If we say that these events have nothing to do with Islam, we are lying. If we do not try to work out, publicly, what the link is and try to break it, fear and hatred will become uncontrollable.
“They had no right,” declared a pleasant-sounding chap from High Wycombe on the radio yesterday, “to make cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed and no right to say Islam is bad.”
Director General of MI5, Andrew Parker, endorsed the view that Isil is not Islamic. But what else is it? Isil is not, and could never be, Jewish, Christian, Hindu or secular: its religion explains its victims, its aims, even its means of killing and of dying.
Under Labour, we came close to conceding a fully fledged law forbidding blasphemy (“religious hatred”) and we introduced the repressive concept of a “religiously aggravated” crime.
We say “Nous sommes Charlie”, but fight shy of reprinting the magazine’s Mohammed gags, so readers never quite know what the story is about. Employers worry about their staff’s safety. Some even fear upsetting Muslim newsagents. Terrorism is working.
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
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?
And after having heard it, presumably you will move to Scotland, so you can cast a vote for or against it...
[snipped] 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 ?
You are confounding anti-Westminster rule (or anti-Toryism, etc.) with anti-Englishness, and also confusing England with the UK, and seemingly deriving an excuse for your own anti-Scottish rant. The indyref period saw some very interesting discussions on English governance and its problems, often expressed with considerable sympathy (and for one thing, consider how it is the Unionist parties which cause the biggest problems over EV4EL whereas the SNP has done its best to minimise the issue: who's being anti-Engish there?) . I suggest you have a look at the debate with a fresh eye (and not constrained by the DT's Mr Cochrane, etc.). You might be surprised.
To be fair, there is that very strange behaviour of Mr Murphy over the 1000 Nurses on London money, but one reason for the impact of that is that it is so unusual in Scottish political debate to see such an approach (and even that was anti-London rather than anti-English).
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?
You must admit its a change after all the threads we have had knocking UKIP. Who knows, one day the LDs might do something wrong ;-)
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?
And after having heard it, presumably you will move to Scotland, so you can cast a vote for or against it...
Well, the Tories have even less chance in the average constituency in Scotland than UKIP do in those in England ...
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
You're out of date. Mr Salmond is not a party leader.
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
The shooting at the Family Research Council in Washington DC received little coverage. Fortunately the perpetrator was an incompetent loon.
Carnyx No I am more up-to-date Mr Salmond is leading the SNP's Westminster campaign, Sturgeon their Holyrood campaign, so for a Westminster debate makes more sense to have Salmond there. As well as Murphy could replace Davidson by David Mundell and Rennie by Michael Moore as a Westminster debate
Mr. Indigo, from time immemorial reading ones enemies' communications has been a essential part of safeguarding the state and preventing atrocities and violence. That communication is now done largely by electronic means changes nothing, any more than the introduction of the telephone did - one just needs to update the procedures and legislation.
The much maligned Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was in fact an attempt to regulate, i.e. control, practices that were already widespread and largely uncontrolled. A laudable aim but, as with so much of the Blair administration, flawed in its execution. There are I think two main objections.
Firstly, the number and types of organisation who are permitted access to communications data. The ambulance service, local councils and the like just should not have it. Their function is not the investigation of serious crime and so they should not have the powers needed in some cases to do so.
Secondly, the level of scrutiny required before an application for data is approved. At present it remains with a relatively junior official with the organisation that seeks the data. That is wholly in appropriate. Whilst there is an independent commissioner in oversight he can only dip check and the scope for abuse is too wide.
It takes very little time for the plod to get a search warrant from a magistrate and by definition requests for communications data are non-urgent (they relate to historical information). Therefore I can see no reason why "MI5" and the police cannot be expected to get a magistrates warrant for the communications data for any individual or organisation. Local councils and quangos should just be barred from this sort of work - if they think a crime is being committed they can report it to the police.
The system for actual intercepts (the content of a communication) does, I think, work well and always has. However, at the moment it requires the consent of a government minister, it would be better if that were removed from the realm of politics and handed to a high court judge.
Restrict the access to those who really need it to investigate serious crime and matters of national security and provide independent oversight (leave the functions of the Commissioner in place as a back stop) and the problem will go away with no detriment to needed work.
[snipped] 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 ?
You are confounding anti-Westminster rule (or anti-Toryism, etc.) with anti-Englishness, and also confusing England with the UK, and seemingly deriving an excuse for your own anti-Scottish rant. The indyref period saw some very interesting discussions on English governance and its problems, often expressed with considerable sympathy (and for one thing, consider how it is the Unionist parties which cause the biggest problems over EV4EL whereas the SNP has done its best to minimise the issue: who's being anti-Engish there?) . I suggest you have a look at the debate with a fresh eye (and not constrained by the DT's Mr Cochrane, etc.). You might be surprised.
To be fair, there is that very strange behaviour of Mr Murphy over the 1000 Nurses on London money, but one reason for the impact of that is that it is so unusual in Scottish political debate to see such an approach (and even that was anti-London rather than anti-English).
I am in no way anti-Scots, I am anti-flogging-a-dead-horse. It is obvious for all to see that Scotland will be going its own way in the medium term, the politicians in Westminster have ensured that it is the case, although not by their own design, rather through incompetence. That being the case I want it over, its is just causing drama in Scotland and earache in the reset of the country for no good reason.
Clearly there are large numbers of Scots who dont want to go, but they have been outmaneuvered, and breakup is inevitable, or at least a devo-ultra federal solution. With an SNP government in Scotland, and 30+ SNP seats in westminster it can't realistically end any other way. If Scotland is determined to go, it should go, and be happy with its new status. If Scotland is determined to go, the rest of the UK should help its on its way.
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?
You must admit its a change after all the threads we have had knocking UKIP. Who knows, one day the LDs might do something wrong ;-)
Impossible. According to most LD activists they are holding all their seats. They also predict the second coming, life on the Moon, England to win WC 2018 and Liverpool to win the 14/15 Premiership.....
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
The shooting at the Family Research Council in Washington DC received little coverage. Fortunately the perpetrator was an incompetent loon.
[snipped] 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 ?
You are confounding anti-Westminster rule (or anti-Toryism, etc.) with anti-Englishness, and also confusing England with the UK, and seemingly deriving an excuse for your own anti-Scottish rant. The indyref period saw some very interesting discussions on English governance and its problems, often expressed with considerable sympathy (and for one thing, consider how it is the Unionist parties which cause the biggest problems over EV4EL whereas the SNP has done its best to minimise the issue: who's being anti-Engish there?) . I suggest you have a look at the debate with a fresh eye (and not constrained by the DT's Mr Cochrane, etc.). You might be surprised.
To be fair, there is that very strange behaviour of Mr Murphy over the 1000 Nurses on London money, but one reason for the impact of that is that it is so unusual in Scottish political debate to see such an approach (and even that was anti-London rather than anti-English).
I am in no way anti-Scots, I am anti-flogging-a-dead-horse. It is obvious for all to see that Scotland will be going its own way in the medium term, the politicians in Westminster have ensured that it is the case, although not by their own design, rather through incompetence. That being the case I want it over, its is just causing drama in Scotland and earache in the reset of the country for no good reason.
Clearly there are large numbers of Scots who dont want to go, but they have been outmaneuvered, and breakup is inevitable, or at least a devo-ultra federal solution. With an SNP government in Scotland, and 30+ SNP seats in westminster it can't realistically end any other way. If Scotland is determined to go, it should go, and be happy with its new status. If Scotland is determined to go, the rest of the UK should help its on its way.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
Restrict the access to those who really need it to investigate serious crime and matters of national security and provide independent oversight (leave the functions of the Commissioner in place as a back stop) and the problem will go away with no detriment to needed work.
I believe I said as much down thread. I have no problems with the security services having extensive tools to do their job, but they should be tools they are open only to them, not the local Women's Institute.
For me the problem with comms data is the more sinister bit around the edges, like how many divorce cases now revolve around making ISPs produce the email records of one of the partners, that would never happen with written correspondence, but with email it's apparently different, because the application is can be made to a third party that is required for security reasons to keep the data.
The fact remains that the international security services are managing to drown themselves in intercept data they have no realistic chance of examining even a fraction of, all the emails going in and out of the several major countries, how many is that? Every conversation on Skype, etc etc, and there are well known and easily available technologies that allow sufficient levels of encryption that the resources would never be applied to break it unless they were extremely sure the content would be worth the effort. After the fuss last year Gmail is now going full TLS, good luck reading that.
Carnyx No I am more up-to-date Mr Salmond is leading the SNP's Westminster campaign, Sturgeon their Holyrood campaign, so for a Westminster debate makes more sense to have Salmond there. As well as Murphy could replace Davidson by David Mundell and Rennie by Michael Moore as a Westminster debate
Ah thank you, I had been rather surprised as you are normally much more au fait than that seemed to be, but now I see what you are getting at. That's a very good point (which is also applicable to Wales, etc. ). It'll be interesting to see how it is determined.
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?
One of six reasons (from right to left via liberal).
They are very wealthy and don't care because they live in a large house with a large estate and fence and, don't have to mix with them and hoi polloi are hoi polloi whatever their colour and religion.
They live in a part of the country wholly untouched by it (usually rural).
They are reasonably wealthy and can buy insulation from it while benefiting from cheapness of services due to excess labour.
They are naive and think that if people are treated in a civilized way they will behave in a civilized way.
They couldn't give a *@£$ so long as they continue to get their bread and circuses.
They are glad because it disrupts society and helps bring about the chaos needed for the revolution.
The serious reforms the country needs won't happen until the economy implodes to the extent that the state can no longer afford to function in the way it does now and those currently insulated from the consequences of these policies are no longer insulated.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I would hesitate to suggest how widespread Mr. Indigo's views are but they make sense to me. I really don't see how the Union can do anything but stagger on to the increasing annoyance and embitterment of both countries. A split is going to happen eventually so lets get it over with.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
You are confounding anti-Westminster rule (or anti-Toryism, etc.) with anti-Englishness, and also confusing England with the UK, and seemingly deriving an excuse for your own anti-Scottish rant. The indyref period saw some very interesting discussions on English governance and its problems, often expressed with considerable sympathy (and for one thing, consider how it is the Unionist parties which cause the biggest problems over EV4EL whereas the SNP has done its best to minimise the issue: who's being anti-Engish there?) . I suggest you have a look at the debate with a fresh eye (and not constrained by the DT's Mr Cochrane, etc.). You might be surprised.
To be fair, there is that very strange behaviour of Mr Murphy over the 1000 Nurses on London money, but one reason for the impact of that is that it is so unusual in Scottish political debate to see such an approach (and even that was anti-London rather than anti-English).
I am in no way anti-Scots, I am anti-flogging-a-dead-horse. It is obvious for all to see that Scotland will be going its own way in the medium term, the politicians in Westminster have ensured that it is the case, although not by their own design, rather through incompetence. That being the case I want it over, its is just causing drama in Scotland and earache in the reset of the country for no good reason.
Clearly there are large numbers of Scots who dont want to go, but they have been outmaneuvered, and breakup is inevitable, or at least a devo-ultra federal solution. With an SNP government in Scotland, and 30+ SNP seats in westminster it can't realistically end any other way. If Scotland is determined to go, it should go, and be happy with its new status. If Scotland is determined to go, the rest of the UK should help its on its way.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I'm not trying to be offensive, I am just an impatient sort, once something looks inevitable I want to get it over and move on! One of the reasons my current location is not agreeing with me, you would not believe how long it takes to get the simplest thing done here
Carnyx Indeed. In Wales it would make sense to have Stephen Crabb for the Tories as Welsh Secretary, his shadow, Owen Smith for Labour as well as Roger Williams for the LDs and Elfyn Llwyd as Plaid's Westminster group leader. In Northern Ireland as Peter Robinson and Gerry Adams stand at Westminster anyway no change would be needed
"The social change is familiar: the destruction of the family as the fundamental social unit would be fine if we had replaced it with something. We have not. [And] it’s a culture in which we seem to have abandoned many of the values on which we based our civilisation.
"We don’t know what we believe in and are busy bringing up children who share our confusion ... We have created a strange culture perpetuated by television and other media that rejoices in and celebrates dysfunction, violence and anti-social behaviour.....
[In] France declinology has become a national art," wrote Madeleine Bunting in The Guardian in January. "While in Germany, declinology has assumed hysterical proportions."
12.35 General Denis Favier, director general of the Gendarmerie, has said that France's intelligence services now face "an immense task". The General also confirmed that the gendarmerie will be heavily involved in the policing of Sunday's unity rally in Paris. He: "We will make our men available for the Paris police department. We will do everything to secure Sunday's events."
Also, if they went ahead with just Miliband, Clegg and Farage, it would be either Clegg or Farage who would come out on top as they are both better speakers than Miliband, which would increase both their votes and in the case of the Lib Dems reduce Labours, so I doubt whether Ed Miliband would agree to go ahead without Cameron being there.
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
The impact of the visuals - three leaders debating and an empty space where the bloke who ducked it should be - would totally blow away the impact of anything that actually happened during the debates, short of Ed Miliband dropping his trousers to reveal his swastika tattoo.
Assuming the broadcasters are prepared to play hardball and Ed Miliband doesn't secretly want to duck the thing too, Cameron is going to have to show up.
That said, I think we're in danger of over-playing the importance of these preliminary skirmishes, which are part negotiation and part playing to the gallery. Once they actually have the debates the voters will forget about who initially tried to duck them.
I simply don't believe that the broadcasters will "empty chair" the PM. It would be an incredibly and overtly hostile act against someone who has a decent chance of being the next Prime Minister. No businessman, accountable to their shareholders, would take that kind of risk for a short term ratings boost. And the BBC Charter is up for renewal (I think) in 2016 so it is unlikely they would do something like this.
It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Additionally, I suspect that it might backfire against the British public's innate sense of fair play. It's one think mocking a politician who doesn't turn up for HIGNFY. It's totally another tilting the ground in a general election.
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
Very good point. One can't help wonder if people, in general, approve of free speech in principle, unless it's used to strongly criticise or insult the most ardently held values and beliefs of a sizeable number of them, who are willing to bite back.
Then it swiftly moves to shoulder-shrugging. Excuses are made as to why that particular example went too far, upset a lot of people, and - perhaps mixed together with a personal attack on their character, behaviours, personality or values - that they therefore had it coming.
Which is ironic because it's in instances like that free speech is needed most dearly.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I would hesitate to suggest how widespread Mr. Indigo's views are but they make sense to me. I really don't see how the Union can do anything but stagger on to the increasing annoyance and embitterment of both countries. A split is going to happen eventually so lets get it over with.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
TUD Salmond is standing for a Westminster seat at Gordon and is aiming to give the SNP the balance of power, Sturgeon is First Minister and will stay in Holyrood and not run for a Westminster seat
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I would hesitate to suggest how widespread Mr. Indigo's views are but they make sense to me. I really don't see how the Union can do anything but stagger on to the increasing annoyance and embitterment of both countries. A split is going to happen eventually so lets get it over with.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
Indeed. However with 35+ SNP seats at Westminster and a government with a weak majority or a minority, and a SNP government in Holyrood, what is the next step likely to be.
I have no answer to the divorce thing you mention. It is totally outside my experience and I am not sure which bit of liegislation would apply to it.
As for the needle in a haystack argument you put forward. I do not believe this is a real issue. Trawling doesn't work and nothing I have said suggests that the security services resort to it. Every investigation starts with a name.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I would hesitate to suggest how widespread Mr. Indigo's views are but they make sense to me. I really don't see how the Union can do anything but stagger on to the increasing annoyance and embitterment of both countries. A split is going to happen eventually so lets get it over with.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
Indeed. However with 35+ SNP seats at Westminster and a government with a weak majority or a minority, and a SNP government in Holyrood, what is the next step likely to be.
Assuming there's a 2nd coalition, if Labour + SNP < Conservative + Lib Dem, they shall be ignored.
Right, must head off out into the big outside world. Good day.
12.35 General Denis Favier, director general of the Gendarmerie, has said that France's intelligence services now face "an immense task". The General also confirmed that the gendarmerie will be heavily involved in the policing of Sunday's unity rally in Paris. He: "We will make our men available for the Paris police department. We will do everything to secure Sunday's events."
They'd best get out into the French countryside looking for resprayed Jaguar.
Indigo, in 1993 in Canada the BQ Quebec nationalists became the official opposition at the Canadian general election winning 54 seats in the House of Commons, and a year later the PQ Quebec nationalists won a majority in the Quebec provincial election, over 20 years' later Quebec is still in Canada. Nothing is inevitable!
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
12.50 Charlie Hebdo shooting 'third-man' is released from custody without charge, reports David Chazan. The brother-in-law of the Charlie Hebdo gunman Cherif Kouachi, 18-year-old Mourad Hamyd, has been released from police custody without being charged, the public prosecutor's office has announced.
TUD Salmond is standing for a Westminster seat at Gordon and is aiming to give the SNP the balance of power, Sturgeon is First Minister and will stay in Holyrood and not run for a Westminster seat
In the 2010 GE Scottish debates, Angus Robertson (then & now leader of the SNP Westminster group) took two of the debates, Salmond (FM, leader of the SNP and standing down from his Westminster seat) took the other. There's nothing fixed about who takes part in debates and who is leading the SNP campaign.
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?
And after having heard it, presumably you will move to Scotland, so you can cast a vote for or against it...
Most of us live in safe seats for one party or another, there are only a hundred or so constituencies where floating voters will influence the outcome.
But seeing how the SNP may line up, it may well colour impressions of the other parties.
And as I said, there are a lot of constitutional issues to debate. EVFEL, EU, whether an EU ref would trigger a fresh indyref in parts of the country that wanted to stay in (incidentally are there polls on this issue in NI and Wales?)
12.35 General Denis Favier, director general of the Gendarmerie, has said that France's intelligence services now face "an immense task". The General also confirmed that the gendarmerie will be heavily involved in the policing of Sunday's unity rally in Paris. He: "We will make our men available for the Paris police department. We will do everything to secure Sunday's events."
They'd best get out into the French countryside looking for resprayed Jaguar.
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
No it wouldn't.
That would be why the Front Nationals is being excluded from the day of unity.
Anyway we all remember the media reaction to the murder of Pim Fortuyn by a leftist.
Casino Indeed, the election is not only about which of the Tories or Labour wins a majority or becomes largest party, but in the likely event of a hung parliament, which of the LDs or SNP will hold the balance of power
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
Very good point. One can't help wonder if people, in general, approve of free speech in principle, unless it's used to strongly criticise or insult the most ardently held values and beliefs of a sizeable number of them, who are willing to bite back.
Then it swiftly moves to shoulder-shrugging. Excuses are made as to why that particular example went too far, upset a lot of people, and - perhaps mixed together with a personal attack on their character, behaviours, personality or values - that they therefore had it coming.
Which is ironic because it's in instances like that free speech is needed most dearly.
Nick Griffin used free speech to say there were Muslims raping young girls in Rotherham 9 years ago and landed up in court on the back of it
The establishment make out we have free speech but it is an illusion. They just want us to think we have it, but it's on their terms
If the BNP had a carton of Mohammed on their leaflets, do you think the same people saying "Je Suis Charlie" now would have defended it?
13.00 Prime Minister Manuel Valls and Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve have condemned the Le Point news magazine for its special edition on the Charlie Hebdo attack that caries a front page picture of one of the two attackers shooting dead a policeman lying on the ground.
Fox Polls show Wales and NI are about as anti-EU as the UK as a whole, UKIP won almost exactly their UK-wide share in Wales in the Euro elections, London and the Northwest as well as Scotland saw lower UKIP shares. Of course it is also possible that in a close vote it could be a big IN margin in Scotland which keeps the UK in the EU if England votes narrowly OUT
Also, if they went ahead with just Miliband, Clegg and Farage, it would be either Clegg or Farage who would come out on top as they are both better speakers than Miliband, which would increase both their votes and in the case of the Lib Dems reduce Labours, so I doubt whether Ed Miliband would agree to go ahead without Cameron being there.
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
The impact of the visuals - three leaders debating and an empty space where the bloke who ducked it should be - would totally blow away the impact of anything that actually happened during the debates, short of Ed Miliband dropping his trousers to reveal his swastika tattoo.
Assuming the broadcasters are prepared to play hardball and Ed Miliband doesn't secretly want to duck the thing too, Cameron is going to have to show up.
That said, I think we're in danger of over-playing the importance of these preliminary skirmishes, which are part negotiation and part playing to the gallery. Once they actually have the debates the voters will forget about who initially tried to duck them.
I simply don't believe that the broadcasters will "empty chair" the PM. It would be an incredibly and overtly hostile act against someone who has a decent chance of being the next Prime Minister. No businessman, accountable to their shareholders, would take that kind of risk for a short term ratings boost. And the BBC Charter is up for renewal (I think) in 2016 so it is unlikely they would do something like this.
It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Additionally, I suspect that it might backfire against the British public's innate sense of fair play. It's one think mocking a politician who doesn't turn up for HIGNFY. It's totally another tilting the ground in a general election.
Empty chairing would also break the requirement for balance in campaign coverage, unless it took place well before the official campaign.
We are told that unless Cameron threatens to leave the EU he would find it impossible to get concessions. Perhaps he is rehearsing his BOO position in advance by BOOing the debates...
13.05 The Telegraph's Harriet Alexander reports that photographs have emerged showing that Cherif Kouachi was under police surveillance as long ago as 2010. New photos of Cherif have surfaced, showing that he was under significant surveillance as far back as 2010. Le Point has police photos taken of him in his district of Gennevilliers, on April 7. Three days later the police trailed him to Murat, in the Cantal region, where he went shopping with Djamel Beghal - the jihadist with links to Finsbury Park mosque. He was also photographed in sports clothes, training under Beghal's supervision. French police yesterday said it takes 20 officers to follow one man for 24 hours.
Empty chairing would also break the requirement for balance in campaign coverage, unless it took place well before the official campaign.
Apparently not. According to the OFCOM rules if a party is offered an appearance and turns that opportunity down, it counts as an appearance for the purposes for balance.
We are told that unless Cameron threatens to leave the EU he would find it impossible to get concessions. Perhaps he is rehearsing his BOO position in advance by BOOing the debates...
French police yesterday said it takes 20 officers to follow one man for 24 hours.
According to the Lee Rigby Report, our security services only have the manpower to track a maximum of 50 suspects 24/7, which is a little concerning when they know that 125,000 people in the country regularly read the jihadist's gazette. The problem wouldnt seem to be so much lack of powers, as lack of appropriately skilled people.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
I would hesitate to suggest how widespread Mr. Indigo's views are but they make sense to me. I really don't see how the Union can do anything but stagger on to the increasing annoyance and embitterment of both countries. A split is going to happen eventually so lets get it over with.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
The effect of years of influence from the left on the concept of a unified UK has eroded our sense of nationhood so badly that some parts such as Scotland need to leave and face up to life on their own.
Labour and the Lib Dems soiled the image of England through their anti-tory joint campaigns in Scotland. Scotland became separate after years of this propaganda all done for their own party's short term gain. Ironic when they will lose 50% to 90% of their Scottish seats at this coming GE. As you sow so shall you reap.
"13.20 Intelligence chiefs suspended surveillance on Kouachi brothers because he was deemed to be 'low risk', reports Harriet Alexander. French authorities stopped the surveillance of the Kouachi brothers in July - just six months before the Paris attacks - because they were deemed to be of low risk. Cherif and Said Kouachi were being intensively watched between Spring 2009 and July 2014, according to Le Parisien..."
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
The Green Party of England and Wales is a regional party, which only stands in England and Wales, of course.
TCPB It will just get more and more powers, the Conservative Party of Canada has never been more than a marginal presence in Quebec either since the rise of the Reform Party, but after 2 independence referendums and with more powers it remains Canadian. The Labour Party will have to become the main unionist party of Scotland against the SNP as the Liberal Party became the main unionist party of Quebec against the PQ
Also, if they went ahead with just Miliband, Clegg and Farage, it would be either Clegg or Farage who would come out on top as they are both better speakers than Miliband, which would increase both their votes and in the case of the Lib Dems reduce Labours, so I doubt whether Ed Miliband would agree to go ahead without Cameron being there.
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
The impact of the visuals - three leaders debating and an empty space where the bloke who ducked it should be - would totally blow away the impact of anything that actually happened during the debates, short of Ed Miliband dropping his trousers to reveal his swastika tattoo.
Assuming the broadcasters are prepared to play hardball and Ed Miliband doesn't secretly want to duck the thing too, Cameron is going to have to show up.
That said, I think we're in danger of over-playing the importance of these preliminary skirmishes, which are part negotiation and part playing to the gallery. Once they actually have the debates the voters will forget about who initially tried to duck them.
I simply don't believe that the broadcasters will "empty chair" the PM. It would be an incredibly and overtly hostile act against someone who has a decent chance of being the next Prime Minister. No businessman, accountable to their shareholders, would take that kind of risk for a short term ratings boost. And the BBC Charter is up for renewal (I think) in 2016 so it is unlikely they would do something like this.
It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Additionally, I suspect that it might backfire against the British public's innate sense of fair play. It's one think mocking a politician who doesn't turn up for HIGNFY. It's totally another tilting the ground in a general election.
I don't think that either the BBC or ITV would empty chair Mr. Cameron but Sky might. Adam Boulton played a big role in getting the debates off the ground in 2010 and , has been a major media figure in promoting them for GE15.
TCPB It will just get more and more powers, the Conservative Party of Canada has never been more than a marginal presence in Quebec either since the rise of the Reform Party, but after 2 independence referendums and with more powers it remains Canadian. The Labour Party will have to become the main unionist party of Scotland against the SNP as the Liberal Party became the main unionist party of Quebec against the PQ
If Murphy succeeds in his aim of splitting SLAB off from London, what is the odds that he will move his party steadily in a independence direction because that is where the votes are, not necessarily a PRO position, but maybe a Que Sera, Sera position ?
The much maligned Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was in fact an attempt to regulate, i.e. control, practices that were already widespread and largely uncontrolled.
The process is: 1) Pass a law allowing them to do A. 2) They stretch Law A beyond what it's supposed to allow and do B. 3) B is now widespread and uncontrolled, so pass a law allowing them to do B. 4) They stretch Law B beyond what it's supposed to allow and do C. 5) C is now widespread and uncontrolled, so... etc etc etc.
Empty chairing would also break the requirement for balance in campaign coverage, unless it took place well before the official campaign.
We are told that unless Cameron threatens to leave the EU he would find it impossible to get concessions. Perhaps he is rehearsing his BOO position in advance by BOOing the debates...
I've been told that offering the *opportunity* to participate is sufficient to meet the requirement for balance.
All these threads feel very serious. May I divert onto something more relaxing or provocative for another reason?
Been downloading oodles of Sons Of Anarchy artists. If you're into Southern US Rock/Country [not Western]/NiggerGrass/Iraq Protest Military - there's some super stuff in there.
Also, if they went ahead with just Miliband, Clegg and Farage, it would be either Clegg or Farage who would come out on top as they are both better speakers than Miliband, which would increase both their votes and in the case of the Lib Dems reduce Labours, so I doubt whether Ed Miliband would agree to go ahead without Cameron being there.
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
The impact of the visuals - three leaders debating and an empty space where the bloke who ducked it should be - would totally blow away the impact of anything that actually happened during the debates, short of Ed Miliband dropping his trousers to reveal his swastika tattoo.
Assuming the broadcasters are prepared to play hardball and Ed Miliband doesn't secretly want to duck the thing too, Cameron is going to have to show up.
That said, I think we're in danger of over-playing the importance of these preliminary skirmishes, which are part negotiation and part playing to the gallery. Once they actually have the debates the voters will forget about who initially tried to duck them.
I simply don't believe that the broadcasters will "empty chair" the PM. It would be an incredibly and overtly hostile act against someone who has a decent chance of being the next Prime Minister. No businessman, accountable to their shareholders, would take that kind of risk for a short term ratings boost. And the BBC Charter is up for renewal (I think) in 2016 so it is unlikely they would do something like this.
It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Additionally, I suspect that it might backfire against the British public's innate sense of fair play. It's one think mocking a politician who doesn't turn up for HIGNFY. It's totally another tilting the ground in a general election.
I don't think that either the BBC or ITV would empty chair Mr. Cameron but Sky might. Adam Boulton played a big role in getting the debates off the ground in 2010 and , has been a major media figure in promoting them for GE15.
That would be a big call by our favourite Australian.
I don't think it would happen unless he was certain that Cameron was going to lose. Neither James nor Rupert are in the business of burning bridges
Two huge blind spots in this. 1) 'Economic reality'. What's this? That Syriza, which wants its people to have enough to eat, isn't facing the reality that financial creditors want their pounds of flesh? All through history there have been times when debts have to be cancelled. 2) The TV companies won't 'want stifled discussion'. On the contrary TV companies and most of the mass media are owned by a handful of ultra rich individuals. It is their voices which dominate. This is why they are happy to give air time to UKIP, BNP, etc, but not the Greens, whose actual policies are more popular than any other party's.
Also, if they went ahead with just Miliband, Clegg and Farage, it would be either Clegg or Farage who would come out on top as they are both better speakers than Miliband, which would increase both their votes and in the case of the Lib Dems reduce Labours, so I doubt whether Ed Miliband would agree to go ahead without Cameron being there.
In fact it is a daft suggestion to say that they would all just go against Cameron because they will be debating each other on the night and they can't all just talk about him, they have got to win the debate against the people present, not the ones that aren't! If the public feel Cameron had been bullied by the others, they won't like it, so all in all I think this is a totally stupid assessment.
The impact of the visuals - three leaders debating and an empty space where the bloke who ducked it should be - would totally blow away the impact of anything that actually happened during the debates, short of Ed Miliband dropping his trousers to reveal his swastika tattoo.
Assuming the broadcasters are prepared to play hardball and Ed Miliband doesn't secretly want to duck the thing too, Cameron is going to have to show up.
That said, I think we're in danger of over-playing the importance of these preliminary skirmishes, which are part negotiation and part playing to the gallery. Once they actually have the debates the voters will forget about who initially tried to duck them.
I simply don't believe that the broadcasters will "empty chair" the PM. It would be an incredibly and overtly hostile act against someone who has a decent chance of being the next Prime Minister. No businessman, accountable to their shareholders, would take that kind of risk for a short term ratings boost. And the BBC Charter is up for renewal (I think) in 2016 so it is unlikely they would do something like this.
It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Additionally, I suspect that it might backfire against the British public's innate sense of fair play. It's one think mocking a politician who doesn't turn up for HIGNFY. It's totally another tilting the ground in a general election.
I don't think that either the BBC or ITV would empty chair Mr. Cameron but Sky might. Adam Boulton played a big role in getting the debates off the ground in 2010 and , has been a major media figure in promoting them for GE15.
As Sky have the head-to-head between Ed and Cameron, that would certainly make for an interesting format. Ed versus the tub of lard?
All these threads feel very serious. May I divert onto something more relaxing or provocative for another reason?
For another diversion I see they are filming Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies for a 6 part BBC drama, looks sumptuous from the behind the camera shots, and the books were stunning (yes, I know the authors politics are a disgrace, but her books were very good). Watching it when its gets to the TV looks like an opportunity to enjoy the story without the stigma of having to give Ms Mantel any of your money
Oh, that's peculiar - all my links don't work here. I know I'm not given access to post a YouTube video as an embed and can't post a Tweet - now I can't link to one either?
All these threads feel very serious. May I divert onto something more relaxing or provocative for another reason?
Been downloading oodles of Sons Of Anarchy artists. If you're into Southern US Rock/Country [not Western]/NiggerGrass/Iraq Protest Military - there's some super stuff in there.
MattW Not really, the Green Party of Scotland emerged out of the Green Party of England and Wales only in 1990 and is its sister party, on policy there is basically no difference between them
JonathanClatworthy Only on a self-selective survey and of course the Greens are on Question Time. I agree with your wider point and of course the Daily Telegraph and Guardian are holding an online debate and have invited the Greens, Cameron will almost certainly participate, meaning the main debate of the election may end up being on the internet due to the TV companies' stupidity in excluding the Greens
Damien Lewis, he of the unfortunate and hypocritical comments regarding "fruity actors", playing Henry VIII (during whose reign homosexuality was explicitly criminalised)? Appropriate casting if nothing else...
MattW Not really, the Green Party of Scotland emerged out of the Green Party of England and Wales only in 1990 and is its sister party, on policy there is basically no difference between them
So SNP on the left, SLAB on the hard left, and ScotGreen on the so far left they are out of sight ?
Indigo If you want independence you are going to vote SNP end of, no one will vote Labour for that, inevitably Murphy is a staunch unionist and will position Labour as the main Unionist side as the Jean Charest became the main unionist leader in Quebec as leader of the Liberals against the leader of the PQ and pro Quebec independence Lucien Bouchard
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
No it wouldn't.
That would be why the Front Nationals is being excluded from the day of unity.
Anyway we all remember the media reaction to the murder of Pim Fortuyn by a leftist.
Do you honestly think that the inclusion of the Front National would be appropriate for a 'day of unity'.
Oh, that's peculiar - all my links don't work here. I know I'm not given access to post a YouTube video as an embed and can't post a Tweet - now I can't link to one either? Hohum.
All these threads feel very serious. May I divert onto something more relaxing or provocative for another reason?
Been downloading oodles of Sons Of Anarchy artists. If you're into Southern US Rock/Country [not Western]/NiggerGrass/Iraq Protest Military - there's some super stuff in there.
I collect music/soundtracks like lovers and eye-candy. Adore suggestions.
Will look it up. Thanx.
SoA has some fantastic stuff. I use TrackID and Shazam a lot to identify tracks - have over 500 used in TV shows saved - picked up a load of great music using the expertise of TV producers. Follow https://twitter.com/cmollere for great stuff - he works for The CW network and knows his onions re music.
All these threads feel very serious. May I divert onto something more relaxing or provocative for another reason?
For another diversion I see they are filming Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies for a 6 part BBC drama, looks sumptuous from the behind the camera shots, and the books were stunning (yes, I know the authors politics are a disgrace, but her books were very good). Watching it when its gets to the TV looks like an opportunity to enjoy the story without the stigma of having to give Ms Mantel any of your money
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
No it wouldn't.
That would be why the Front Nationals is being excluded from the day of unity.
Anyway we all remember the media reaction to the murder of Pim Fortuyn by a leftist.
Do you honestly think that the inclusion of the Front National would be appropriate for a 'day of unity'.
So it's a Day of Unity de la gauche, n'est-ce pas?
Indigo No Scottish Labour will have to become the centrist party of Scotland, in between the SNP and Greens to its left and Tories and UKIP to its right, that is where the Quebec Liberals positioned themselves, to the right of the Quebec nationalists and leftist parties and to the left of the AD, the main rightwing party in Quebec elections. Indeed, Jean Charest was leader of the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party from 1993 to 1998 and then leader of the Quebec Liberals from 1998 to 2012 and Premier of Quebec from 2003 to 2012
Oh, that's peculiar - all my links don't work here. I know I'm not given access to post a YouTube video as an embed and can't post a Tweet - now I can't link to one either? Hohum.
All these threads feel very serious. May I divert onto something more relaxing or provocative for another reason?
Been downloading oodles of Sons Of Anarchy artists. If you're into Southern US Rock/Country [not Western]/NiggerGrass/Iraq Protest Military - there's some super stuff in there.
Indigo If you want independence you are going to vote SNP end of, no one will vote Labour for that, inevitably Murphy is a staunch unionist and will position Labour as the main Unionist side as the Jean Charest became the main unionist leader in Quebec as leader of the Liberals against the leader of the PQ and pro Quebec independence Lucien Bouchard
I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".
As an aside one wonders what the equivalent move for either of the main UK Parties will be under similar circumstances, if the polls are dead wrong because of the complexities of minor parties and either the CONs or LAB get slaughtered, say sub 200 seats, what's their plan.
I completely disagree with David. It the Conservative leader did not attend he would need to be given time elsewhere to put his case across.
I ask myself: “why don’t the LDs, Lab and UKIP want the Greens?” Could it be that the Green leader rather than Farage is likely to be the fresh face with the novelty value? Could it be that the Libdems in particular fear the haemorrhage of votes to the Greens by environmentalists? Could it be that the left-leaning Greens are going to undermine Labour’s credentials as the only anti-austerity option?
Why don’t they just let the Greens join in, in which case Cameron will have to go forward with the debates? I can see the point the point of a debate between the two candidates almost certain to be PM. If you move from this surely all the parties need to have a voice and I can see no grounds for excluding the Greens with an MP, experience running a council and over 5% consistently in the polls.
Do you honestly think that the inclusion of the Front National would be appropriate for a 'day of unity'.
Its the UKIP story all over again, only more so because they are much higher in the polls. You might not like their politics, but they represent the vote of about a quarter of France, their leader approaching a third of France. There is a small but growing chance their leader will be the next president of France, they are certain to make huge gains in the next national assembly elections. Its going to be hard to maintain your position if they are a major force in assembly and/or hold the presidency, and if you can't hold it then, its no more valid now.
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."
Controversial....
An interesting thought experiment is to envisage the reaction if the gunmen had massacred 12 people at the FN headquarters, rather than at a left-wing magazine.
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
Very good point. One can't help wonder if people, in general, approve of free speech in principle, unless it's used to strongly criticise or insult the most ardently held values and beliefs of a sizeable number of them, who are willing to bite back.
Then it swiftly moves to shoulder-shrugging. Excuses are made as to why that particular example went too far, upset a lot of people, and - perhaps mixed together with a personal attack on their character, behaviours, personality or values - that they therefore had it coming.
Which is ironic because it's in instances like that free speech is needed most dearly.
When it comes to free speech, nasty people expressing unpleasant opinions should be seen as the canary down the coal mine. So long as they can express themselves, the rest of us have nothing to fear.
In Northern Ireland as Peter Robinson and Gerry Adams stand at Westminster anyway no change would be needed
Adams stepped down as a Westminster MP in 2011. He then got himself elected to the Dáil in Dublin. He remains leader of the party. Raymond McCartney leads the party in the NI Assembly. I'm not aware of any hierarchy among their Westminster MPs, who of course do not take up their seats. Pat Doherty would appear to be the most senior.
Indigo 55% voted against independence, they need to be represented, even on their best poll ratings the SNP is still polling under 50% at Westminster and on most polls is between 35-45%, the same as the Yes total. If Labour becomes pro independence there is a risk it could fall to third and be overtaken by the LDs or even the Tories as the main Scottish unionist party (indeed one yougov poll last year had the Tories ahead of Labour in Scotland). If voters want a leftwing alternative to Labour in Scotland they will vote Green, if they want a pro independence alternative they will vote SNP, there is no mileage for Labour in either position.
Neither the Tories nor Labour will get under 200 seats, the polls are not that wrong, even if Labour lost all its seats in Scotland to the SNP it would still be over 200 and UKIP will pick up no more than 1-5
"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"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
Indigo If you want independence you are going to vote SNP end of, no one will vote Labour for that, inevitably Murphy is a staunch unionist and will position Labour as the main Unionist side as the Jean Charest became the main unionist leader in Quebec as leader of the Liberals against the leader of the PQ and pro Quebec independence Lucien Bouchard
I was thinking of SNP/SLAB as analogous to LAB/CON in Westminster, they are both nominally staunch supporters of their wing, but both try and sidle into where the votes are. If Murphy gets slaughtered in GE2015 as looks likely, what's the game plan to get some of those voters back, its not going to fly trying to be more left wing than Sturgeon's SNP, he already is the Unionist voice to all intents so not many more votes to be made there. Is there a body of voters that might be summarised as "Well I quite like the look of Murphy and SLAB if they weren't so damn anti-independence".
As an aside one wonders what the equivalent move for either of the main UK Parties will be under similar circumstances, if the polls are dead wrong because of the complexities of minor parties and either the CONs or LAB get slaughtered, say sub 200 seats, what's their plan.
The trouble with that is that SLAB don't seem to have any policies of their own other than wait and see what the SNP do and demand the opposite, even if (a) it is not a devolved power and/or (b) what the SNP are doing is what Labour wanted/voted for in the first place. Vide school meals stushie ongoing at the moment.
The appointment of Mr McTernan to SLAB also reinforces the impression of right-wing Blairism which is also a bit of a downer for the ordinary SLAB member and voter. All a bit relative of course.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
1) All parliamentary parties 2) Three parties over ten points in the polls 3) Two parties over twenty points in the polls
Fair to everyone.
I get the impression that you picked those criteria knowing what the answer would be. (Namely, (1) gives Conservative, Labour, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP, Alliance, GPF&W, Respect; (2) gives Con, Lab, UKIP; (3) gives Con and Lab.)
One could pick a different set of criteria that looks just as fair, but produce a very different result. Say...
1) All parties with >5 MPs (Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP) 2) All parties over five points in the polls (Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, Green) 3) All parties currently in government + the Official Opposition (Con, LibDem, Lab)
That's the problem. There's lots of rules that look fair, and they give different answers. Do you give more weight to getting MPs elected or opinion polls? Do you give more weight to performance last time or current standings? Do you look at polling right now, or over the entire period since the last election? How do you handle parties active in only parts of the UK (and the Conservative and UKIP are the only parties who organise across all of the UK)?
Comments
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11335866/There-is-a-price-for-living-in-a-free-society.html
I suspect that among the authorities and opinion formers, the response would be a good deal more equivocal.
You are confounding anti-Westminster rule (or anti-Toryism, etc.) with anti-Englishness, and also confusing England with the UK, and seemingly deriving an excuse for your own anti-Scottish rant. The indyref period saw some very interesting discussions on English governance and its problems, often expressed with considerable sympathy (and for one thing, consider how it is the Unionist parties which cause the biggest problems over EV4EL whereas the SNP has done its best to minimise the issue: who's being anti-Engish there?) . I suggest you have a look at the debate with a fresh eye (and not constrained by the DT's Mr Cochrane, etc.). You might be surprised.
To be fair, there is that very strange behaviour of Mr Murphy over the 1000 Nurses on London money, but one reason for the impact of that is that it is so unusual in Scottish political debate to see such an approach (and even that was anti-London rather than anti-English).
Mr. Indigo, from time immemorial reading ones enemies' communications has been a essential part of safeguarding the state and preventing atrocities and violence. That communication is now done largely by electronic means changes nothing, any more than the introduction of the telephone did - one just needs to update the procedures and legislation.
The much maligned Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was in fact an attempt to regulate, i.e. control, practices that were already widespread and largely uncontrolled. A laudable aim but, as with so much of the Blair administration, flawed in its execution. There are I think two main objections.
Firstly, the number and types of organisation who are permitted access to communications data. The ambulance service, local councils and the like just should not have it. Their function is not the investigation of serious crime and so they should not have the powers needed in some cases to do so.
Secondly, the level of scrutiny required before an application for data is approved. At present it remains with a relatively junior official with the organisation that seeks the data. That is wholly in appropriate. Whilst there is an independent commissioner in oversight he can only dip check and the scope for abuse is too wide.
It takes very little time for the plod to get a search warrant from a magistrate and by definition requests for communications data are non-urgent (they relate to historical information). Therefore I can see no reason why "MI5" and the police cannot be expected to get a magistrates warrant for the communications data for any individual or organisation. Local councils and quangos should just be barred from this sort of work - if they think a crime is being committed they can report it to the police.
The system for actual intercepts (the content of a communication) does, I think, work well and always has. However, at the moment it requires the consent of a government minister, it would be better if that were removed from the realm of politics and handed to a high court judge.
Restrict the access to those who really need it to investigate serious crime and matters of national security and provide independent oversight (leave the functions of the Commissioner in place as a back stop) and the problem will go away with no detriment to needed work.
Clearly there are large numbers of Scots who dont want to go, but they have been outmaneuvered, and breakup is inevitable, or at least a devo-ultra federal solution. With an SNP government in Scotland, and 30+ SNP seats in westminster it can't realistically end any other way. If Scotland is determined to go, it should go, and be happy with its new status. If Scotland is determined to go, the rest of the UK should help its on its way.
Thanks for that assessment of the situation - interesting to see what you think.
Requiring individual warrants and stringent oversight to ensure this requirement wasn't being broken would entirely assuage my concerns in this area.
For me the problem with comms data is the more sinister bit around the edges, like how many divorce cases now revolve around making ISPs produce the email records of one of the partners, that would never happen with written correspondence, but with email it's apparently different, because the application is can be made to a third party that is required for security reasons to keep the data.
The fact remains that the international security services are managing to drown themselves in intercept data they have no realistic chance of examining even a fraction of, all the emails going in and out of the several major countries, how many is that? Every conversation on Skype, etc etc, and there are well known and easily available technologies that allow sufficient levels of encryption that the resources would never be applied to break it unless they were extremely sure the content would be worth the effort. After the fuss last year Gmail is now going full TLS, good luck reading that.
Three debates:
1) All parliamentary parties
2) Three parties over ten points in the polls
3) Two parties over twenty points in the polls
Fair to everyone.
They are very wealthy and don't care because they live in a large house with a large estate and fence and, don't have to mix with them and hoi polloi are hoi polloi whatever their colour and religion.
They live in a part of the country wholly untouched by it (usually rural).
They are reasonably wealthy and can buy insulation from it while benefiting from cheapness of services due to excess labour.
They are naive and think that if people are treated in a civilized way they will behave in a civilized way.
They couldn't give a *@£$ so long as they continue to get their bread and circuses.
They are glad because it disrupts society and helps bring about the chaos needed for the revolution.
The serious reforms the country needs won't happen until the economy implodes to the extent that the state can no longer afford to function in the way it does now and those currently insulated from the consequences of these policies are no longer insulated.
To quote the Scottish Play, "If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly"
"Decadence - The Decline of the Western World"
Western society grew from Magna Carta until peaking in 1969 and is now decadent and collapsing
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/society-is-past-its-use-by-date-20111202-1oajg.html
"The social change is familiar: the destruction of the family as the fundamental social unit would be fine if we had replaced it with something. We have not. [And] it’s a culture in which we seem to have abandoned many of the values on which we based our civilisation.
"We don’t know what we believe in and are busy bringing up children who share our confusion ... We have created a strange culture perpetuated by television and other media that rejoices in and celebrates dysfunction, violence and anti-social behaviour.....
[In] France declinology has become a national art," wrote Madeleine Bunting in The Guardian in January. "While in Germany, declinology has assumed hysterical proportions."
12.35 General Denis Favier, director general of the Gendarmerie, has said that France's intelligence services now face "an immense task".
The General also confirmed that the gendarmerie will be heavily involved in the policing of Sunday's unity rally in Paris.
He: "We will make our men available for the Paris police department. We will do everything to secure Sunday's events."
It might be legal, but that doesn't mean it is going to happen.
Additionally, I suspect that it might backfire against the British public's innate sense of fair play. It's one think mocking a politician who doesn't turn up for HIGNFY. It's totally another tilting the ground in a general election.
Then it swiftly moves to shoulder-shrugging. Excuses are made as to why that particular example went too far, upset a lot of people, and - perhaps mixed together with a personal attack on their character, behaviours, personality or values - that they therefore had it coming.
Which is ironic because it's in instances like that free speech is needed most dearly.
I have no answer to the divorce thing you mention. It is totally outside my experience and I am not sure which bit of liegislation would apply to it.
As for the needle in a haystack argument you put forward. I do not believe this is a real issue. Trawling doesn't work and nothing I have said suggests that the security services resort to it. Every investigation starts with a name.
Right, must head off out into the big outside world. Good day.
The brother-in-law of the Charlie Hebdo gunman Cherif Kouachi, 18-year-old Mourad Hamyd, has been released from police custody without being charged, the public prosecutor's office has announced.
But seeing how the SNP may line up, it may well colour impressions of the other parties.
And as I said, there are a lot of constitutional issues to debate. EVFEL, EU, whether an EU ref would trigger a fresh indyref in parts of the country that wanted to stay in (incidentally are there polls on this issue in NI and Wales?)
Anyway we all remember the media reaction to the murder of Pim Fortuyn by a leftist.
The establishment make out we have free speech but it is an illusion. They just want us to think we have it, but it's on their terms
If the BNP had a carton of Mohammed on their leaflets, do you think the same people saying "Je Suis Charlie" now would have defended it?
Sacre Bleu! Don't tell me they're "offended"...
We are told that unless Cameron threatens to leave the EU he would find it impossible to get concessions. Perhaps he is rehearsing his BOO position in advance by BOOing the debates...
New photos of Cherif have surfaced, showing that he was under significant surveillance as far back as 2010.
Le Point has police photos taken of him in his district of Gennevilliers, on April 7.
Three days later the police trailed him to Murat, in the Cantal region, where he went shopping with Djamel Beghal - the jihadist with links to Finsbury Park mosque. He was also photographed in sports clothes, training under Beghal's supervision.
French police yesterday said it takes 20 officers to follow one man for 24 hours.
I wonder why?
Labour and the Lib Dems soiled the image of England through their anti-tory joint campaigns in Scotland. Scotland became separate after years of this propaganda all done for their own party's short term gain. Ironic when they will lose 50% to 90% of their Scottish seats at this coming GE. As you sow so shall you reap.
French authorities stopped the surveillance of the Kouachi brothers in July - just six months before the Paris attacks - because they were deemed to be of low risk.
Cherif and Said Kouachi were being intensively watched between Spring 2009 and July 2014, according to Le Parisien..."
They are soooo.... f*cked...
Matt
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/local/teesvalley/11715318._/
1) Pass a law allowing them to do A.
2) They stretch Law A beyond what it's supposed to allow and do B.
3) B is now widespread and uncontrolled, so pass a law allowing them to do B.
4) They stretch Law B beyond what it's supposed to allow and do C.
5) C is now widespread and uncontrolled, so...
etc etc etc.
But, while legal, I just don't see it happening
Been downloading oodles of Sons Of Anarchy artists. If you're into Southern US Rock/Country [not Western]/NiggerGrass/Iraq Protest Military - there's some super stuff in there.
I must recommend White Buffalo - Darlin' What Have I Done, Awolnation - Burn It Down, Yelawolf - Til It's Gone, and Richard Thompson - Dad's Gonna Kill Me.
I don't think it would happen unless he was certain that Cameron was going to lose. Neither James nor Rupert are in the business of burning bridges
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Blenkinsop
Another career politician.......
I thought it was a safe seat that was only lost because of very specific circumstances related (IIRC) to a steel plant closing.
Clearly they should aim to win it back to stop the LibDems burrowing in, but presumably without devoting too much resource to it.
There were people similarly bemoaning in Roman times. In ancient Egypt, people complained that pyramid construction had become a lost art.
*Every* civilisation has experienced rise, decline -- and sometimes rise again.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/11336207/Wolf-Hall-behind-the-scenes-of-the-BBCs-Hilary-Mantel-adaptation-with-Damian-Lewis-and-Mark-Rylance.html
Hohum.
"You must admit its a change after all the threads we have had knocking UKIP. Who knows, one day the LDs might do something wrong ;-)"
It's odd all the criticism for the header piece considering it was penned by David Herdson one of the most prominent Tories on here.
Do you think he's gone 'native'?
Will look it up. Thanx.
SoA has some fantastic stuff. I use TrackID and Shazam a lot to identify tracks - have over 500 used in TV shows saved - picked up a load of great music using the expertise of TV producers. Follow https://twitter.com/cmollere for great stuff - he works for The CW network and knows his onions re music.
As an aside one wonders what the equivalent move for either of the main UK Parties will be under similar circumstances, if the polls are dead wrong because of the complexities of minor parties and either the CONs or LAB get slaughtered, say sub 200 seats, what's their plan.
I ask myself: “why don’t the LDs, Lab and UKIP want the Greens?”
Could it be that the Green leader rather than Farage is likely to be the fresh face with the novelty value? Could it be that the Libdems in particular fear the haemorrhage of votes to the Greens by environmentalists? Could it be that the left-leaning Greens are going to undermine Labour’s credentials as the only anti-austerity option?
Why don’t they just let the Greens join in, in which case Cameron will have to go forward with the debates? I can see the point the point of a debate between the two candidates almost certain to be PM. If you move from this surely all the parties need to have a voice and I can see no grounds for excluding the Greens with an MP, experience running a council and over 5% consistently in the polls.
Neither the Tories nor Labour will get under 200 seats, the polls are not that wrong, even if Labour lost all its seats in Scotland to the SNP it would still be over 200 and UKIP will pick up no more than 1-5
"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"."
As so often I just can't understand the point you're making. You appear to be saying that it's essential to grievously insult all Muslims living in the UK just to show we can.
What would you be hoping to achieve? In Beirut which is roughly divided 50% 50% Muslim and Christian the Muslim areas don't have naked women on their hoardings whereas in the Christan areas they do.
Whose interest would be served by either side gratuitously causing offense to the other by breaking this convention or do you see it as a collective punishment that should be meted out to all those who don't share your sensibilities?
A jogger, apparently...
The appointment of Mr McTernan to SLAB also reinforces the impression of right-wing Blairism which is also a bit of a downer for the ordinary SLAB member and voter. All a bit relative of course.
One could pick a different set of criteria that looks just as fair, but produce a very different result. Say...
1) All parties with >5 MPs (Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP)
2) All parties over five points in the polls (Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, Green)
3) All parties currently in government + the Official Opposition (Con, LibDem, Lab)
That's the problem. There's lots of rules that look fair, and they give different answers. Do you give more weight to getting MPs elected or opinion polls? Do you give more weight to performance last time or current standings? Do you look at polling right now, or over the entire period since the last election? How do you handle parties active in only parts of the UK (and the Conservative and UKIP are the only parties who organise across all of the UK)?