Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on “Cameron’s epic mistake re the Greens and
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on “Cameron’s epic mistake re the Greens and the debates”
For most of the Greens’ history, the fourth party has been either the SNP or the dominant Unionist party in N Ireland: the former has consistently won fourth-most general election votes until surpassed by UKIP in 2005, the latter regularly had fourth-most seats.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
https://twitter.com/alstewitn/status/553613113392922627
If being included in the debates means that you have to poll above 10% or have a chance at winning a few dozen seats then it's going to be almost impossible for "minor" parties to get anywhere near the debates. UKIP have been incredibly lucky over the past several years that the issues that they talk about have taken centre stage. If it wasn't for the recession or the Eurozone crisis then I highly doubt UKIP would be polling anywhere near the level they are today.
The debates are meant to inform voters of the party's policies and have them criticise their rivals ideas. If you only include parties that are already popular and receive large media coverage then what the point?
We should set the bar much lower for entry into the debates (polling 4-5%?) so that some smaller parties such as Green and possibly SNP can have their say, and for the "major" parties to say why they should continue to remain "major".
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
Not sure what they'd put on Cameron's chair though.
The Tories always seem spectacularly bad in getting such things completely wrong.
Assuming the broadcasters are prepared to play hardball and Ed Miliband doesn't secretly want to duck the thing too, Cameron is going to have to show up.
That said, I think we're in danger of over-playing the importance of these preliminary skirmishes, which are part negotiation and part playing to the gallery. Once they actually have the debates the voters will forget about who initially tried to duck them.
So when the next demand is we should have segregated seating in public performances, women at the back, men at the front, is the answer going to be "just because you can sit where you want, it doesnt mean you should should"
Or possibly burning books like the Satanic Verses "just because you can read what you want, it doesn't mean you should should"
And then perhaps they will want to ban listening to music "just because you can listen to what you want, it doesn't mean you should should"
When the requirement to wear a veil is made "just because you can show your face , it doesn't mean you should should"
Or they might want to ban homosexuals "just because you can love who you want, it doesn't mean you should should"
Where does it end ?
(cue "X-files" soundtrack)
I doubt the other party leaders would cooperate with such a scheme, but Cameron might be optimistic enough to think he can persuade them.
Your article, David, is replete with non-sequiturs. You refer to the 1989 Euro result by the Greens as 'lucky' which is code for 'I didn't like it and it doesn't fit in my argument.' You pin your argument on the 'fact' that the Greens do not come 4th, and therefore are not a major party, but follow this up with a series of non-sequiturs about the SNP and N.Irish parties not being GB national. You make references to the performance of the Greens in parliament. Then you diss their politics, again because you don't like them.
Not once do you mention the fact that 300,000 people signed the Change.org petition to have the Greens included in the debate. You may not like them but this omission is astonishing from someone purporting to write a sensible balance article on the subject.
And you completely ignore the most recent nationwide election that this country has held: the 2014 European elections. In case you hadn't noticed the Greens came 4th in that election with 8% of the vote, beating the Liberal Democracts into 5th place, and walloping the SNP, DUP and all other parties except the Conservatives, Labour and UKIP.
Finally, the politics of the Greens appeals to a lot of young voters. Instead of appearing to peer snootily down your nose at them, perhaps you should consider the effect of further disenfranchising them, and the elitist Westminster bubble is portrays.
"What’s Labour’s biggest electoral failing in this Parliament? It’s failure to win over voters from the Tories. (The number of Conservative to Labour converts in this Parliament is tiny. Towards the end of last year ICM found just 2% of the Conservative 2010 vote had switched to Labour whilst Lord Ashcroft put it only at 4%.)
And what’s the biggest risk that things might get even worse? That left-wing voters who don’t like Labour’s boasts of making further cuts after May, curbing welfare further and reducing immigration will switch to the Greens.
Which is why David Cameron’s reaction to the news that Ukip but not the Greens has passed the de facto threshold for inclusion in TV election debates smart: insist he’ll only take part if the Greens are there too. Miliband’s votes, not his, are the ones that puts at risk."
http://ricardhos.tumblr.com/post/107613391678/charlie-hebdo-the-british-press-and-islam
and here:
http://paper-bird.net/2015/01/09/why-i-am-not-charlie/
They're spot on.
Cameron's feint is making the right point for the wrong narrow political reasons. A lot of people are getting worried about our environmental impacts, notwithstanding, however, our resident expert's definite statement that we will have at most a fraction of a degree effect on global temperature.
"Just because you can doesn't mean you should "
In a free society anyone should have the right to say anything without getting shot, and anyone who doesn't like it should have the right to say so equally as vocally and in just as stronger terms. Of course no one has to publish anything they dont want to, but it should be clear that the reason they are not publishing is because they disagree with the content, not because they sympathise with the views of the threateners, or because they think there should be limits put on free speech.
One of the problems of course is that large chunks of the left, by and large dont like free speech, you see this idiotic, and dangerous "no platform" crap all over the place, as if by stopping something saying something you will make their views go away. Shamefully parts of the current government seem to share the same views, given the speakers banned recently from the UK because people didn't like their views.
The implication in a number of publications, like the FT, was that the cartoonists were courting trouble and should have known better, which is a disgrace. They should have an absolute right to offend anyone they choose, and the offended by the same token have an absolute right to try and discredit the statement, the author or anything else.
You can't have "a bit of free speech" otherwise you are enabling other people to decide which bits are free and which bits are not, the founding fathers of the US understood this In seeking to protect people from free speech, as with idiotic legislation like the 2006 Act we give terrorist and other malcontents places to hide, they can say if we are prepared to make exceptions on free speech for race or religion, why can't we make them for images they find offensive, their apologists were all over the media yesterday saying just that. The only defensible position on freedom of speech is absolute, otherwise its just an endless conveyor belt of whataboutery and special pleading.
just because you can vote for Cameron doesn't mean you should :-)
The predictable "we won" claims from armies of spinners after the event just highlighted how much use they were.
This time round I can't really see me having the motivation to sit through them, there are better things to do on an evening in April.
An excellent post. "large chunks of the left" is a bit unfair though. It's not an untrue characterisation, but neither is "large chunks of the right" or even "large chunks of the middle"
Remember when Gerry Adams' voice was outlawed?
Twitter
Sun Politics @Sun_Politics 3m3 minutes ago
EXCL: ITV agrees to TV election debate talks with the Greens: http://sunpl.us/6015afHx
"Mike Smithson is due to take part in a discussion on prospects for the coming election with Ben Page of Ipsos-MORI on BBC Radio 4’s “The Week in Westminster” at 11am."
It's fair to say OGH has a hair style safe for the wireless.
.........................................................................................
Meanwhile .... the debates nonsense continues. As in 2010 the Green Party, Ukip and Respect do not deserve on past general election performance to be in first tier of debates.
They should compete in a single national debate and then allow the Con/Lab/LibDems to address the nation in two final debates. Regional debates in Wales, Scotland and Ulster may also take place.
Accordingly all parties would be fairly represented.
My patent "JackW Debate Solution" (featured below) is available free of charge to the nation.
After all, his frequent Flashman moments at PMQs are only noticed by the kind of people who comment on this website, and are actually cheered by the baying mob of public schoolboys he has behind him (and beside him) every week in the House. There is no real political cost for him from this at PMQs, especially as most of the Tory press sketch-writers and commentators have been educated in the same tradition and so think that this is absolutely normal behaviour (indeed, most of them probably look up to him on exactly this point as most will have been to lesser public schools and will be in awe of what they see as the pukka OE panache for dealing with social inferiors).
But just one example of this bullying, born-to-rule essence of his character in front of millions of voters actually paying attention for a change would be enough to raise his campaign to the ground as not only would the initial impact of the moment itself be devastating (this would be the first shelling, as it were), but it would also then be played over and over again by the media (the tanks rolling through in the follow-up assault) until at last all that was left was rubble.
It is clear to anyone who follow politics closely that he can be very easily needled, and his typical reaction is to turn puce (which wouldn't look great in front of millions either), raise his voice into full braying mode, and shout condescending insults de haut en bas.
Let's be clear: this born-to-rule essence of his character is barely disguised even at the best of times, and somebody in Tory HQ is obviously concerned that the risk of his losing control for a brief but crucial moment in front of the masses (or should that be 'plebs'?) is just too great.
Someone is trying to save him from himself.
Nevermind an alternative history - David is writing an alternative present - a 5 way debate open to tv networks is on the table.
@DigitalDebateUK: See more details on our invitation today to the 5 UK-wide parties, including the Green Party http://t.co/bShbTFV8Ei #DigitalDebate
@tombradby: I might be wrong, but I think there is quite a good chance David Cameron will accept this Youtube debate proposal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlTggc0uBA8
Having now seen everything except 'Selma' 'Boyhood has to be favourite for 'Best Film' with Richard Linklater 'Best Director' and Eddie Redmayne 'Best Actor'. Have I missed anything?
' or more likely Lynton Crosby knows, as Cameron himself probably doesn't have the self-awareness -- that it would be a massive turn off for voters in general ,and for women in particular.'
Couldn't be worse than Ed's repulsive face on TV?
If you can improve on democracy please tell us how.
Cameron is a comfortable and easy debater and your class ridden diatribe says more about the paucity of your analysis than any reasoned assessment of the debate situation.
Cameron is like all other politicians in a position of power or near power - risk averse.
1. PM Thatcher rejected Kinnock's call for a debate in 87.
2. PM Major rejected Kinnock again in 92.
3. LotO Blair rejected dead man walking PM Major in 97.
4. PM Blair rejected Hague in 01
5. PM Blair rejected Howard and Kennedy in 05
Notable that in 2010 Cameron accepted debates with wounded PM Brown and wild card Clegg.
@JonathanBadyal: David Cameron: Gay marriage one of proudest achievements of 2014 http://t.co/lDYUCCtwgw
Can't help feeling I've seen you before.
Ed Miliband's energy prices plan 'keeps bills high': Families should have seen a £140 reduction but Big Six haven't passed on savings amid fear over freeze policy . Experts say firms aren't cutting household bills before the election . Say it is down to Labour promise to freeze prices if they win office
Some estimates say families should have seen bills fall by £140 . Comes as the price of crude oil had plummeted to below $50 a barrel
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904189/Ed-Miliband-s-energy-prices-plan-keeps-bills-high-Families-seen-140-reduction-Big-Six-haven-t-passed-savings-amid-fear-freeze-policy.html#ixzz3OP6WCxdb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
We that worked well... heh Ed?
@Sun_Politics: EXCL: ITV agrees to TV election debate talks with the Greens: http://t.co/sDG6QIND81
Given latest headlines and present seat count I thought the 4th party was SLAB
Would have been interesting to have Murphy and the Ed share the same platform at a debate.
I now expect the debates to take place with the Greens in one debate. It's a small price to pay for the media companies.
What I'm less sure of is how the media companies intend to deal with OFCOM's guidance about major parties for any debates which exclude UKIP and/or the Lib Dems. The proposal was 2:3:4, with first UKIP then the Lib Dems dropping out. But presumably this has been thought about already.
This sort of tactical positioning infuses everything he does.
It is why he fails as PM.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2903889/Asterix-cartoonist-Albert-Uderzo-pays-tribute-Charlie-Hebdo-victims.html
"Couldn't be worse than Ed's repulsive face on TV?"
Hey John I just found a selfie of you on facebook
http://cdn1.horror-shop.com/out/pictures//master/product/1/quasimodo_latex_applikation-gloeckner_von_notre_dame_make_up_set-haeliche_maerchenfigur_quasimodo_gesichtsmaske-haelicher_gloeckner_latex_maske-latex_quasimodo_applikation_20658.jpg
Also not unexpectedly under the circumstances they make an understandable plea for more powers to catch the bad guys.
My feeling here is that in many respects governments are the security services worst enemy. Personally I would give the security services almost plenipotentiary powers to investigate and for want of a better word, spy, on anything they want in pursuit of defending the realm.
The problem is that when governments start looking at expanding the powers of the security services they can't help themselves but give large parts of those powers to other organisations, such that we end up with disgraces like RIPA which extends a subset of the surveillance powers to local councils, the Royal Mail, the Food Standards Agency etc
Personally I have no problem with MI5/6 mounting a surveillance operation on whoever they want to keep our country safe, I have a serious problem with my local council mounting a surveillance operation on people to see if they are putting the right kind of waste in the right kind of bin, or to see if parents are trying to get their kids into school outside their catchment area. I am glad to say the current government has made some inroads into these idiocies, but not remotely far enough.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/fraser-nelson/2015/01/six-key-points-from-mi5s-andrew-parker-speech-on-terrorism-in-britain/
Before anyone laughs Labour have very good form on this. Brown increased tax rates to 50% for the last 28 days of a term of the 13 years government and signed off extortionate payments to Brussels after the election and as he left No10. Measures that only caused further damage to the UK and presented difficulties to those that followed. It was well calculated and Labour have used " tax cuts for millionaires" for the last 5 years despite the rate being higher now than the entire term of the labour government bar one month.
For good measure he also took a 25 % pay cut as he left after taking 3 years pay at the higher rate.
I would put absolutely nothing past Labour if they could see any political gain.
I think OGH is in danger of taking his eye off the ball as to why PB.com became so successful - not his fault, in many ways he is a victim of his own success with his ever growing media profile (so good luck to him).
If the Greens are convinced that they are right about their issues they'll get their day in the sun too.
The left will never get this as the left believes it knows best. In a way you can't criticise them for this; delusion is an illness.
"I think OGH is in danger of taking his eye off the ball as to why PB.com became so successful - not his fault, in many ways he is a victim of his own success with his ever growing media profile (so good luck to him). "
Hell hath no fury like a Tory when their leader is criticized.
"Tough new strike vote laws under the Tories with ban on agency workers being brought into cover being overturned"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904173/Tough-new-strike-vote-laws-Tories-ban-agency-workers-brought-cover-overturned.html
Next they will be promising to bring in Beecroft (able to sack without reason)
Thank goodness that a new centre right party has emerged to finally give workers an alternative to Socialism. Go Nigel Go.
Jeez .... even ed is crap threads only were one or two at a time maybe three on odd occasions. AV didn't rate this many
Before I get called a "rabid Tory" or similar I am and always have been an "anyone , (Monster Raving Loony if needs be or rainbow coalitions) but absolutely just anyone but Labour"
The first mistake many liberals make is to confuse Islam (an ideology) with Muslims (people).
Islam is a set of ideas. It is an ideology. It inherently deserves no more or less respect than any other ideology. That is to say, it inherently deserves no respect whatsoever.
https://aralbalkan.com/notes/islam-is-privilege/
However the tens of Union meetings called and attended by all at the office to discuss this did delay our work, which was to ensure that 90,000 public sector workers (including agency nurses and prison officers) had their pay corrected after 18 months of underpayment.
The PCS Union didn't seem too bothered about this delay.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4337031.stm
"Woger, my Champagne Socialist Tampax Loving Obama Dissing friend. I don't like Cameron being criticised all the time, he has done a good job. And as one who should know, you are aware that leader ratings consistently put him clear of his rivals (not difficult I know)."
We could have competitions to see whose eulogy to our great leader got the most approval. That would regenerate the site. Perhaps You audreyanne Square Root and Flightpath could moderate........
On the 'OGH keeps writing Dave is doomed' threads - as others have observed, it is his site and we are guests. Second, there is a disconnect within the polling and betting - while the direct 'who will you vote for' polls show Labour generally ahead - and given the way their votes are distributed (and those traitorous pig-dogs the Lib Dems over the boundary changes) they may well be much further ahead in seats, BUT when asked who do they think will win (and who is up to the job of PM) the Tories are ahead.......so this confusion deserves exploring in depth......the day OGH has a thread 'Dave on course for Number 10' I shall start to worry (tho not quite as much as if Roger ever writes it....)
Since 2010 I have worked for 2 companies (Phoenix (an Insurance company) and JLR) assisting with programmes to underpin their growth plans. I know I am only a sample of 1 but to me it demonstrates the change in business confidence under this government, also backed up by the business confidence surveys since 2010.
That 30% productivity gap we have between us and Asia, or that 24% gap between us and Germany isn't going to close by putting additional costs on employers, and if we dont close that gap, all the workers rights in the world will be irrelevant, because there won't be any jobs.
As to the public sector malaise - that is down to poor or weak management not excessive rights for workers, otherwise the same problems would exist in the private sector. And corruption in unions is not a good reason to leave employees defenceless.
The Pope did not send in a death squad to exterminate an advertising agency. The appropriate rule of law was peaceably followed.
And as for Germany, they have far more restrictive employment laws and employment costs than we do and far more rights for trade unions, yet they have 24% higher productivity. Maybe because well treated secure workers are more motivated and work harder?
You don't have to be a socialist to agree with this. Another reason perhaps that UKIP are taking votes of the tories.
If good treatment and job security made productivity, Italy would be the most productive country in Europe, if not the world, for some reason, it isn't.
Mr Bouzid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Cherif was a very good guy but I lost him two or three years ago.
"I played football with him. I spoke with him the first time he wanted to go to Iraq, to tell him it is not a solution, you don't know for whom you are fighting.
"It's very easy in this district to tell some young people 'You will go to heaven, you will make some beautiful things', and I think Cherif fell in this trap.
"Two weeks ago he was with my father, praying in the 19th district of Paris, and he was always with a smile.
"I never suspected he could make this thing. When we saw the pictures I recognised the way he walks in the video, I recognised his voice."
Mr Bouzid said that Kouachi may have been motivated by a desire for "vengeance" over suffering in Muslim countries which he blamed on the west, as well as a feeling that he did not "belong" in France.
"I don't justify any attacks, but when you look at their past, when you don't have any identity, when you don't belong, you can take some very, very ugly act," he said.
"When you know that something hurts me, you have to respect me, and Charlie Hebdo don't respect that.
"When you have a Muslim name it is very difficult to find a job, to make your prayer, to wear your veil.
"I went to Paris yesterday and I felt the eyes on me with fear and anger and hate. I feel that.
"It's a challenge for France. They have to think about this, because we are here, I was born here, I have my family here, I dream in French, I am French.
"I am not alarmist, but maybe in a few weeks, in a few months, we will notice that there will be some bad things in France."