"The first mistake many liberals make is to confuse Islam (an ideology) with Muslims (people)."
Sort of but the way Islam is defined is through 'Muslims'. One in particular. It wasn't so long ago that blaspheimy was a criminal offense here. I think there is some confusion about what is acceptable or lawful in the UK and what is OK in France. In our desire to show solidarity with the French we seemed to have developed a swagger which isn't accurate or deserved
I stayed in the Hotel Bristol in Paris over Christmas and in the foyer they were selling models of Father Christmas which when you pushed their head down a huge erection poked out from inside their cloak. There's no way this would have been acceptable in the UK. Same with nudity in ads. Topless has always been fine there. In the UK we're just repressed. It's not just to do with offending minorities. Commentators just seem to be ignoring it
Nevermind an alternative history - David is writing an alternative present - a 5 way debate open to tv networks is on the table.
If he likes online debates, why did he chicken out of the Leaders Live debate run by ITV ? Showing contempt for younger voters doesn't exactly chime with extending the franchise to 16 year olds.
How about this: Cameron doesn't want to run the risk of a Flashman moment in the full glare of a TV debate in front of millions of people, as he knows -- 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.
[snip for length]
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.
What a load of porlocks !!
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.
Surely you confirm what you wish to deny? Porlock contends Cameron does not want to risk a Flashman moment. You refute this by saying Cameron is risk-averse.
The fraud just tries to justify supporting his chums.
Mr Herdson always gives a left-of centre viewpoint on political matters; it is inevitable that he would regards Cameron's inclusion of the Greens as an 'epic mistake' because such a course is bad for Labour. The plain truth is that it is good for the Conservatives.
Well said. The risk of offending someone, anyone, has become worringly obstructive in many ways.
There has to be a line though, right?
I mean you can't tackle homophobia in schools without challenging kids who (often parroting what they've heard at home/mosque/church) are causing offence.
"When you know that something hurts me, you have to respect me, and Charlie Hebdo don't respect that.
This is in effect the crux of the problem. He has unrealistic expectations. No one has to respect anyone or anything. If you work hard at it you might earn the respect of people, but to expect it as a right is unrealistic, and is going to lead to disappointment.
I come across this daily here, in this culture the elderly are respected and revered even if they are mendacious, conniving, disreputable old fools. As a Brit I have to continually grit my teeth. Older people are usually worthy of respect because of their experience and because of having done something with their lives, but it certainly shouldn't be automatic.
"The first mistake many liberals make is to confuse Islam (an ideology) with Muslims (people)."
Sort of but the way Islam is defined is through 'Muslims'. One in particular. It wasn't so long ago that blaspheimy was a criminal offense here. I think there is some confusion about what is acceptable or lawful in the UK and what is OK in France. In our desire to show solidarity with the French we seemed to have developed a swagger which isn't accurate or deserved
I stayed in the Hotel Bristol in Paris over Christmas and in the foyer they were selling models of Father Christmas which when you pushed their head down a huge erection poked out from inside their cloak. There's no way this would have been acceptable in the UK. Same with nudity in ads. Topless has always been fine there. In the UK we're just repressed. It's not just to do with offending minorities. Commentators just seem to be ignoring it
Well personally I'm glad that obscenities like that Father Christmas are unacceptable here, especially in the light of Saville et al.
And I don't see how the country is damaged by not having breasts plasted on billboards all over the place any more that it would be liberated by having pe*ises plasted all over billboards.
Fortunately we are still a little less degenetate here than Europe is.
Greens shouldn't be in the debates, the only reason Conservatives on here think they should is because Dave says so. They were convinced UKIP shouldn't be in the debates a year ago, when they were polling 3 times what the Greens were, and got 3 times the Greens 2010 vote.
OFCOM was the apparent gold standard back then, because they thought OFCOM would rule UKIP a minor party. Now the right decision has been made they should stop grizzling and get Dave in debate training camp
"When you know that something hurts me, you have to respect me, and Charlie Hebdo don't respect that.
This is in effect the crux of the problem. He has unrealistic expectations. No-one has to respect anyone.
Are you sure that we too don't have "unrealistic expectations" by permitting millions of followers of a mediaeval cult to settle in our midst, then do everything possible to antagonize them, both at home and abroad?
Well said. The risk of offending someone, anyone, has become worringly obstructive in many ways.
There has to be a line though, right?
I mean you can't tackle homophobia in schools without challenging kids who (often parroting what they've heard at home/mosque/church) are causing offence.
Or should homophobia just go unchallenged?
I certainly didn't say views should not be challenged and I doubt kle4 believes that either, what they shouldn't be is silenced. Far better that someone comes out with their disreputable view and received the approbrium it is due and hopefully learns from it, rather than keeps quiet about it, internalises it, and possible takes actions on the basis of it.
What (in my view) is wrong is the sentiment that "you can't say that", much better to let someone say it, then to take them to task over it, or mock them, or whatever seems appropriate. People can't learn from each other if they are afraid or prevented from engaging with each other.
Greens shouldn't be in the debates, the only reason Conservatives on here think they should is because Dave says so. They were convinced UKIP shouldn't be in the debates a year ago, when they were polling 3 times what the Greens were, and got 3 times the Greens 2010 vote.
OFCOM was the apparent gold standard back then, because they thought OFCOM would rule UKIP a minor party. Now the right decision has been made they should stop grizzling and get Dave in debate camp
Indeed. The usual suspects have really shown their lack of intellectual honesty, suddenly supporting the Greens' inclusion out of nowhere. It doesn't persuade anyone. It has just undermined their credibility and shown those posters up as complete partisan shills.
I'm sure we could while away many an hour discussing the conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-semitism......a dialogue of the deaf.....just as Islamists shout 'Islamophobe', Zionists cry 'anti-semite' when seeking to deflect criticism from their deeds.
No doubt much criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-semitism, much as much criticism of Islam is rooted Muslimophobia - but neither their deeds, not their beliefs are above criticism.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
"When you know that something hurts me, you have to respect me, and Charlie Hebdo don't respect that.
This is in effect the crux of the problem. He has unrealistic expectations. No-one has to respect anyone.
Are you sure that we too don't have "unrealistic expectations" by permitting millions of followers of a mediaeval cult to settle in our midst, then do everything possible to antagonize them, both at home and abroad?
Personally I wouldn't have permitted it, but we are where we are. The alternative is that we let people incrementally disapprove of our lifestyle, and in moving to comply with their wishes to prevent a reaction, we give ground until we are in effect living as they live.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I can't vote for the SNP, why should I care what they say ?
But its fantasy land, you can't impose tariffs because of WTO, and withdrawing from WTO would be economic suicide of the first order. One might add, if you plan to leave the EU, as UKIP do, the WTO is the only remaining organisation that stops you getting screwed by other countries.
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.
The WTO debate is a long and tedious debate, all I will say is that I don't agree that withdrawing from WTO would be economic suicide, it could be argued that being part of it has been highly damaging. Sure, it would be disruptive but sometimes short term pain is needed for long term gain.
In the meanwhile taking a leaf out of Frances book by making life very bureacratically difficult for the importers, along with making it socially unacceptable to buy their products and occasionalyl turning a blind eye to direct action would help a lot.
Muslim fundamentalist on benefits without having paid in? Unfiltered immigration of unskilled person family from the EU? I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.
But it's ok. After Cameron agrees EU immigration should be restricted to immigrants with jobs, she'll be kicked out.
Unless he backs down on his already watered down position on that of course.
"When you know that something hurts me, you have to respect me, and Charlie Hebdo don't respect that.
This is in effect the crux of the problem. He has unrealistic expectations. No-one has to respect anyone.
Are you sure that we too don't have "unrealistic expectations" by permitting millions of followers of a mediaeval cult to settle in our midst, then do everything possible to antagonize them, both at home and abroad?
Personally I wouldn't have permitted it, but we are where we are. The alternative is that we let people incrementally disapprove of our lifestyle, and in moving to comply with their wishes to prevent a reaction, we give ground until we are in effect living as they live.
The funny thing is that those most keen on said permitting of said millions of settlers are those who get most exercised by modern PC sins such as homophobia.
But its fantasy land, you can't impose tariffs because of WTO, and withdrawing from WTO would be economic suicide of the first order. One might add, if you plan to leave the EU, as UKIP do, the WTO is the only remaining organisation that stops you getting screwed by other countries.
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.
The WTO debate is a long and tedious debate, all I will say is that I don't agree that withdrawing from WTO would be economic suicide, it could be argued that being part of it has been highly damaging. Sure, it would be disruptive but sometimes short term pain is needed for long term gain.
In the meanwhile taking a leaf out of Frances book by making life very bureacratically difficult for the importers, along with making it socially unacceptable to buy their products and occasionalyl turning a blind eye to direct action would help a lot.
So the bottom line is that UKIP is a protectionist left wing party, rather than an internationalist party that believes in free trade, with the world outside the EU. I can feel the votes peeling off by the second. Carswell will be an independent soon at this rate.
"Are you sure that we too don't have "unrealistic expectations" by permitting millions of followers of a mediaeval cult to settle in our midst, then do everything possible to antagonize them, both at home and abroad?"
"When you know that something hurts me, you have to respect me, and Charlie Hebdo don't respect that.
This is in effect the crux of the problem. He has unrealistic expectations. No-one has to respect anyone.
Are you sure that we too don't have "unrealistic expectations" by permitting millions of followers of a mediaeval cult to settle in our midst, then do everything possible to antagonize them, both at home and abroad?
Well I wouldn't go as far as medieval cult, but you are completely right in what you say about letting people in , antagonizing them by ripping into the one thing that they hold dearer than anything else, then wondering why they get upset
Utter madness
.. and the people wanting the antagonizing done are the same people who look the other way when 1400 girls get raped etc
They just get it wrong every time... they buy the high, sell the low
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I agree. While SNP support is focal rather than widespread in the Union, they are as likely as the LDs to be the kingmakers in the next parliament. It would be an affirmation of the role of Scottish identity within a United Kingdom to include them. Positive to invite them, and positive for them to participate. The SNP should not be pushed into SF-like abstentionism.
Muslim fundamentalist on benefits without having paid in? Unfiltered immigration of unskilled person family from the EU? I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.
But it's ok. After Cameron agrees EU immigration should be restricted to immigrants with jobs, she'll be kicked out.
Unless he backs down on his already watered down position on that of course.
Nah, she will sell a couple of Big Issues a week, and will count as employed under the proposed regulations, and will get in work benefits as well.
Mr Herdson always gives a left-of centre viewpoint on political matters; it is inevitable that he would regards Cameron's inclusion of the Greens as an 'epic mistake' because such a course is bad for Labour. The plain truth is that it is good for the Conservatives.
Except he's an open Conservative supporter. You're embarrassing yourself.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I can't vote for the SNP, why should I care what they say ?
Well said. The risk of offending someone, anyone, has become worringly obstructive in many ways.
There has to be a line though, right?
I mean you can't tackle homophobia in schools without challenging kids who (often parroting what they've heard at home/mosque/church) are causing offence.
Or should homophobia just go unchallenged?
Of course you can challenge it, and someone revealing themselves to be a racist or homophobe should be criticised for those views, and condemned if they have actually done something besides merely be an arsehole because of those views, eg. attacked someone because of them. The concern is where people are either not legally permitted to say some things because in an attempt to punish the truly horrendous even the mildly offensive gets lumped in with it, or people start to automatically self censor because our culture encourages people not to be frank or hold divergent views because 'being nice' and not offending people is being treated as if being an arse or just holding an unpopular opinion, is the same as someone inciting others to firebomb somewhere they don't like.
That's obviously an extreme example, we are not at such a place in our society yet. But if people's views are abhorrent then I want them to be heard so they can be challenged, shown for how abhorrent they are and hopefully change their minds, rather than in an attempt to prevent those abhorrent views from ever being heard (even though they will still be acted upon), stifle the right of everyone else to be provocative and opinionated by either legally restricting them through measures supposed to be about inciting others to commit crimes based on their hatred, or by worrying people that, for instance, being a bit un-PC will see you treated the same as someone advocating we all go around beating up homosexuals or something equally horrendous.
The 'line' you talk about is one I worry about government's mandating through law and enforcing. As much as I hate to agree with the insane, murderous villain of a Stallone movie of all things, Simon Phoenix was right when he said you cannot take away people's right to be assholes. Distinguishing between people being contrary or assholey, which should be fine, and those taking or inciting illegal acts as a result of those contrary or assholey views, is perhaps where the line should be.
Edit. Apologies for the rant, must be cranky in the mornings. Time for a run on this blustery morning I think, to clear the head.
What a *forceful* young man you are, for someone with 4 posts under his belt.
Can't help feeling I've seen you before.
I had the same feeling. Haven't seen the word Flashman, women, public schoolboys, bullying, born-to-rule, puce and braying for a while. We used to see them all the time.
Not denying my point, though, are you? You prefer to play the man rather than the ball. The only one who tried to play the ball was Ishmael_X, but he never got a touch of it as DecrepitJohnL dispossessed him straight away by pointing out Ishy's deficient grasp of logic.
Same with those who cried "Bullingdon" and "Coulson" for a full house: again, you deliberately do not engage with the point.
So, those of you objecting to the discussion of my raising the Flashman/Bullingdon dimension to Cameron's character either (i) think it is a non-issue that is simply not worth discussing in the context of the reasons why he might be reluctant to go head to head with the others in prime time (in which case your grasp of logic is not in question, but your grasp of politics in the current economic climate of declining real wages very obviously is), or (ii) you are worried that there might be something substantial in the point I am making.
So, I'll make the point in a different way: hands up all those who think it would improve Cameron's chances if he had a Flashman moment in the heat of a TV debate in the middle of the election campaign.
But its fantasy land, you can't impose tariffs because of WTO, and withdrawing from WTO would be economic suicide of the first order. One might add, if you plan to leave the EU, as UKIP do, the WTO is the only remaining organisation that stops you getting screwed by other countries.
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.
The WTO debate is a long and tedious debate, all I will say is that I don't agree that withdrawing from WTO would be economic suicide, it could be argued that being part of it has been highly damaging. Sure, it would be disruptive but sometimes short term pain is needed for long term gain.
In the meanwhile taking a leaf out of Frances book by making life very bureacratically difficult for the importers, along with making it socially unacceptable to buy their products and occasionalyl turning a blind eye to direct action would help a lot.
So the bottom line is that UKIP is a protectionist left wing party, rather than an internationalist party that believes in free trade, with the world outside the EU. I can feel the votes peeling off by the second. Carswell will be an independent soon at this rate.
Except that I'm nothing to do with UKIP but just intend to vote for them.
No doubt much criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-semitism, much as much criticism of Islam is rooted Muslimophobia - but neither their deeds, not their beliefs are above criticism.
I really wish I was better able to articulate a point so appropriately and, above all, concisely, like the above.
Hastings has been doolally for a while now. The people responsible are our liberal elite who let the people in. The terror threat, the social instability, the economic decline, as with the appalling intrusive security state, have their root cause in this. Hastings you are responsible, Snowden is not.
What a *forceful* young man you are, for someone with 4 posts under his belt.
Can't help feeling I've seen you before.
I had the same feeling. Haven't seen the word Flashman, women, public schoolboys, bullying, born-to-rule, puce and braying for a while. We used to see them all the time.
Not denying my point, though, are you? You prefer to play the man rather than the ball. The only one who tried to play the ball was Ishmael_X, but he never got a touch of it as DecrepitJohnL dispossessed him straight away by pointing out Ishy's deficient grasp of logic.
Same with those who cried "Bullingdon" and "Coulson" for a full house: again, you deliberately do not engage with the point.
So, those of you objecting to the discussion of my raising the Flashman/Bullingdon dimension to Cameron's character either (i) think it is a non-issue that is simply not worth discussing in the context of the reasons why he might be reluctant to go head to head with the others in prime time (in which case your grasp of logic is not in question, but your grasp of politics in the current economic climate of declining real wages very obviously is), or (ii) you are worried that there might be something substantial in the point I am making.
So, I'll make the point in a different way: hands up all those who think it would improve Cameron's chances if he had a Flashman moment in the heat of a TV debate in the middle of the election campaign.
Oh wait, I don't see any hands.
The "Flashman" criticism of Cameron appears to be that he "bullies" poor Ed Milliband in the House of Commons. And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he? If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
10.00 France's terror alert level remains at 'attack imminent'; French government affirms 'maximum vigilance'; pledges 300 troops for Sunday's tribute rally. 09.55 Exclusive Telegraph reporter Nicola Harley reports that armed police are patrolling UK-bound EuroStar trains and inspecting passengers.
I do not think Dave would have a Flashman moment, but the reason that these debates are so boring is that the protagonists are so drilled as to repeat inane soundbites.
Few of these debates produce intelligent discussion, just a hunt for gaffes and witty one line put downs. The rehearsals must be a major distraction.
If we are to have them, I would like two. One with the six major parties, one with two, and both early on in the campaign.
The ‘Debate’ farce continues. – The only contenders that should partake are those that stand a realistic chance of being PM - and that quite frankly is Miliband and Cameron.
Whatever the eventual format and whichever party gets to partake, this media driven charade will have done its job - which was to generate dissension and cheap column inches.
Does David Cameron's proposed ban on restricting EU migrants benefits include the provision of council housing? Would it cover people already here? Would this Muslim woman in Leicester, spreading her message of hate and raising more fundamentalists off the taxpayer dime be able to still do so?
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I can't vote for the SNP, why should I care what they say ?
I care what they say, as I do all the parties that will be in Westminster. I want to hear what the SNPs role in a hung parliament would be. Constructive or obstructive?
Though they may not like it, the SNP are part of the Union, and should be given a platform as most likely that constitutional issues such as EVFEL and the EU will be major areas of national debate.
Even in the US, free speech has never extended to outright obscenity or mendacity. Granted, the limits of obscenity have relaxed over the decades, but the concept still has legal force (google the cartoonist Mike Diana).
Two years later, after her husband was jailed, she returned to Leicester.
“I wanted to educate my children surrounded by Muslim brothers and sisters,” she said. “I wanted them to live in an Islamic environment. It is not possible in France since we cannot really live in a community. Most of all, I was asked to remove my headscarf to work. For me, it was unimaginable.”
What more evidence do the idiotic centre-left need to see how appalling our policies of multiculturalism and appeasement to conservative Islam are.
Oh, and she's been here long enough that Cameron's benefits restrictions wouldn't make any difference.
Does David Cameron's proposed ban on restricting EU migrants benefits include the provision of council housing? Would it cover people already here? Would this Muslim woman in Leicester, spreading her message of hate and raising more fundamentalists off the taxpayer dime be able to still do so?
In Leicester we do have a French speaking Muslim population, as well as a Portuguese speaking one (mostly Mozambiquan via Portugal), and Dutch speaking Somali one.
The issue of getting welfare benefits with no intention of contributing to the nations finances should apply to all though, not just immigrant derived populations.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I can't vote for the SNP, why should I care what they say ?
Democracy in the UK described perfectly, if outside England it does not count. Balloon of the first order.
Does David Cameron's proposed ban on restricting EU migrants benefits include the provision of council housing? Would it cover people already here? Would this Muslim woman in Leicester, spreading her message of hate and raising more fundamentalists off the taxpayer dime be able to still do so?
Yes, I know Merkel gave him some warm words about it last weekend, but she was adamant about no treaty change, and without a treaty change any "changes to the law" will be challenged and overturned at the ECJ.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I agree. While SNP support is focal rather than widespread in the Union, they are as likely as the LDs to be the kingmakers in the next parliament. It would be an affirmation of the role of Scottish identity within a United Kingdom to include them. Positive to invite them, and positive for them to participate. The SNP should not be pushed into SF-like abstentionism.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I can't vote for the SNP, why should I care what they say ?
Democracy in the UK described perfectly, if outside England it does not count. Balloon of the first order.
Not at all, you can vote for them, you have an absolute right to hear their views, their views dont affect democracy for me, because I can't vote for them even if i wanted to.
The "Flashman" criticism of Cameron appears to be that he "bullies" poor Ed Milliband in the House of Commons. And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he? If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Why is that such a hard point for you to grasp?
No.
No one will care. Its just a wet dream of lefties. If it was going to happen, it would have happened at the last debate, it didn't. People know what Cameron is like, they have seen him at the last debate, and on the TV for the last five years, anyone that doesn't is so disinterested in politics that they won't vote anyway.
I do not think Dave would have a Flashman moment, but the reason that these debates are so boring is that the protagonists are so drilled as to repeat inane soundbites.
Few of these debates produce intelligent discussion, just a hunt for gaffes and witty one line put downs. The rehearsals must be a major distraction.
If we are to have them, I would like two. One with the six major parties, one with two, and both early on in the campaign.
*Should* people have to remove a headscarf at work? Veils (of any size) by all means, but headscarfs as well? What then about Sikh turbans?
The problem as I see it with religious costume is the covering of the face – the Sikh turban does not and nor does the jewish kippah.
Exactly. The French Law doesn't say you can't wear a veil, or other religious dress, it says you can't cover your face in public. ("Loi interdisant la dissimulation du visage dans l'espace public, "Act prohibiting concealment of the face in public space"). It was challenged at the ECJ last year and ruled lawful. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900
The "Flashman" criticism of Cameron appears to be that he "bullies" poor Ed Milliband in the House of Commons. And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he? If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Why is that such a hard point for you to grasp?
because it's a trivial load of bollocks ?
If once again the Labour plan is to play the personalities then they're shafted, they've nothing to say except bang the tribal drum as there aren't enough people left in the tribe to win a majority.
If once again the Labour plan is to play the personalities then they're shafted, they've nothing to say except bang the tribal drum as there aren't enough people left in the tribe to win a majority.
Besides if the public really are so shallow to take appearances and mannerisms over what people say, I think most people would take "red-faced Dave" over "weird Ed that can't eat a bacon sandwich" any day of the week,
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I agree. While SNP support is focal rather than widespread in the Union, they are as likely as the LDs to be the kingmakers in the next parliament. It would be an affirmation of the role of Scottish identity within a United Kingdom to include them. Positive to invite them, and positive for them to participate. The SNP should not be pushed into SF-like abstentionism.
What a difference compared to morons like Indigo
Au contraire, if the SNP stood in Herefordshire I would vote for it. I want Scotland to leave the union, its a shame the Scots don't.
"Well personally I'm glad that obscenities like that Father Christmas are unacceptable here, especially in the light of Saville et al."
You're slightly missing my point. The French are and always have been defensive of their culture. Thus among other things they banned the Burqa have state subsidy of French cinema and allow nudity day and night on TV. The British by contrast try to avoid offending minorities often by passing laws. Which is why all the talk on here and elsewhere about publishing offensive material to show solidarity and our macho side is just cant. It would probably get us sent to jail.
"Sylvie Beghal, a French citizen, lives rent-free in a four-bedroom house in Leicester having arrived with her children in search of a more “Islamic environment”."
Even in the US, free speech has never extended to outright obscenity or mendacity. Granted, the limits of obscenity have relaxed over the decades, but the concept still has legal force (google the cartoonist Mike Diana).
That was obscenity in relation to children (comic books aimed at children in his case) I think we can agree that there needs to be some restraint on what can be said or shown to children. It doesn't really detract from the view that adults should be free to say what they want to other adults, and should expect an equally free response!
America is an offshoot of Britain and seems to keep at least part of the mother counties obsession of what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, which is a little sad.
Obviously you need some laws around attempts to mislead for society to function, without an enforceable contract society isn't going to go very far.
The "Flashman" criticism of Cameron appears to be that he "bullies" poor Ed Milliband in the House of Commons. And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he? If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Why is that such a hard point for you to grasp?
Not hard for me to grasp. What I think is that you're slightly obsessed with the "Flashman" thing. The public likes and dislikes David Cameron for whatever reasons, but I don;t think they give a stuff about Flashman. It's tiny internet meme.
If once again the Labour plan is to play the personalities then they're shafted, they've nothing to say except bang the tribal drum as there aren't enough people left in the tribe to win a majority.
Besides if the public really are so shallow to take appearances and mannerisms over what people say, I think most people would take "red-faced Dave" over "weird Ed that can't eat a bacon sandwich" any day of the week,
a large chunk of voters will be that shallow which is why incumbency works in Cameron's favour. It's privileged arrogance versus intellectual arrogance and people don't trust geeks.
I think David Herdson (and PB in general) has over-reacted to Cameron's decision Re. the debates. I don't think it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Even if there was a debate that "black chaired" Cameron I suspect it would make very little difference to people's voting intentions in the end.
As we saw from the Cleggasm in 2010 most of the the stuff that surrounds the debate's is very superficial and it was telling that despite the Lib-Dem's soaring in the polls after the first debate, when the result's came in they barely moved on their 2005 position (actually they slipped back slightly)
Despite the debate's, the result of the 2010 election finished up pretty where it had looked likely to finish up around 2-3 months prior to the election being called. I.E. Tories largest party, but short of a majority.
On the other hand, given the debates make very little difference except superficially, I'm not sure why Cameron is so determined to duck out of them, but there we go...
Nevermind an alternative history - David is writing an alternative present - a 5 way debate open to tv networks is on the table.
If he likes online debates, why did he chicken out of the Leaders Live debate run by ITV ? Showing contempt for younger voters doesn't exactly chime with extending the franchise to 16 year olds.
Douglas Murray speaking about multiculturalism 4 years ago.. the debate with Medhi Hassan will make interesting viewing in he current climate
I used one of Murrays quotes from this in my final essay at Uni, on immigration. Quelle surprise, I took a quite anti immigration stance and the essay was failed despite my previous 7 being a first and six 2.1s.. I rowed with the tutor accusing her of lefty bias and ended up quitting!
Thomas Hegghammer Here in Paris my Moroccan taxi driver tells me so far today two people refused to ride with him - and it's 1030 am
There is going to be a problem here.
Australia was conspicuously a lone wolf, and the public as a result felt safe to #ridwithme.
Paris is a whole different kettle of fish, for a start one of the terrorists is still at large, but vastly more importantly, responsibility has been claimed by AQAP, who have stated there is more to come. The public will be fearful that any random muslim they get into a taxi with might be part of the active terrorist cell in Paris. Rational ? Probably not. Understandable, yes.
I agree with OGH - I also love this Rentoul picture from the 2010 debates.
It always tickles me to see what the leaders are doing at this moment: Clegg and Brown doing the "double" hokey-cokey leg, whilst Cameron gazing up into the heavens looking for divine inspiration.
I used one of Murrays quotes from this in my final essay at Uni, on immigration. Quelle surprise, I took a quite anti immigration stance and the essay was failed despite my previous 7 being a first and six 2.1s.. I rowed with the tutor accusing her of lefty bias and ended up quitting!
This is why I was always advised to do my dissertation on something objective, preferably an experiment or survey, that way you can only make procedural errors or reach unjustified conclusions. If the professor doesn't like your conclusions your defense is that you dont particularly have a view either way, it was what was indicated by the results. Results are just measurement, snapshots in time, like a poll, they can't be right or wrong.
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I agree. While SNP support is focal rather than widespread in the Union, they are as likely as the LDs to be the kingmakers in the next parliament. It would be an affirmation of the role of Scottish identity within a United Kingdom to include them. Positive to invite them, and positive for them to participate. The SNP should not be pushed into SF-like abstentionism.
What a difference compared to morons like Indigo
Au contraire, if the SNP stood in Herefordshire I would vote for it. I want Scotland to leave the union, its a shame the Scots don't.
Douglas Murray speaking about multiculturalism 4 years ago.. the debate with Medhi Hassan will make interesting viewing in he current climate
I used one of Murrays quotes from this in my final essay at Uni, on immigration. Quelle surprise, I took a quite anti immigration stance and the essay was failed despite my previous 7 being a first and six 2.1s.. I rowed with the tutor accusing her of lefty bias and ended up quitting!
anyway..
Douglas Murray is a hero.
He's also much more intelligent than Medhi Hasan, whose intellectual inadequacies are on display here; he's constantly flustered and on the defensive.
He also consistently tries to interrupt Murray, who in turn listens to Hasan in respectful silence.
In response to Zen Pagan (fpt): "if no paper was willing to do it the government should have done so. It sends the message we will not be intimidated, here we are and here are those cartoons you hate".
Agree wholeheartedly.
And thank you and to Malcolm, Pulpstar and others for your kind words.
But really it is OGH and Marf and the moderators and guest editors and contributors who make this such a great site.
(And now I'm off to plant some olive trees. I know, not really the weather for it, but... hey...).
Twitter The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago @MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
The debates last time were fairly boring TV, maybe it was the format or maybe it was just 3 dorks fibbing for 2 hours but it wasn't very informative or entertaining.
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.
Morning Alan. Hard to believe the saddo's on here salivating at the thought of being bored to death by a set of lying useless half witted toerags. I would enjoy having my bits trapped in a vice more for sure. Suppose it takes all sorts but very very odd.
I agree. While SNP support is focal rather than widespread in the Union, they are as likely as the LDs to be the kingmakers in the next parliament. It would be an affirmation of the role of Scottish identity within a United Kingdom to include them. Positive to invite them, and positive for them to participate. The SNP should not be pushed into SF-like abstentionism.
What a difference compared to morons like Indigo
Au contraire, if the SNP stood in Herefordshire I would vote for it. I want Scotland to leave the union, its a shame the Scots don't.
What! I make you feel unwelcome and MG doesn't!?
How do you think the English feel when all we hear day in day out is a whole queue of Scots telling us how much they hate us and how much they dont want to be part of it any more. After several years of that the instinctive response its so say "just go then will you, i dont want to hear it any more". I am sure that is part of the plan from the pro-independence crowd, and its working, most English people I speak to are heartily sick of the whole thing, especially as its painfully obvious that it can only end one way.
As for your cheap shot, if you went abroad for a few years on business would that make you any less a Scot ?
10.50 BREAKING Former leader of France's far-right 'Front National' party Jean-Marie Le Pen has declared 'I am not Charlie' ... He said: "Today it's 'we are all Charlie, I am Charlie'. And frankly, I'm sorry, I am not Charlie. And while I am touched by the deaths of a dozen French compatriots with whom I did not share the same political identity, this I know well, they were enemies of the Front Nationale who had demanded the dissolution of the party not long ago."
I think David Herdson (and PB in general) has over-reacted to Cameron's decision Re. the debates. I don't think it will make much difference either way to be honest.
Even if there was a debate that "black chaired" Cameron I suspect it would make very little difference to people's voting intentions in the end.
As we saw from the Cleggasm in 2010 most of the the stuff that surrounds the debate's is very superficial and it was telling that despite the Lib-Dem's soaring in the polls after the first debate, when the result's came in they barely moved on their 2005 position (actually they slipped back slightly)
Despite the debate's, the result of the 2010 election finished up pretty where it had looked likely to finish up around 2-3 months prior to the election being called. I.E. Tories largest party, but short of a majority.
On the other hand, given the debates make very little difference except superficially, I'm not sure why Cameron is so determined to duck out of them, but there we go...
As I said yesterday, Cameron has a craven fear of debates because he thinks it's those (and his performance in them) that cost him a majority in GE2010.
It was actually his inept and confused campaign over the final 6 months, and being outclassed by Mandelson, but myth is more powerful than fact.
However, the cat's out of the bag now. People will expect the debates. Therefore, Cameron will lose respect (and coverage) if he doesn't find a way to allow his inclusion. Particularly since most of our fellow countrymen will only tune in during the final month.
a large chunk of voters will be that shallow which is why incumbency works in Cameron's favour. It's privileged arrogance versus intellectual arrogance and people don't trust geeks.
Make your mind up -- one minute you say my point is "trivial bollocks", the next you admit to the point I was making about "privileged arrogance".
The reality is that you all know it's there, you might think it's trivial, butTory HQ evidently does not -- otherwise, why would they be so ashamed of the Bullingdon photo that they have tried to take it out of circulation?
It's still easily available on the internet, of course, but for some reason Cameron, Johnson and co are not too keen to discuss such charming practices as burning £50 notes in front of homeless people these days. I wonder why?
Perhaps it's because in an economic climate where real earnings for most of the population have declined since 2010 while the City, foreign-oligarch non-doms etc. have just got fatter and fatter, Tory HQ realises that this narrative is far from "trivial bollocks" and is actually highly toxic.
And before anybody makes any further ill-informed suppositions about my background and political views (that's a general response to some of the snide comments below and is not directed at Alanbrooke), I am Oxbridge educated and work in the City (have done for 20 years).
The Jihadist/Terrorists must be laughing all the way to the bank and the Benefits Offices.
What's impressive about this story is how it combines so many bad pieces of policy to demonstrate the cumulative toxic effect:
1) Unfiltered immigration from the EU allowing the riff-raff of Europe to settle here 2) Acceptance of multiculturalism, allowing segregated Muslim communities to set up their societies in miniature and attracting more like-minded souls 3) A non-contributory benefits system, allowing the taxpayers to endlessly subsidise those who have never paid into the system to not work 4) A benefits system which pays thousands more for every extra kid you have without limit, meaning huge amounts are racked up by those working the system 5) Providing bigger houses for the more kids you have, even if you have them when already on benefits, thus further incentivising breeding of those who can't afford it personally 6) Not including the implicit subsidy of local authorities providing council housing below market rents in local government accounts, allowing left wing councils to do this without affecting their grants from central government.
Olive trees, Mrs Free? Don't you live in London? Is this some long term bet on AGW and you believe those people who a few years ago were telling us that the South of England would soon be enjoying a Mediterranean climate?
P.S. We have a very small olive tree in our garden, Herself's late grandfather grew it from a pip in a pot and we planted it out when we moved here 24 years ago. It produces about four olives a year and they taste awful.
The Jihadist/Terrorists must be laughing all the way to the bank and the Benefits Offices.
What's impressive about this story is how it combines so many bad pieces of policy to demonstrate the cumulative toxic effect:
1) Unfiltered immigration from the EU allowing the riff-raff of Europe to settle here 2) Acceptance of multiculturalism, allowing segregated Muslim communities to set up their societies in miniature and attracting more like-minded souls 3) A non-contributory benefits system, allowing the taxpayers to endlessly subsidise those who have never paid into the system to not work 4) A benefits system which pays thousands more for every extra kid you have without limit, meaning huge amounts are racked up by those working the system 5) Providing bigger houses for the more kids you have, even if you have them when already on benefits, thus further incentivising breeding of those who can't afford it personally 6) Not including the implicit subsidy of local authorities providing council housing below market rents in local government accounts, allowing left wing councils to do this without affecting their grants from central government.
The most chilling part for me was the reason for her decision to move back to Leicester: "I wanted them to live in an Islamic environment."
"However, the cat's out of the bag now. People will expect the debates. Therefore, Cameron will lose respect (and coverage) if he doesn't find a way to allow his inclusion. Particularly since most of our fellow countrymen will only tune in during the final month. "
I disagree the main people who will expect the debates are the main TV operators who become less influential year by year. Most people , I imagine will not care. Therefore Cameron is correct no to debate with anyone if he sees fit. He did not debate , when there was a possibility , that the country was going to split. Why should he debate at an Election.
"However, the cat's out of the bag now. People will expect the debates. Therefore, Cameron will lose respect (and coverage) if he doesn't find a way to allow his inclusion. Particularly since most of our fellow countrymen will only tune in during the final month. "
I disagree the main people who will expect the debates are the main TV operators who become less influential year by year. Most people , I imagine will not care. Therefore Cameron is correct no to debate with anyone if he sees fit. He did not debate , when there was a possibility , that the country was going to split. Why should he debate at an Election.
Several of my non-political friends and colleagues, who when asked about their interest in the election, say they'll wait for the debates.
Even if that's just words, and they don't care and won't watch them, there's a widespread expectation there. People will not take kindly to Cameron vetoing it, and collapsing the whole thing. They will view it as a cynically calculated political move, and judge him accordingly.
I think it would cost Cameron votes, because it neutralises one of his key perceived strengths amongst the electorate - leadership - and denies him an opportunity to demonstrate it.
The Jihadist/Terrorists must be laughing all the way to the bank and the Benefits Offices.
What's impressive about this story is how it combines so many bad pieces of policy to demonstrate the cumulative toxic effect:
The most chilling part for me was the reason for her decision to move back to Leicester: "I wanted them to live in an Islamic environment."
Nothing more than this needs to be said. If only people would have listened rather than assume they knew better.. instead we are cursing those who shirked responsibility
"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after."
10.50 BREAKING Former leader of France's far-right 'Front National' party Jean-Marie Le Pen has declared 'I am not Charlie' ... He said: "Today it's 'we are all Charlie, I am Charlie'. And frankly, I'm sorry, I am not Charlie. And while I am touched by the deaths of a dozen French compatriots with whom I did not share the same political identity, this I know well, they were enemies of the Front Nationale who had demanded the dissolution of the party not long ago."
Of course, 68ers so no fans of free speech. They did indeed try to ban the Front Nationale.
The Jihadist/Terrorists must be laughing all the way to the bank and the Benefits Offices.
What's impressive about this story is how it combines so many bad pieces of policy to demonstrate the cumulative toxic effect:
1) Unfiltered immigration from the EU allowing the riff-raff of Europe to settle here 2) Acceptance of multiculturalism, allowing segregated Muslim communities to set up their societies in miniature and attracting more like-minded souls 3) A non-contributory benefits system, allowing the taxpayers to endlessly subsidise those who have never paid into the system to not work 4) A benefits system which pays thousands more for every extra kid you have without limit, meaning huge amounts are racked up by those working the system 5) Providing bigger houses for the more kids you have, even if you have them when already on benefits, thus further incentivising breeding of those who can't afford it personally 6) Not including the implicit subsidy of local authorities providing council housing below market rents in local government accounts, allowing left wing councils to do this without affecting their grants from central government.
You said it plain and you said it right, Socrates. Why is it that so many are wilfully blind to the deliberate poisoning of Great Britain by our so called Liberal Elite, who are really betrayers of their own heritage, and ours?
The Vow has become a weight round the neck of the Unionist parties, and was probably based on private polling as well as the Yougov that gave them all the skitters.
Since the £300k that Westminster spent on private polling was with Ipsos, I think we can assume that 'probably' is a 'definitely'.
10.50 BREAKING Former leader of France's far-right 'Front National' party Jean-Marie Le Pen has declared 'I am not Charlie' ... He said: "Today it's 'we are all Charlie, I am Charlie'. And frankly, I'm sorry, I am not Charlie. And while I am touched by the deaths of a dozen French compatriots with whom I did not share the same political identity, this I know well, they were enemies of the Front Nationale who had demanded the dissolution of the party not long ago."
"However, the cat's out of the bag now. People will expect the debates. Therefore, Cameron will lose respect (and coverage) if he doesn't find a way to allow his inclusion. Particularly since most of our fellow countrymen will only tune in during the final month. "
I disagree the main people who will expect the debates are the main TV operators who become less influential year by year. Most people , I imagine will not care. Therefore Cameron is correct no to debate with anyone if he sees fit. He did not debate , when there was a possibility , that the country was going to split. Why should he debate at an Election.
Several of my non-political friends and colleagues, who when asked about their interest in the election, say they'll wait for the debates.
Even if that's just words, and they don't care and won't watch them, there's a widespread expectation there. People will not take kindly to Cameron vetoing it, and collapsing the whole thing. They will view it as a cynically calculated political move, and judge him accordingly.
I think it would cost Cameron votes, because it neutralises one of his key perceived strengths amongst the electorate - leadership - and denies him an opportunity to demonstrate it.
True Casino
There are some good points.
However I just do not believe it will damage Cameron. It never did Thatcher Major or Blair , when they refused, and they went on to win elections.
In some ways it shows strength, as he is following the path of winners not losers like Brown.
"I think it would cost Cameron votes, because it neutralises one of his key perceived strengths amongst the electorate - leadership - and denies him an opportunity to demonstrate it...."
Leadership is one of Cameron's perceived strengths? Really? If leadership is regarded as one of strengths no wonder his party is thrashing around at core vote levels in the polls.
How a televised debate will enable him to demonstrate his leadership skills I have no idea, especially when we have had five years of experiencing said skills.
Hastings has the interesting view that the way in defend our freedom and liberty, is to reduce our freedom and liberty. He's also wrong about ELINT for two reasons, firstly the security services cannot process even a fraction of the information they currently collect, looking for a needle in a bigger haystack isnt going to help. Secondly and far more importantly the US effectively admitted the reason they had so much trouble finding OBL was because he stopped using electronic communications, and moved to using trusted (usually family) couriers carrying messages by word of mouth.
"I think it would cost Cameron votes, because it neutralises one of his key perceived strengths amongst the electorate - leadership - and denies him an opportunity to demonstrate it...."
Leadership is one of Cameron's perceived strengths? Really? If leadership is regarded as one of strengths no wonder his party is thrashing around at core vote levels in the polls.
How a televised debate will enable him to demonstrate his leadership skills I have no idea, especially when we have had five years of experiencing said skills.
If you've been following my posts over the last few years, you'll know I agree with you.
It's a strength the electorate perceives, not me. He looks and sounds like a Prime Minister, and when he's on national television against the other contenders, it reminds people of that.
Oh woe and deep deep woe for the Conservatives. On the previous thread I asked (jokingly) that what we need is for the next thread to also be about how bad things are for the Conservatives.
and we get today another anti-Conservatives thread...... With all the multiplicity of reasons surely the seats forecasts for the Conservatives should be below 200...? Or are things so bad for the Conservatives that they will fall behind the Lib Dems?
I care what they say, as I do all the parties that will be in Westminster. I want to hear what the SNPs role in a hung parliament would be. Constructive or obstructive?
Though they may not like it, the SNP are part of the Union, and should be given a platform as most likely that constitutional issues such as EVFEL and the EU will be major areas of national debate.
Thank goodness for some sense from you and the others who realise that. There's nothing more annoying than a Unionist who redefines the Union to get the result they want. I hate to think what the Northern Irish must think about all this, too.
I am afraid I have to completely disagree with David's article. If you are inviting a party with 2 MPs then you have to invite other parties with MPs too. Of course the Greens had an MP before UKIP and have beaten the LDs in several polls and the Euro elections. The article also completely misses the point. The question is not that the Greens should replace UKIP in the debates, but that they should both be present. Sweden and New Zealand have 7 or 8 leaders in their election debates so why not the UK? There is no reason one debate cannot have Cameron, Clegg, Miliband, Farage and Bennett, and even adding George Galloway would not be too difficult.
As for the SNP, as they only stand in Scotland they cannot be in a UK-wide debate. Instead, separate debates should be held in Scotland with Salmond, Murphy, Davidson and Rennie, the same in Wales with the Welsh party leaders and in NI with the Northern Irish leaders
Comments
"The first mistake many liberals make is to confuse Islam (an ideology) with Muslims (people)."
Sort of but the way Islam is defined is through 'Muslims'. One in particular. It wasn't so long ago that blaspheimy was a criminal offense here. I think there is some confusion about what is acceptable or lawful in the UK and what is OK in France. In our desire to show solidarity with the French we seemed to have developed a swagger which isn't accurate or deserved
I stayed in the Hotel Bristol in Paris over Christmas and in the foyer they were selling models of Father Christmas which when you pushed their head down a huge erection poked out from inside their cloak. There's no way this would have been acceptable in the UK. Same with nudity in ads. Topless has always been fine there. In the UK we're just repressed. It's not just to do with offending minorities. Commentators just seem to be ignoring it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11337056/Charlie-Hebdo-terror-mentors-wife-on-benefits-in-Leicester.html
PS. What do you think the reaction would have been to this in one of our newly liberated newspapers?
http://www.newsrealblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/anti-semitic-cartoon.jpg
I mean you can't tackle homophobia in schools without challenging kids who (often parroting what they've heard at home/mosque/church) are causing offence.
Or should homophobia just go unchallenged?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2904237/MAX-HASTINGS-liberals-defended-traitors-like-Snowden-Assange-look-photo-admit-deluded-fools.html
I come across this daily here, in this culture the elderly are respected and revered even if they are mendacious, conniving, disreputable old fools. As a Brit I have to continually grit my teeth. Older people are usually worthy of respect because of their experience and because of having done something with their lives, but it certainly shouldn't be automatic.
And I don't see how the country is damaged by not having breasts plasted on billboards all over the place any more that it would be liberated by having pe*ises plasted all over billboards.
Fortunately we are still a little less degenetate here than Europe is.
OFCOM was the apparent gold standard back then, because they thought OFCOM would rule UKIP a minor party. Now the right decision has been made they should stop grizzling and get Dave in debate training camp
What (in my view) is wrong is the sentiment that "you can't say that", much better to let someone say it, then to take them to task over it, or mock them, or whatever seems appropriate. People can't learn from each other if they are afraid or prevented from engaging with each other.
No doubt much criticism of Israel is rooted in anti-semitism, much as much criticism of Islam is rooted Muslimophobia - but neither their deeds, not their beliefs are above criticism.
The SNP @theSNP · 16h 16 hours ago
@MorayMP said: "David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates." #GE2015
In the meanwhile taking a leaf out of Frances book by making life very bureacratically difficult for the importers, along with making it socially unacceptable to buy their products and occasionalyl turning a blind eye to direct action would help a lot.
But it's ok. After Cameron agrees EU immigration should be restricted to immigrants with jobs, she'll be kicked out.
Unless he backs down on his already watered down position on that of course.
"Are you sure that we too don't have "unrealistic expectations" by permitting millions of followers of a mediaeval cult to settle in our midst, then do everything possible to antagonize them, both at home and abroad?"
An interesting thought.
Utter madness
.. and the people wanting the antagonizing done are the same people who look the other way when 1400 girls get raped etc
They just get it wrong every time... they buy the high, sell the low
That's obviously an extreme example, we are not at such a place in our society yet. But if people's views are abhorrent then I want them to be heard so they can be challenged, shown for how abhorrent they are and hopefully change their minds, rather than in an attempt to prevent those abhorrent views from ever being heard (even though they will still be acted upon), stifle the right of everyone else to be provocative and opinionated by either legally restricting them through measures supposed to be about inciting others to commit crimes based on their hatred, or by worrying people that, for instance, being a bit un-PC will see you treated the same as someone advocating we all go around beating up homosexuals or something equally horrendous.
The 'line' you talk about is one I worry about government's mandating through law and enforcing. As much as I hate to agree with the insane, murderous villain of a Stallone movie of all things, Simon Phoenix was right when he said you cannot take away people's right to be assholes. Distinguishing between people being contrary or assholey, which should be fine, and those taking or inciting illegal acts as a result of those contrary or assholey views, is perhaps where the line should be.
Edit. Apologies for the rant, must be cranky in the mornings. Time for a run on this blustery morning I think, to clear the head.
What a *forceful* young man you are, for someone with 4 posts under his belt.
Can't help feeling I've seen you before.
I had the same feeling. Haven't seen the word Flashman, women, public schoolboys, bullying, born-to-rule, puce and braying for a while. We used to see them all the time.
Not denying my point, though, are you? You prefer to play the man rather than the ball. The only one who tried to play the ball was Ishmael_X, but he never got a touch of it as DecrepitJohnL dispossessed him straight away by pointing out Ishy's deficient grasp of logic.
Same with those who cried "Bullingdon" and "Coulson" for a full house: again, you deliberately do not engage with the point.
So, those of you objecting to the discussion of my raising the Flashman/Bullingdon dimension to Cameron's character either (i) think it is a non-issue that is simply not worth discussing in the context of the reasons why he might be reluctant to go head to head with the others in prime time (in which case your grasp of logic is not in question, but your grasp of politics in the current economic climate of declining real wages very obviously is), or (ii) you are worried that there might be something substantial in the point I am making.
So, I'll make the point in a different way: hands up all those who think it would improve Cameron's chances if he had a Flashman moment in the heat of a TV debate in the middle of the election campaign.
Oh wait, I don't see any hands.
Invade the world, invite the world has failed.
Can't help feeling I've seen you before.
I had the same feeling. Haven't seen the word Flashman, women, public schoolboys, bullying, born-to-rule, puce and braying for a while. We used to see them all the time.
Not denying my point, though, are you? You prefer to play the man rather than the ball. The only one who tried to play the ball was Ishmael_X, but he never got a touch of it as DecrepitJohnL dispossessed him straight away by pointing out Ishy's deficient grasp of logic.
Same with those who cried "Bullingdon" and "Coulson" for a full house: again, you deliberately do not engage with the point.
So, those of you objecting to the discussion of my raising the Flashman/Bullingdon dimension to Cameron's character either (i) think it is a non-issue that is simply not worth discussing in the context of the reasons why he might be reluctant to go head to head with the others in prime time (in which case your grasp of logic is not in question, but your grasp of politics in the current economic climate of declining real wages very obviously is), or (ii) you are worried that there might be something substantial in the point I am making.
So, I'll make the point in a different way: hands up all those who think it would improve Cameron's chances if he had a Flashman moment in the heat of a TV debate in the middle of the election campaign.
Oh wait, I don't see any hands.
The "Flashman" criticism of Cameron appears to be that he "bullies" poor Ed Milliband in the House of Commons.
And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he?
If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
09.55 Exclusive Telegraph reporter Nicola Harley reports that armed police are patrolling UK-bound EuroStar trains and inspecting passengers.
I do not think Dave would have a Flashman moment, but the reason that these debates are so boring is that the protagonists are so drilled as to repeat inane soundbites.
Few of these debates produce intelligent discussion, just a hunt for gaffes and witty one line put downs. The rehearsals must be a major distraction.
If we are to have them, I would like two. One with the six major parties, one with two, and both early on in the campaign.
Whatever the eventual format and whichever party gets to partake, this media driven charade will have done its job - which was to generate dissension and cheap column inches.
My apologies to you, it was JackW whose faulty logic was so ably deconstructed by DecrepitJohnL, not yours, sorry for the mistake in my post below.
P./
Though they may not like it, the SNP are part of the Union, and should be given a platform as most likely that constitutional issues such as EVFEL and the EU will be major areas of national debate.
“I wanted to educate my children surrounded by Muslim brothers and sisters,” she said. “I wanted them to live in an Islamic environment. It is not possible in France since we cannot really live in a community. Most of all, I was asked to remove my headscarf to work. For me, it was unimaginable.”
What more evidence do the idiotic centre-left need to see how appalling our policies of multiculturalism and appeasement to conservative Islam are.
Oh, and she's been here long enough that Cameron's benefits restrictions wouldn't make any difference.
The issue of getting welfare benefits with no intention of contributing to the nations finances should apply to all though, not just immigrant derived populations.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9376232/free-speech-is-so-last-century-todays-students-want-the-right-to-be-comfortable/
At last, a sensible article from the Spectator on our Zombie Students.
------
BTW what happened to the YouGov daily poll last night? I searched and didn't find it.
https://charliehebdo.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/ch1017-01.jpg
+
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/547856/David-Cameron-Poland-EU-migrants-benefits-red-line
=
Not happening.
Yes, I know Merkel gave him some warm words about it last weekend, but she was adamant about no treaty change, and without a treaty change any "changes to the law" will be challenged and overturned at the ECJ.
The "Flashman" criticism of Cameron appears to be that he "bullies" poor Ed Milliband in the House of Commons.
And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he?
If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Why is that such a hard point for you to grasp?
No one will care. Its just a wet dream of lefties. If it was going to happen, it would have happened at the last debate, it didn't. People know what Cameron is like, they have seen him at the last debate, and on the TV for the last five years, anyone that doesn't is so disinterested in politics that they won't vote anyway.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28106900
And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he?
If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Why is that such a hard point for you to grasp?
because it's a trivial load of bollocks ?
If once again the Labour plan is to play the personalities then they're shafted, they've nothing to say except bang the tribal drum as there aren't enough people left in the tribe to win a majority.
"Well personally I'm glad that obscenities like that Father Christmas are unacceptable here, especially in the light of Saville et al."
You're slightly missing my point. The French are and always have been defensive of their culture. Thus among other things they banned the Burqa have state subsidy of French cinema and allow nudity day and night on TV. The British by contrast try to avoid offending minorities often by passing laws. Which is why all the talk on here and elsewhere about publishing offensive material to show solidarity and our macho side is just cant. It would probably get us sent to jail.
She chose wisely!
America is an offshoot of Britain and seems to keep at least part of the mother counties obsession of what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, which is a little sad.
Obviously you need some laws around attempts to mislead for society to function, without an enforceable contract society isn't going to go very far.
And if he does, so what? Ed shouldn't let himself be bullied should he?
If he can't hold his own against David Cameron, he's not going to last very long with Vladimir Putin is he?
Whether you think the bullying Flashman tone intimidates Ed Milliband or not is neither here nor here to the point I was making, which was -- for the third time -- that it would be a massive turn-off for voters, and one that Tory HQ doesn't want to risk in front of millions of voters.
Why is that such a hard point for you to grasp?
Not hard for me to grasp. What I think is that you're slightly obsessed with the "Flashman" thing. The public likes and dislikes David Cameron for whatever reasons, but I don;t think they give a stuff about Flashman. It's tiny internet meme.
Here in Paris my Moroccan taxi driver tells me so far today two people refused to ride with him - and it's 1030 am
Even if there was a debate that "black chaired" Cameron I suspect it would make very little difference to people's voting intentions in the end.
As we saw from the Cleggasm in 2010 most of the the stuff that surrounds the debate's is very superficial and it was telling that despite the Lib-Dem's soaring in the polls after the first debate, when the result's came in they barely moved on their 2005 position (actually they slipped back slightly)
Despite the debate's, the result of the 2010 election finished up pretty where it had looked likely to finish up around 2-3 months prior to the election being called. I.E. Tories largest party, but short of a majority.
On the other hand, given the debates make very little difference except superficially, I'm not sure why Cameron is so determined to duck out of them, but there we go...
I used one of Murrays quotes from this in my final essay at Uni, on immigration. Quelle surprise, I took a quite anti immigration stance and the essay was failed despite my previous 7 being a first and six 2.1s.. I rowed with the tutor accusing her of lefty bias and ended up quitting!
anyway..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q7AL9hhgvQ
The Jihadist/Terrorists must be laughing all the way to the bank and the Benefits Offices.
Australia was conspicuously a lone wolf, and the public as a result felt safe to #ridwithme.
Paris is a whole different kettle of fish, for a start one of the terrorists is still at large, but vastly more importantly, responsibility has been claimed by AQAP, who have stated there is more to come. The public will be fearful that any random muslim they get into a taxi with might be part of the active terrorist cell in Paris. Rational ? Probably not. Understandable, yes.
It always tickles me to see what the leaders are doing at this moment: Clegg and Brown doing the "double" hokey-cokey leg, whilst Cameron gazing up into the heavens looking for divine inspiration.
Just brilliant.
DISAGREE
Off thread
COYS
He's also much more intelligent than Medhi Hasan, whose intellectual inadequacies are on display here; he's constantly flustered and on the defensive.
He also consistently tries to interrupt Murray, who in turn listens to Hasan in respectful silence.
Agree wholeheartedly.
And thank you and to Malcolm, Pulpstar and others for your kind words.
But really it is OGH and Marf and the moderators and guest editors and contributors who make this such a great site.
(And now I'm off to plant some olive trees. I know, not really the weather for it, but... hey...).
How do you think the English feel when all we hear day in day out is a whole queue of Scots telling us how much they hate us and how much they dont want to be part of it any more. After several years of that the instinctive response its so say "just go then will you, i dont want to hear it any more". I am sure that is part of the plan from the pro-independence crowd, and its working, most English people I speak to are heartily sick of the whole thing, especially as its painfully obvious that it can only end one way.
As for your cheap shot, if you went abroad for a few years on business would that make you any less a Scot ?
...
He said: "Today it's 'we are all Charlie, I am Charlie'. And frankly, I'm sorry, I am not Charlie. And while I am touched by the deaths of a dozen French compatriots with whom I did not share the same political identity, this I know well, they were enemies of the Front Nationale who had demanded the dissolution of the party not long ago."
It was actually his inept and confused campaign over the final 6 months, and being outclassed by Mandelson, but myth is more powerful than fact.
However, the cat's out of the bag now. People will expect the debates. Therefore, Cameron will lose respect (and coverage) if he doesn't find a way to allow his inclusion. Particularly since most of our fellow countrymen will only tune in during the final month.
a large chunk of voters will be that shallow which is why incumbency works in Cameron's favour. It's privileged arrogance versus intellectual arrogance and people don't trust geeks.
Make your mind up -- one minute you say my point is "trivial bollocks", the next you admit to the point I was making about "privileged arrogance".
The reality is that you all know it's there, you might think it's trivial, butTory HQ evidently does not -- otherwise, why would they be so ashamed of the Bullingdon photo that they have tried to take it out of circulation?
It's still easily available on the internet, of course, but for some reason Cameron, Johnson and co are not too keen to discuss such charming practices as burning £50 notes in front of homeless people these days. I wonder why?
Perhaps it's because in an economic climate where real earnings for most of the population have declined since 2010 while the City, foreign-oligarch non-doms etc. have just got fatter and fatter, Tory HQ realises that this narrative is far from "trivial bollocks" and is actually highly toxic.
And before anybody makes any further ill-informed suppositions about my background and political views (that's a general response to some of the snide comments below and is not directed at Alanbrooke), I am Oxbridge educated and work in the City (have done for 20 years).
1) Unfiltered immigration from the EU allowing the riff-raff of Europe to settle here
2) Acceptance of multiculturalism, allowing segregated Muslim communities to set up their societies in miniature and attracting more like-minded souls
3) A non-contributory benefits system, allowing the taxpayers to endlessly subsidise those who have never paid into the system to not work
4) A benefits system which pays thousands more for every extra kid you have without limit, meaning huge amounts are racked up by those working the system
5) Providing bigger houses for the more kids you have, even if you have them when already on benefits, thus further incentivising breeding of those who can't afford it personally
6) Not including the implicit subsidy of local authorities providing council housing below market rents in local government accounts, allowing left wing councils to do this without affecting their grants from central government.
P.S. We have a very small olive tree in our garden, Herself's late grandfather grew it from a pip in a pot and we planted it out when we moved here 24 years ago. It produces about four olives a year and they taste awful.
"However, the cat's out of the bag now. People will expect the debates. Therefore, Cameron will lose respect (and coverage) if he doesn't find a way to allow his inclusion. Particularly since most of our fellow countrymen will only tune in during the final month. "
I disagree the main people who will expect the debates are the main TV operators who become less influential year by year.
Most people , I imagine will not care.
Therefore Cameron is correct no to debate with anyone if he sees fit.
He did not debate , when there was a possibility , that the country was going to split.
Why should he debate at an Election.
Even if that's just words, and they don't care and won't watch them, there's a widespread expectation there. People will not take kindly to Cameron vetoing it, and collapsing the whole thing. They will view it as a cynically calculated political move, and judge him accordingly.
I think it would cost Cameron votes, because it neutralises one of his key perceived strengths amongst the electorate - leadership - and denies him an opportunity to demonstrate it.
Familiarity and contempt renewing the vows of the very long relationship.
It's why they've resorted to asking Russell Brand for his opinion on things.
"The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.
One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.
Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: "If only," they love to think, "if only people wouldn't talk about it, it probably wouldn't happen."
Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.
At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html
I am not Charlie.
The Vow has become a weight round the neck of the Unionist parties, and was probably based on private polling as well as the Yougov that gave them all the skitters.
Since the £300k that Westminster spent on private polling was with Ipsos, I think we can assume that 'probably' is a 'definitely'.
There are some good points.
However I just do not believe it will damage Cameron.
It never did Thatcher Major or Blair , when they refused, and they went on to win elections.
In some ways it shows strength, as he is following the path of winners not losers like Brown.
"I think it would cost Cameron votes, because it neutralises one of his key perceived strengths amongst the electorate - leadership - and denies him an opportunity to demonstrate it...."
Leadership is one of Cameron's perceived strengths? Really? If leadership is regarded as one of strengths no wonder his party is thrashing around at core vote levels in the polls.
How a televised debate will enable him to demonstrate his leadership skills I have no idea, especially when we have had five years of experiencing said skills.
That's been the NeoConservatives' plan all along.
It's a strength the electorate perceives, not me. He looks and sounds like a Prime Minister, and when he's on national television against the other contenders, it reminds people of that.
and we get today another anti-Conservatives thread...... With all the multiplicity of reasons surely the seats forecasts for the Conservatives should be below 200...? Or are things so bad for the Conservatives that they will fall behind the Lib Dems?
As for the SNP, as they only stand in Scotland they cannot be in a UK-wide debate. Instead, separate debates should be held in Scotland with Salmond, Murphy, Davidson and Rennie, the same in Wales with the Welsh party leaders and in NI with the Northern Irish leaders