and giving him the chance to look Prime Ministerial isn't a smart move. If Ed was perceived even to have 'won' by the slimmest of margins, it would be an utter disaster for the Tories.
Remember Obama v Romney, where the President was expected to batter this bloke who sounded like a robot from the hedge fund dimension, but almost destroyed his poll lead by losing. Luckily he had two others to stabilise things.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Remember Obama v Romney, where the President was expected to batter this bloke who sounded like a robot from the hedge fund dimension, but almost destroyed his poll lead by losing. Luckily he had two others to stabilise things.
The two others didn't just stabilise - he regained a huge lead and then coasted to victory. That's the thing about multiple debates: the best performer with the best arguments wins overall. That's why Cameron's running scared. He knows that on immigration and the EU, he's going to look like an idiot.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Cam right to avoid a rigged game.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
Cluck cluck cluck.
Cowardice is not the same thing as stupidity.
Yet Cameron has plenty of both. He is running scared from Farage because he knows Farage will show up his stupid arguments about repatriation. Ironically, those arguments had to be created because of his cowardice in standing up to the EU.
He knows what happened to Clegg last year when he tried to take him on.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Cam right to avoid a rigged game.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
Cluck cluck cluck.
Cowardice is not the same thing as stupidity.
Yet Cameron has plenty of both. He is running scared from Farage because he knows Farage will show up his stupid arguments about repatriation. Ironically, those arguments had to be created because of his cowardice in standing up to the EU.
Your anger shows Cameron's position of strength. You want your bar room barracker to throw rocks at Cam ? Then let the lentil munchers in to do the same to Ed...
To slightly paraphrase Thomas Jefferson: my neighbours are welcome to believe there is one God, twenty gods or no god(s) at all, just so long as they don't pick my pocket or break my leg.
"Paris shooting ‘product of West’s conflict with ISIS’" – Foreign Sec Hammond
I'm not sure I've been impressed with any of our 650 elected representatives on this. How many have stuck their heads above the parapet on this? How many have offered true, brave and inspiring words about defending our values? Led by example? Inspired us to follow their example? Bravely used satire to reassure us, or incisively cut through to the heart of the issue and proposed how we can get through it, what we can do about it, and what might the solutions look like?
Where are the Churchill's, Thatcher's, Benn's, Powell's, Burke's, Lloyd-George's, even Gaitskell's and Bevan's?
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just an echo of the same tired old empty platitudes and innanities, that are so generic and meaningless that noone could but help agree with.
1) Russia Today have spun Hammond's words because they are a biased organisation and they don't like Hammond in the past calling out Putin for the thug he is
2) You haven't been looking very hard have you. Take Nick Clegg today
Fair enough, I hadn't seen that. Credit where credit is due to Clegg - that's well said.
I would like such sentiments said and reflected with a much higher profile, though. An address to the nation on the defence of our values by the PM/DPM, followed by further action to strengthen and defend free speech (such as repeal of the religious hatred bill) would be good.
What I really want is high-profile brave and defiant public leadership.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Cam right to avoid a rigged game.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
Cluck cluck cluck.
Cowardice is not the same thing as stupidity.
Yet Cameron has plenty of both. He is running scared from Farage because he knows Farage will show up his stupid arguments about repatriation. Ironically, those arguments had to be created because of his cowardice in standing up to the EU.
Your anger shows Cameron's position of strength. You want your bar room barracker to throw rocks at Cam ? Then let the lentil munchers in to do the same to Ed...
He defends free speech one day. Runs scared from an open debate the next. Sounds like David the coward Cameron, alright.
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
If Cameron could engineer it so the others had some debates and then he tipped up for the final one seeming fresh and prime-ministerial I suspect he'd be rather pleased.
The only leader that needs to avoid debates is Ed, and as such I'm rather surprised that Cameron hasn't suggested a weekly debate until May.
Farage will undoubtedly benefit from the Green's exclusion, unless Clegg can somehow portray himself as the underdog.
Of course they'll all pull out of the BBC one when they insist on including Risible Brand.
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks"
I think he was mentioning the notorious Today front page after the Oklahoma bombing which had the headline "In the name of Allah" with a photo of the attack
Then in the next few days when the facts emerged they called it the work of "American survivalists"
As Muslims are responsible for 80% of terrorist attacks and 90% of terrorists deaths wasn't this a safe (albeit incorrect) assumption for Today to make?
Would be happy to see the whole turgid, rigged debates dropped. If only there wasn't a more sterile way of keeping the public from asking silly questions to party leaders.
This is surely a massive announcement today and very, very bad news for Cameron.
Not because of the debates but the implications for TV news coverage during the campaign.
Last time it was Con/Lab/LD : 5/5/4.
There do not appear to be any reports of what is going to happen this time - but what does happen will be key.
Will UKIP get equal coverage with LD? Will it be 5/5/4/4?
Or will both LD and UKIP get less - say 5/5/3/3 or 5/5/2/2?
This is absolutely vital yet nobody is even talking about it or aware of the issue. For my money the exact decision will have a major impact on the GE result.
NB. Proposal to have three debates on 4/3/2 basis implies UKIP not treated on same basis as LD. If that is allowed, it COULD imply non-equal treatment on TV news despite both having major party status.
Brave decision by David Cameron to rule out the debate without the Greens but politically astute as the controversy caused will result in a lot of publicity for the Greens that they may not otherwise have had and puts Ed Miliband on the spot to declare whether he agrees or not that the Greens should be included as if he is against it could be very negative for labour
Remember Obama v Romney, where the President was expected to batter this bloke who sounded like a robot from the hedge fund dimension, but almost destroyed his poll lead by losing. Luckily he had two others to stabilise things.
The CNN/ORC poll that is the basis of the "Obama terrible in first debate" was amazing in it's demographics - to the level of calling it a voodoo poll
How did Non-whites compare to whites in how they saw the debate? We'll never know, none were polled. How did people under the age of 50 think about the debate? None were polled. How did people without college degrees view it? Apparently everyone who watched it had a college degree. How did people out side the American South view it? Who knows, only people from the South were polled.
A good excuse for Cameron but frankly all the debates do is distort the issues and the politics into personalities and beauty parades. Certainly without the lefty Greens angling for lefty votes any debates would be biased.
For the Greens future, they need to overhaul the Lib Dems and ideally UKIP. But it is the LDs that share more of the same target types of voters.
But do the Greens recognise that and have a plan to reduce the LDs to fewer MPs than the Greens have? It would take a couple of GEs but if the LDs were "decapitated" down to under 20 MPs at this GE through aggressive Green campaigns in LD constituencies, then overhauling the LDs becomes a possibility.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 27s27 seconds ago Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Cameron correctly realises he has more to lose by taking part in the debates.
Cam right to avoid a rigged game.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
Cluck cluck cluck.
Cowardice is not the same thing as stupidity.
Yet Cameron has plenty of both. He is running scared from Farage because he knows Farage will show up his stupid arguments about repatriation. Ironically, those arguments had to be created because of his cowardice in standing up to the EU.
Your anger shows Cameron's position of strength. You want your bar room barracker to throw rocks at Cam ? Then let the lentil munchers in to do the same to Ed...
He defends free speech one day. Runs scared from an open debate the next. Sounds like David the coward Cameron, alright.
He's free not to appear isn't he ? Whilst the TV companies can empty chair him the show will be missing the biggest actor - and viewing figures will reflect that.
Comes to a tv executive to choose between Cam or Farage then goodnight Nigel...
Brave decision by David Cameron to rule out the debate without the Greens but politically astute as the controversy caused will result in a lot of publicity for the Greens that they may not otherwise have had and puts Ed Miliband on the spot to declare whether he agrees or not that the Greens should be included as if he is against it could be very negative for labour
A Kipper will be along to tell you that it is imperative in the fight against Islam and the EU there must be free speech compelling Cameron to appear before this interrogation.
Comments
The problem is twofold. Firstly it is that whatever he gets he will say it is a huge repatriation and therefore we should vote IN. Secondly it is that we already know that whatever he gets cannot be enforced with the rest of the EU before a referendum because there is simply not enough time.
As such it is clear that he intends to lie about the significance of what he has achieved and the ability to ensure it will be adhered to by the rest of the EU and not just ignored after the referendum. He has no choice but to do that as the alternative is to recommend leaving.
So you square that circle.
“What we can currently see happening – the conflict between Western values and destructive ‘values’ of the Islamic State,” said Hammond.
breaking: security increased at UK ports and stations...
We are all cartoonists now!
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-goldfish-principle/#more-65086
QuestionPropagandise More?Fantastic work.
"We've got people living in these countries, holding our passports, who hate us. Luckily their numbers are very, very small but it does make one question the whole really gross attempt at encouraged division within society that we have had in the past few decades in the name of multiculturalism."
No problem with the first bit, surely? Fifth column? Reasonable approximation? "Luckily their numbers are very, very small." SeanT would disagree.
So it must be the bit relating 'encouraged division' to 'multiculturalism'. A political point from a politician. Who'd have thunk it?
On the other hand, if the surge is being driven mainly by students, I would agree they probably won't show up on the day. To be fair, there has been very little sign of some big surge in either the European elections or the recent Westminster elections.
It should be cartoons, not cartoon's.
FFS - With misuse of apostrophes like that, I could replace Nigel Farage
http://www.channel4.com/news/warsi-warns-of-militant-secularisation
At the moment, I'm not terribly worried about Dawkins, I must confess.
http://www.city-journal.org/2015/eon0107td.html#.VK4_MU0y7Es.twitter
How deep does it go?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901786/Crooked-police-officer-led-double-life-crime-gang-boss-caught-turning-work-170-000-Ferrari-supercar.html
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/five-reasons-why-nobody-will-win-this-years-election/
They are based on an ideology, which has grown out of a religion, the ideology may indeed be a parasite and a cancer on it, and which has also appropriated many of the elements of fascism (which is why the term Islamo-fascism is a useful term - see, for instance, the books of Paul Berman on this latter point).
The way Hammond is descrbing it makes it sound as if it's some recent fight linked a particular event in one country.
But there again you don't get on in British politics by having an interest in ideas or ideology, even where to do so would better enable us to defend ourselves.
Where are the Churchill's, Thatcher's, Benn's, Powell's, Burke's, Lloyd-George's, even Gaitskell's and Bevan's?
None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Just an echo of the same tired old empty platitudes and innanities, that are so generic and meaningless that noone could but help agree with.
You're lumping all Muslims together
Here you have a chap who is apparently a Muslim has committed multiple crimes, but none of them are terrorist related, but you see Muslim and think fifth columnist.
Is this copper a fifth columnist too? I mean he committed crimes that weren't terrorist related
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-30480812
At least you're not calling Muslims ragheads as you did last week, so that's progress I suppose.
I know Marf felt honoured to be included in such fine company. Her own effort was penned swiftly as soon as she heard the news. I believe it was up on this Site within a few hours. It's from the heart, and it shows.
Great to see the cartoonists of the world rising to the challenge.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-30480812
Of course not: he's white. And even if he *had* comitted terrorist crimes, he still wouldn't get called a terrorist (see also: McVeigh, Timothy).
As I've been saying for the last year, make your plans accordingly.
Sobering thought.
"According to the United States Government, it was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks"
The words 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' are used 22 times in the article. His authorized biography is called American Terrorist. Apart from that, good job.
2) You haven't been looking very hard have you. Take Nick Clegg today
http://www.lbc.co.uk/angry-clegg-on-paris-shooting-we-must-be-able-to-offend-102925
70 years in a cell is a much harsher punishment.
After the Ofcom comments today, David Cameron all but rules out to me taking part in TV debates as currently proposed by the broadcasters.
Giving someone from an entirely alien culture a British passport does not magically turn him into a liberal free-thinker. As I said previously, to insult their prophet is to invite DEATH. It has always been so, and we can't claim we never knew that...
So, do we carry on? Or
1) Ban Islam and its manifestations?
2) Capitulate and sacrifice even more of our freedom of speech?
3) Encourage them to leave these shores?
4) Reach some compromise, such as certain areas of this country becoming subject to Sharia Law?
If you speak to people who know what they are talking about on Europe (I am not one of them) they will tell you that we have gone way too far and committed way too much to get back anything anytime soon and especially by 2017.
You are saying that as no meaningful concessions can be given in the committed time frame, to have a referendum so early is nonsensical because nothing meaningful will be able to be agreed (and so Cam will have to lie).
But my point still stands. This May the Kippers will likely contribute to a Lab victory. That will put the prospect of any meaningful renegotiation or referendum to bed for five years. They will do this because once Cam loses they hope a more eurosceptic leader will be installed (not certain) and then the Cons will win in 2020 (not certain) and then the Cons under a eurosceptic leader will hold a referendum and campaign for OUT (not certain).
But this is a(n extreme) tail event, relying on several pathways that each are low probability. Plus, as I mentioned before, you are relying on the British public not realising that Cam is lying whereas you will, presumably, realise.
But I am not sure he will lie. I have no doubt he will try to obfuscate and even if he does lie, somewhere, as a result of good journalism or a good oppostion or from the Kippers themselves, the actual details of whatever he gets or doesn't get will surface. Look at how the SNP budget was taken apart oil tax dollar by oil tax dollar. There will be nowhere for him to hide.
Yours is a compelling vision but I don't buy it. The only way even to have this whole process is to have a Cons govt.
Then in the next few days when the facts emerged they called it the work of "American survivalists"
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 51s51 seconds ago
Big on TV debates @tombradby "are you saying you are not going to go in as it stands unless at least Greens are in?' Cameron:"Correct".
Cameron tells @tombradby he all but rules out joining TV debates, but broadcasters might well proceed with just Miliband, Clegg & Farage
Thank goodness for the edit function.
noun
a group within a country at war who are sympathetic to or working for its enemies.
1. Carrying out sex attacks for one's private gratification is not being "at war" with our country.
2. A single individual operating alone does not constitute "a group"
TBF to Cameron, the debates will be lopsided with UKIP in, but the Greens out.
The Greens won an MP in the 2010 GE, they didn't need by-elections (which often throw up strange results) to get in.
As such one disagrees with his emphasis - but I'm well aware that others won't, and that shouting him down with platitudes about 'divisiveness' and trying to shut him up isn't particularly smart or fair.
I would like such sentiments said and reflected with a much higher profile, though. An address to the nation on the defence of our values by the PM/DPM, followed by further action to strengthen and defend free speech (such as repeal of the religious hatred bill) would be good.
What I really want is high-profile brave and defiant public leadership.
http://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/06/01/dave-should-remember-this-polling-before-he-decides-to-withdraw-from-the-debates/
Right. The only shared policy between France and the UK in this area is that we've both allowed mass immigration from poor Muslim countries. That was the common mistake.
Judging by arrest numbers, about 1 in every 5000 Muslims in the UK is involved in terrorist activity.
Ukip have 2 MPs - only one more than the Greens.
http://www.ukipbirmingham.org/parliamentary-candidate-announced-for-hall-green-constituency/
George Konstantinidis replaces Anne Marie Waters as UKIP candidate for Basildon & Billericay:
http://www.brentwoodgazette.co.uk/UKIP-candidate-fight-Basildon-Billericay-general/story-25818009-detail/story.html#ixzz3OFCinYkX
Looks like Mr Cameron is a chicken running scared over the TV debates. RT if u believe we should be in the debates: https://twitter.com/tombradby/status/553218149534162944 …
0 replies . 43 retweets 7 favourites
Reply Retweeted43 Favourite7
More
I'll tell you about it at DDs next time.
Edit: Btw, Mike isn't invulnerable to that kind of thing either. It's why he's got no hair.
I would certainly consider banning organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood from operating here and taking other action to stop or make it very much harder for those spreading, funding or supporting Islamist ideology to do this here.
What we do is say that Muslims living here, born here, are British and must behave and act as British citizens. They - like every other British citizen - are entitled to the rights, freedoms and protections of British laws. But - like every other British citizen - they also have obligations and responsibilities under the law. And the most important of those is that they accept the primacy of British law and that no other law (secular or religious) applies. They are free to practise their religion. They are not free (as no-one is) to impose it on others, whether directly or indirectly, and they have to accept that that means accepting criticism of what they believe etc.
We do not need IMO to spell out what British values are. What we can say is what is wholly unacceptable: apostasy is not punished by death and threatening anyone who leaves Islam is wrong. Males and females are equal and seeking to deny women equality on the grounds of religion is wrong and will not be allowed. Ditto re gays. Ditto re Jews. Specifically, preaching and spreading anti-Semitism is wrong. Threatening violence if people don't do or say or do or say something you don't like is wrong and will be punished. Freedom of thought and speech are the foundation of democracy and a liberal order. And these things must be taught in schools and universities and lived and enforced by us all. So none of the grotesque nonsense of tolerating the segregation of women to satisfy some absurd clerical speaker, for instance.
And if people feel that it is more important for them to be able to do these things than live in Britain then they have to make their choice and move to a country where this is permitted. But what we need to stop is the idea of people living here with all the advantages of Britain but owing no loyalty to this country and with their cultural mental framework located somehere else hostile to us.
And for those who choose to come here we have to think hard about whether it makes sense for us and to those we let in we need to make crystal clear what our expectations are.
And all those Muslims living here must be cherished and treated as our fellow Britons. But as Britons above all. I do not want some 20 year old born here, whose parents and grand-parents were born here to think of himself as coming from "Lahore" and thinking that he should follow the laws, mores and culture of a foreign country.
I think they broke his confidence in debates the same way the 2001 election broke Hague's confidence in his leadership capability.
One Tory MP who had a 1:1 with Cameron shortly after the election, and briefly raised it with him, spoke to me about it. He told me Cameron said, "Don't mention the debates! I thought I'd lost you all your seats. Nightmare!"
Remember Obama v Romney, where the President was expected to batter this bloke who sounded like a robot from the hedge fund dimension, but almost destroyed his poll lead by losing. Luckily he had two others to stabilise things.
Cons confirm that Kelly Tolhurst will fight Mark Reckless in Rochester. A reason why I see this seat staying purple"
twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/552541044739686400
http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/9410182/the-utterly-ludicrous-and-petty-campaign-against-ched-evans/
I look forward to them empty chairing him though.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/01/08/washington-post-opinions-section-publishes-controversial-charlie-hebdo-cartoon/
Anyhow, kudos to all the cartoonists who have risen magnificently to such a terrible event. I wish I could say the same for our newspapers.
The only leader that needs to avoid debates is Ed, and as such I'm rather surprised that Cameron hasn't suggested a weekly debate until May.
Farage will undoubtedly benefit from the Green's exclusion, unless Clegg can somehow portray himself as the underdog.
Of course they'll all pull out of the BBC one when they insist on including Risible Brand.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/markp47/16-political-lessons-we-can-learn-from-cats-ibob?utm_source=Mark+Pack's+email+lists&utm_campaign=e53acced12-LDN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_4474065684-e53acced12-312545993
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499
BBC cover TV debate debate.
Would be happy to see the whole turgid, rigged debates dropped. If only there wasn't a more sterile way of keeping the public from asking silly questions to party leaders.
Not because of the debates but the implications for TV news coverage during the campaign.
Last time it was Con/Lab/LD : 5/5/4.
There do not appear to be any reports of what is going to happen this time - but what does happen will be key.
Will UKIP get equal coverage with LD? Will it be 5/5/4/4?
Or will both LD and UKIP get less - say 5/5/3/3 or 5/5/2/2?
This is absolutely vital yet nobody is even talking about it or aware of the issue. For my money the exact decision will have a major impact on the GE result.
NB. Proposal to have three debates on 4/3/2 basis implies UKIP not treated on same basis as LD. If that is allowed, it COULD imply non-equal treatment on TV news despite both having major party status.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf
How did Non-whites compare to whites in how they saw the debate? We'll never know, none were polled.
How did people under the age of 50 think about the debate? None were polled.
How did people without college degrees view it? Apparently everyone who watched it had a college degree.
How did people out side the American South view it? Who knows, only people from the South were polled.
But do the Greens recognise that and have a plan to reduce the LDs to fewer MPs than the Greens have? It would take a couple of GEs but if the LDs were "decapitated" down to under 20 MPs at this GE through aggressive Green campaigns in LD constituencies, then overhauling the LDs becomes a possibility.
Comes to a tv executive to choose between Cam or Farage then goodnight Nigel...