Patrick Kidd @patrick_kidd 18m18 minutes ago Great news that Al Murray (Bedford School) is standing against Nigel Farage (Dulwich College). Really shaking up the establishment
I've no illusions about any of this - we are all looking for the most advantageous format. But Cameron does need to get debates, because with barely 100 days to go the polls aren't moving and he needs to roll the dice - exactly the same reason why Brown agreed, in fact. So I think they'll happen in the end, one way or another, and people would be wise to bet accordingly. (But do your own research etc.)
DC's stance on debates suggests that the Tories are moderately relaxed about the polls. It's the one who has the most to lose who usually kiboshes debates - so it's surely telling that EM is all for them...
Do we know if the real-life Al Murray is a Leftie or reactionary?
THat's the tension in his act and that is why this could backfire. At times Murray is clearly satirizing the Landlord's opinions, at other times that is less clear.
This could have a few unintended consequences. Murray's an Oxford graduate, sharp as a tack. But in the end politics is serious.
The danger is to the Tory. Libs and Labs who don't like Farage will vote for Murray, hoping to stick two fingers up to UKIP, and the Conservatives won't get the tactical votes.
The dimmer Kippers will likely confuse the two, and vote for Murray as their true voice.
This could have a few unintended consequences. Murray's an Oxford graduate, sharp as a tack. But in the end politics is serious.
The danger is to the Tory. Libs and Labs who don't like Farage will vote for Murray, hoping to stick two fingers up to UKIP, and the Conservatives won't get the tactical votes.
The dimmer Kippers will likely confuse the two, and vote for Murray as their true voice.
This could have a few unintended consequences. Murray's an Oxford graduate, sharp as a tack. But in the end politics is serious.
The danger is to the Tory. Libs and Labs who don't like Farage will vote for Murray, hoping to stick two fingers up to UKIP, and the Conservatives won't get the tactical votes.
The Tories have chosen a candidate, Craig Mackinlay, who's about as close to UKIP as you can be, without being UKIP.
That might well be a good strategy, by keeping Con/UKIP waverers on board, but may ensure that any Labour/Lib Dem tactical voters won't back them. But then, I don't expect much tactical voting for the Conservatives.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
I won't answer for the Kippers, but as a defector, I will admit: I think an in/out referendum would be lost in 2017, by an Indy Ref margin, pretty much whatever renegotiation "concessions" happen.
Why?
Because a positive, warm, and consistent vision for a UK post-EU by a credible individual (stand up, Dan Hannan) has not been made yet. The groundwork simply hasn't been put in. Farage alone, and a few Tory BOO'ers and the Express with hints from the Mail, won't be enough to win it. True, 35-40% of votes are probably more or less in the bag. But it's the other 10-15% that are not.
The worst thing that could happen for withdrawalists would be to lose a premature referendum on this, because it would set back EU exit by 20 years. But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
So you can call him optimistic, or naive, maybe. But not frit.
Thank you for your commendable honesty.
You should fight the battles you can only realistically win.
Sometimes it is better to lose a battle so you can win the war (insert a reference to Hannibal's ineptness at Zama)
That's what Dave's doing re the debates.
And Kippers are doing that re the 2017 referendum.
It isn't cowardice, just the reality of the situation that you have more to lose than gain.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
"They're both great pub philosophers - and now they're set to go head to head at this year's general election. Can you tell whether Nigel Farage or Al Murray's Pub Landlord character said the following quotes?"
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
We had a common selection process for the nominee to the House of Lords when the Government indicated that might be on the cards. But let's not rule out the Scottish or Northern Irish Greens supplying the person to represent us all in the debates!
That's true. I don't know much about the leaders/convenors in the Scottish or Northern Irish parties. Do you reckon one of them would come across better than Nathalie Bennett?
"They're both great pub philosophers - and now they're set to go head to head at this year's general election. Can you tell whether Nigel Farage or Al Murray's Pub Landlord character said the following quotes?"
Pub Landlord policy on NHS...If you turn up at A&E, and it is neither an accident or emergency, you will be sent to a random department of the hospital to be practiced on.
"They're both great pub philosophers - and now they're set to go head to head at this year's general election. Can you tell whether Nigel Farage or Al Murray's Pub Landlord character said the following quotes?"
So, they're not the same person?
Farage is a 3rd rate Pub landlord tribute act - like the Bootleg Beatles or Bjorn again.
"They're both great pub philosophers - and now they're set to go head to head at this year's general election. Can you tell whether Nigel Farage or Al Murray's Pub Landlord character said the following quotes?"
"They're both great pub philosophers - and now they're set to go head to head at this year's general election. Can you tell whether Nigel Farage or Al Murray's Pub Landlord character said the following quotes?"
So, they're not the same person?
How can a man in a velvet collared overcoat be a pub philosopher?
I saw the MCB leader on the BBC the other day saying their should be laws against defaming Muhammad. If that's representative of Muslims in the UK it's very worrying.
PS. Loving a 7th century warlord and slaver more than your own children isn't something I'll ever understand.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 39 mins39 minutes ago Senior Labour source:"David Cameron's position on the TV debates is an insult to chickens."
Clearly Roger's "whole creative department " working on the project weren't the A team.
The real chickens in British politics are those Kippers desperate not to have an in out referendum in 2017 and prepared to put Ed into Downing Street to stop the referendum happening.
Why are the Kippers so frit?
CCHQ really should employ me.
I won't answer for the Kippers, but as a defector, I will admit: I think an in/out referendum would be lost in 2017, by an Indy Ref margin, pretty much whatever renegotiation "concessions" happen.
Why?
Because a positive, warm, and consistent vision for a UK post-EU by a credible individual (stand up, Dan Hannan) has not been made yet. The groundwork simply hasn't been put in. Farage alone, and a few Tory BOO'ers and the Express with hints from the Mail, won't be enough to win it. True, 35-40% of votes are probably more or less in the bag. But it's the other 10-15% that are not.
The worst thing that could happen for withdrawalists would be to lose a premature referendum on this, because it would set back EU exit by 20 years. But I'm not sure you can call UKIP frit because Farage wants an EU referendum *this year* and thinks he can win it.
So you can call him optimistic, or naive, maybe. But not frit.
Thank you for your commendable honesty.
You should fight the battles you can only realistically win.
Sometimes it is better to lose a battle so you can win the war (insert a reference to Hannibal's ineptness at Zama)
That's what Dave's doing re the debates.
And Kippers are doing that re the 2017 referendum.
It isn't cowardice, just the reality of the situation that you have more to lose than gain.
Also fpt
And the real lemmings of British politics are those tories who hammer away at an internet charmlessness offensive against the Kippers, day after day, in order to minimise the probability of their returning to the tory fold between now and election day.
Cameron's conduct over the Vow shows how far he can be trusted to act honourably and lawfully in what he perceives to be a crisis. Do you feel able to give a cast-iron guarantee that he would not behave in a similar manner in 2017?
[edited] But the same is true of the English Greens. I can't vote for them here in Scotland. And Mr Cameron is terribly worried about them being included (though so he should be). Have a look at the analysis in the posting which I have just put.
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
I don't think you can say the same about the SNP and the English Democrats.
But how do you know? they're separate parties and are entitled to have separate views - this is the whole point of the debate.
No, the debate is between parties who are contesting elections against each other. To my knowledge the Scottish Green Party is not intending to stand in any seats that will be contested by the Green Party of England and Wales.
Similarly, the British Labour Party was represented in the European Parliament debates by, I believe, a member of the SDP in Germany. The situation in the UK with respect to the different Green parties is broadly the same. Yes, they are separate parties, but they have a common ideology that unites them and sets them apart from the other parties. It isn't very complicated or problematical.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
Thats not fair. Farage has already realised that being a poor man's Oswald Mosley is a nice little earner.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
It hasn't worked out that way for Salmond and the SNP, has it?
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
We had a common selection process for the nominee to the House of Lords when the Government indicated that might be on the cards. But let's not rule out the Scottish or Northern Irish Greens supplying the person to represent us all in the debates!
That's true. I don't know much about the leaders/convenors in the Scottish or Northern Irish parties. Do you reckon one of them would come across better than Nathalie Bennett?
[if I may interject]
Can't say re Ms Bennett, but in Scotland Patrick Harvie gave a pretty good impression during indyref, as well as polling as one of the most trusted/popular leaders - he usually seems to top the tables in the first three with Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, though I'd need to check recent polling.
THis also implies that a similar collective approach may be taken, though strictl yspeaking is open to interpretation either way -
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
Thats not fair. Farage has already realised that being a poor man's Oswald Mosley is a nice little earner.
Almost comical in your ignorance. Oswald Mosley supported a European fascist superstate.
[edited] But the same is true of the English Greens. I can't vote for them here in Scotland. And Mr Cameron is terribly worried about them being included (though so he should be). Have a look at the analysis in the posting which I have just put.
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
I don't think you can say the same about the SNP and the English Democrats.
But how do you know? they're separate parties and are entitled to have separate views - this is the whole point of the debate.
No, the debate is between parties who are contesting elections against each other. To my knowledge the Scottish Green Party is not intending to stand in any seats that will be contested by the Green Party of England and Wales.
Similarly, the British Labour Party was represented in the European Parliament debates by, I believe, a member of the SDP in Germany. The situation in the UK with respect to the different Green parties is broadly the same. Yes, they are separate parties, but they have a common ideology that unites them and sets them apart from the other parties. It isn't very complicated or problematical.
They may well follow such an approach - see the linky I've just posted in my other posting to you.
Europe a Nation was a policy developed by British Fascist politician Oswald Mosley as the cornerstone of his Union Movement. It called for the integration of Europe into a single entity.
The idea of a united Europe began to develop in the final days of the Second World War, where it was felt that the war had been a terrible waste of life and resources. Arguments began to appear claiming that the only way to avoid a repetition would be to tear down the divisions in Europe. These arguments, which initially appeared in Germany, informed much of Mosley's post-War thinking.
Europe a Nation consisted of the idea that all European states should come together and pool their resources (including their colonies) to work as one giant superstate under a system of corporatism.
Mosley summed up the arguments himself by stating that 'no lesser degree of union than that of an integral nation can give the will and power to act on the great scale.... No lesser space than all Europe, and the overseas possessions of Europe in a common pool, can give the room within which to act effectively'.[1] The notion also had an important geopolitical dimension as Mosley saw it as the only defence against Europe becoming the scene of the power struggles between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
The very ideas that caused the European Union, supported by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, to be created of course .
Suppose one of the broadcasters grows a pair and decides that their debate will go ahead anyway without Cameron. The other parties would be mad not to do it. Cameron would be in deep doo-doo if he didnt turn up, or if he did. Lost both ways. As for whether the Greens should be included, personal view: yes, provided it looks like they are going to put up candidates in more than half the 650 seats, which I think they will. If the broadcasters use number of candidates as part of their assessment of who should be included, they might have a better basis for a decision. SNP and Plaid would never qualify for example, because they do not have sufficient geographical spread - and that feels right. Whereas UKIP and the Greens will be able to muster enough candidates to demonstrate wide national presence, so should be in. Mainly going by current MPs automatically rules out parties who are younger than 5 years old, so seems unfair to me,
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
We had a common selection process for the nominee to the House of Lords when the Government indicated that might be on the cards. But let's not rule out the Scottish or Northern Irish Greens supplying the person to represent us all in the debates!
That's true. I don't know much about the leaders/convenors in the Scottish or Northern Irish parties. Do you reckon one of them would come across better than Nathalie Bennett?
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
Thats not fair. Farage has already realised that being a poor man's Oswald Mosley is a nice little earner.
Almost comical in your ignorance. Oswald Mosley supported a European fascist superstate.
Must try harder in future.
Mosley was also an Irish Nationalist, while Farage is pro-Union.
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
We had a common selection process for the nominee to the House of Lords when the Government indicated that might be on the cards. But let's not rule out the Scottish or Northern Irish Greens supplying the person to represent us all in the debates!
That's true. I don't know much about the leaders/convenors in the Scottish or Northern Irish parties. Do you reckon one of them would come across better than Nathalie Bennett?
No comment.
Aw, come on mate, you gotta have an opinion on <<upwards inflection>>that<</upwards inflection>>.
I saw the MCB leader on the BBC the other day saying their should be laws against defaming Muhammad. If that's representative of Muslims in the UK it's very worrying.
PS. Loving a 7th century warlord and slaver more than your own children isn't something I'll ever understand.
Well a founding member and Chief Executive of Ramadhan Foundation isn't much better. Not only all the stuff over Maajid Nawaz, but he has some "interesting" ideas for some of the factors behind the Rotherham grooming scandal. And remember this is a guy who is held up as a moderate voice.
Al Murray's a public school and Oxford graduate, so probably left wing.
Like most of the Tory party.
Public School? Like Farage - well we know that Farage ducked out of Oxford. Typical really.
Satire is in the news and how we should all respect it, along with white vans, so good luck to Al, he will test the value of satire to destruction (hopefully Farage's).
I think that the Scottish Greens and Northern Irish Greens are sufficiently close in policy and outlook to the Green Party of England and Wales that they won't mind too much being represented in a UK-wide debate by their sister-party over the border, particularly if they are also represented in the Scottish/Northern Irish-only debates.
We had a common selection process for the nominee to the House of Lords when the Government indicated that might be on the cards. But let's not rule out the Scottish or Northern Irish Greens supplying the person to represent us all in the debates!
That's true. I don't know much about the leaders/convenors in the Scottish or Northern Irish parties. Do you reckon one of them would come across better than Nathalie Bennett?
I don't see anything in that article, but does anybody have facts about where the new members are coming from? i.e is it outraged Labour and Left wing Lib Dem's quitting and joining the Green's, or is it totally new people who have been been affiliated to a political party?
I saw the MCB leader on the BBC the other day saying their should be laws against defaming Muhammad. If that's representative of Muslims in the UK it's very worrying.
PS. Loving a 7th century warlord and slaver more than your own children isn't something I'll ever understand.
Well a founding member and Chief Executive of Ramadhan Foundation isn't much better. Not only all the stuff over Maajid Nawaz, but he has some "interesting" ideas for some of the factors behind the Rotherham grooming scandal. And remember this is a guy who is held up as a moderate voice.
The only Muslim groups worth a damn in the UK seem to be Muslims for Secular Democracy and the Quilliam Foundation - and the latter have been criticised for not representing the views of British Muslims. Their defence wasn't that they did, but that they "never claimed to be a grassroots organisation".
And it's getting better. Hundreds joined the party the day the Ofcom consultation was announced. It's not completely inconceivable that the three parties will overtake the Lib Dems by the time of the GE.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
I don't see anything in that article, but does anybody have facts about where the new members are coming from? i.e is it outraged Labour and Left wing Lib Dem's quitting and joining the Green's, or is it totally new people who have been been affiliated to a political party?
I'm speculating that it might be a Scottish surge.
The Greens of Scotland were Pro-Independence so if the SNP are surging perhaps the Scottish Greens are as well.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
And it's getting better. Hundreds joined the party the day the Ofcom consultation was announced. It's not completely inconceivable that the three parties will overtake the Lib Dems by the time of the GE.
Oooh, a harbinger for my Greens to outpoll the Lib Dems bet.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
It hasn't worked out that way for Salmond and the SNP, has it?
That was like a grinning idiot stepping onto a rake and getting hit in the face
I don't see anything in that article, but does anybody have facts about where the new members are coming from? i.e is it outraged Labour and Left wing Lib Dem's quitting and joining the Green's, or is it totally new people who have been been affiliated to a political party?
I'm speculating that it might be a Scottish surge.
The Greens of Scotland were Pro-Independence so if the SNP are surging perhaps the Scottish Greens are as well.
There was a surge in Scotland. But membership in England and Wales has more than doubled in a year as well. The initial exclusion from the debates was a great recruiting sergeant. Let's hope it's a gift that keeps on giving.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
As support for the EU is at a twenty year high, Faragists are right to be frit of an early referendum. Do not go into a battle that you are going to lose:
MrsB, there's a risk of having the tail wag the dog with the broadcasters having a whip hand over the prime minister [NB I don't mean Cameron, but the position itself].
If the SNP were a UK party and had the same per capita membership across the UK as it has in Scotland, then it's membership would now total 1.1 million. It's phenomenal in comparison to the current membership rates of Labour and the Conservatives.
This also somewhat distorts the figure for membership of the Green parties, because the membership of the Scottish Green party is about one-quarter that of the Green party of England and Wales. The Greens are doubtless well behind UKIP in terms of members in England.
I don't see anything in that article, but does anybody have facts about where the new members are coming from? i.e is it outraged Labour and Left wing Lib Dem's quitting and joining the Green's, or is it totally new people who have been been affiliated to a political party?
I'm speculating that it might be a Scottish surge.
The Greens of Scotland were Pro-Independence so if the SNP are surging perhaps the Scottish Greens are as well.
There was a surge in Scotland. But membership in England and Wales has more than doubled in a year as well. The initial exclusion from the debates was a great recruiting sergeant. Let's hope it's a gift that keeps on giving.
Thanks, so it would be undemocratic to exclude the Greens from the debate.
Hard to argue with this piece really. Even if one accepts it is a worthy principle that the Greens be included, there is no way Cameron is taking a stand on the basis of that principle. At best he does agree with the principle which happily coincides with what he wants, but more likely he doesn't give a damn and everyone will see it that way.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
As support for the EU is at a twenty year high, Faragists are right to be frit of an early referendum. Do not go into a battle that you are going to lose:
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
Thats not fair. Farage has already realised that being a poor man's Oswald Mosley is a nice little earner.
Cameron wants to keep the first & last debates & scrap the second, demoting The Libdems to the status of a Minor Party & reframing the final debate as The PM, sorrounded by squabbling nonentities. If he gets away with it, its a "clever" tactic.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.
Given Cameron's previous promises to have debates and his shiftiness now, who can blame people who think his referendum promise might not be all it seems if/ when the day arrives
The polling says people think he is making excuses... UKIP should major on this parallel when Tories campaign on offering a referendum
Do the Green supporters realise that it is more like a socialist workers party than a non toxic Lib Dem party?
Given the Red Liberals did not like the LDs were not lefty enough, I should not think that many of them will mind, and the ones already there surely already know, as they are not shy about it.
Cameron lapdogs accuse Farage of not wanting a referendum
They say he should tell potential UKIP voters to vote Conservative as I understand it?
(Rather like Enoch told Conservatives to vote Labour in 1974)
But Farage thinks he should get as many seats as possible for UKIP and in the event of a hung parliament (which people on here think is about a 80-90% chance) he may then be in a position to demand a referendum earlier in return for supply and confidence.
You may think he is strategically wrong, but accusing him of not wanting a referendum is plain lies. He has already stated his conditions should either side require supply and confidence from UKIP
To claim to be pursuing a strategy that he knows perfectly well will scupper a referendum, while maintaining that it will enable a referendum, is plain lies.
But, you overlook the fact that after a referendum UKIP's main purpose is over. Farage and co would eventually become unemployed. A referendum is not in Farage's best £ interests.
As support for the EU is at a twenty year high, Faragists are right to be frit of an early referendum. Do not go into a battle that you are going to lose:
The majority of the polls in 2014 do show support for staying in. None of the polls include NI, which may swing things.
At the very least there should be a long campaign to smoke out the issues, indeed 2017 seems a good date to aim for, though with a Miliband government in power 2022 may be a reasonable aspiration for the other neverendum!
And it's getting better. Hundreds joined the party the day the Ofcom consultation was announced. It's not completely inconceivable that the three parties will overtake the Lib Dems by the time of the GE.
I'd imagine all parties will put on members as the GE approaches.
There are three debates. Cameron's "fall back" position is being happy to attend any debate except where he has to face Farage. That would make his cowardice towards UKIP particularly stark.
You are very keen to throw around the word 'cowardice', when in fact this is a carefully-evaluated piece of game theory (on the part of all parties).
But you know that, of course.
But it's game theory, predicated on the basis of Cameron losing support to Farage if they had a debate. If Cameron was confident in his arguments, he would feel like a debate would be a good chance to show UKIP up and win supporters back. Then the game theory would look very different.
But the whole "UKIP will lose support once their arguments are exposed to scrutiny" claim has evaporated. CCHQ knows that if Farage and Cameron are exposed to the same scrutiny on the same platform, it will be the latter that comes off the loser.
They don't face the same scrutiny.
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
Thought out positions like "immigration down to the tens of thousands, no ifs, no buts"?
He didn't deliver on that (I personally think ti was a mistake to pledge on net immigration and on global). But he went for simplicity rather than something he could control all the elements.
"he went for simplicity". Marvellous.
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.
Comments
Great news that Al Murray (Bedford School) is standing against Nigel Farage (Dulwich College). Really shaking up the establishment
THat's the tension in his act and that is why this could backfire. At times Murray is clearly satirizing the Landlord's opinions, at other times that is less clear.
That might well be a good strategy, by keeping Con/UKIP waverers on board, but may ensure that any Labour/Lib Dem tactical voters won't back them. But then, I don't expect much tactical voting for the Conservatives.
You should fight the battles you can only realistically win.
Sometimes it is better to lose a battle so you can win the war (insert a reference to Hannibal's ineptness at Zama)
That's what Dave's doing re the debates.
And Kippers are doing that re the 2017 referendum.
It isn't cowardice, just the reality of the situation that you have more to lose than gain.
*sighs*
He's going to hoover up the votes of the people who like none of the above (ie people who didn't vote last time and probably the Lib Dems)
What do you call a pointless race that covers 2,200 miles throughout France?
The French.
http://www.mcb.org.uk/defend-beloved-prophet-let-us-exemplify-true-ideals-say-imams/
"They're both great pub philosophers - and now they're set to go head to head at this year's general election. Can you tell whether Nigel Farage or Al Murray's Pub Landlord character said the following quotes?"
Pub Landlord policy on NHS...If you turn up at A&E, and it is neither an accident or emergency, you will be sent to a random department of the hospital to be practiced on.
Farage is a 3rd rate Pub landlord tribute act - like the Bootleg Beatles or Bjorn again.
PS. Loving a 7th century warlord and slaver more than your own children isn't something I'll ever understand.
And the real lemmings of British politics are those tories who hammer away at an internet charmlessness offensive against the Kippers, day after day, in order to minimise the probability of their returning to the tory fold between now and election day.
Cameron's conduct over the Vow shows how far he can be trusted to act honourably and lawfully in what he perceives to be a crisis. Do you feel able to give a cast-iron guarantee that he would not behave in a similar manner in 2017?
Similarly, the British Labour Party was represented in the European Parliament debates by, I believe, a member of the SDP in Germany. The situation in the UK with respect to the different Green parties is broadly the same. Yes, they are separate parties, but they have a common ideology that unites them and sets them apart from the other parties. It isn't very complicated or problematical.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30809586
Can't say re Ms Bennett, but in Scotland Patrick Harvie gave a pretty good impression during indyref, as well as polling as one of the most trusted/popular leaders - he usually seems to top the tables in the first three with Alec Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, though I'd need to check recent polling.
THis also implies that a similar collective approach may be taken, though strictl yspeaking is open to interpretation either way -
http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/news/ofcom-election-proposal-would-skew-coverage-says-harvie/
Must try harder in future.
The party's membership has doubled since September to 40,879, just 635 behind Farage's party.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/green-party-membership-course-overtake-ukips
The idea of a united Europe began to develop in the final days of the Second World War, where it was felt that the war had been a terrible waste of life and resources. Arguments began to appear claiming that the only way to avoid a repetition would be to tear down the divisions in Europe. These arguments, which initially appeared in Germany, informed much of Mosley's post-War thinking.
Europe a Nation consisted of the idea that all European states should come together and pool their resources (including their colonies) to work as one giant superstate under a system of corporatism.
Mosley summed up the arguments himself by stating that 'no lesser degree of union than that of an integral nation can give the will and power to act on the great scale.... No lesser space than all Europe, and the overseas possessions of Europe in a common pool, can give the room within which to act effectively'.[1] The notion also had an important geopolitical dimension as Mosley saw it as the only defence against Europe becoming the scene of the power struggles between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War.
The very ideas that caused the European Union, supported by Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, to be created of course .
Will The Electoral Commission let his party name stand?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-30819779
As for whether the Greens should be included, personal view: yes, provided it looks like they are going to put up candidates in more than half the 650 seats, which I think they will. If the broadcasters use number of candidates as part of their assessment of who should be included, they might have a better basis for a decision. SNP and Plaid would never qualify for example, because they do not have sufficient geographical spread - and that feels right. Whereas UKIP and the Greens will be able to muster enough candidates to demonstrate wide national presence, so should be in. Mainly going by current MPs automatically rules out parties who are younger than 5 years old, so seems unfair to me,
Satire is in the news and how we should all respect it, along with white vans, so good luck to Al, he will test the value of satire to destruction (hopefully Farage's).
Al's father was a Colonel in WW2
Caroline Lucas = The Rolling Stones
Some of the ludicrous nonsense would be criticisers of Farage come out with makes me think they'd do more damage shutting up.
Labour: 190,000
Conservatives: 149,800
SNP: 92,000
Lib Dems: 44,576
Ukip: 41,514
Greens: 40,879
Plaid Cymru: 8,000
National Health Action Party: 4,691
English Democrats: 2,500
Left Unity: 2,000
Britain First: 800
BNP: 500
Farage can say what he likes on the debate, offering the simple populist solutions without the constraints of either the market reacting to his comments or having to deliver it after the election.
In a debate of that nature populism will often triumph over carefully thought out, nuanced positions
The Greens of Scotland were Pro-Independence so if the SNP are surging perhaps the Scottish Greens are as well.
"In between sex sessions he made her Marmite on toast and they watched Bargain Hunt on television."
Who says romance is dead ;p
Except he won't, because he knows the counter-argument is much stronger, which isn't the case with Farage's arguments.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3463/Support-for-EU-membership-highest-for-23-years-even-as-UKIP-rises-in-the-polls.aspx
This also somewhat distorts the figure for membership of the Green parties, because the membership of the Scottish Green party is about one-quarter that of the Green party of England and Wales. The Greens are doubtless well behind UKIP in terms of members in England.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_United_Kingdom_membership_of_the_European_Union
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30744203
I think Nurse has a very good point. However, it's also true that politics has to reflect public sentiment.
"Sir Paul said he appreciated politicians have to make decisions distinct from science, but argued they "must be honest" with scientists."
The polling says people think he is making excuses... UKIP should major on this parallel when Tories campaign on offering a referendum
At the very least there should be a long campaign to smoke out the issues, indeed 2017 seems a good date to aim for, though with a Miliband government in power 2022 may be a reasonable aspiration for the other neverendum!
...but only if Luxembourg and Belgium have one too
Unless he's thick as two short planks, he knew it was a promise he couldn't possibly keep.
File under no top down reorganisation of the NHS, eliminating the deficit, no raising of VAT, protecting frontline services, no Sure Start closures, the Big Society, you name it.
So David Cameron is either stupid, or a smarmy barefaced liar. Or possibly both.