All true Scots want better than their country run by the dimwits and bigots of the SNP.
Their masterstrokes ?
Offensive behaviour at football act Closing down golf clubhouses with their pernicious drink driving stunts Dividing the country with their nasty referendum approach Making Scottish economics a laughing stock with their currency crash denial Losing the referendum
Get on with running the country - eventually the voters will catch up..
All true Scots want better than their country run by the dimwits and bigots of the SNP.
Their masterstrokes ?
Offensive behaviour at football act Closing down golf clubhouses with their pernicious drink driving stunts Dividing the country with their nasty referendum approach Making Scottish economics a laughing stock with their currency crash denial Losing the referendum
Get on with running the country - eventually the voters will catch up..
Is that the true Scots that were Sieg Heil-ing in George Square?
All true Scots want better than their country run by the dimwits and bigots of the SNP.
Their masterstrokes ?
Offensive behaviour at football act Closing down golf clubhouses with their pernicious drink driving stunts Dividing the country with their nasty referendum approach Making Scottish economics a laughing stock with their currency crash denial Losing the referendum
Get on with running the country - eventually the voters will catch up..
Yes and Yet they are the most popular government we have had , after 7 years as well. Who would have believed it.
Mr. G, worth considering the unique circumstances around SNP popularity: Miliband as Labour leader Collapse of Scottish Labour Independence referendum Coalition Government (tarring the Lib Dems)
The SNP have played their hand well, but they've also been dealt nice cards.
The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had.
That's the first time I've heard a minority described as 'typical' (except by Tories of course).
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Ipsos-Mori, 12th-19th January) :
SNP 52% (n/c) Labour 24% (+1) Conservatives 12% (+2) Greens 4% (-2) Liberal Democrats 4% (-2) UKIP 1% (-1)
You are saying that most typical Scots are incapable of recognising the price of oil or the collapse in the Euro exchange rate? What has that got to do with opinion polls for an election that is about influencing a UK wide government Are you saying that people who vote for the SNP in May will be voting to leave the UK? Are you saying that even as we speak there is a flood of Scottish people demanding to leave the UK with the price of oil as it is, with a huge black hole in its budget, with its main industry in crisis, without a currency, without a central bank and with the Eurozone in turmoil?
If you are then you have a pretty low opinion of the Scots. By no stretch of the imagination is any campaign to leave the UK going well.
All true Scots want better than their country run by the dimwits and bigots of the SNP.
Their masterstrokes ?
Offensive behaviour at football act Closing down golf clubhouses with their pernicious drink driving stunts Dividing the country with their nasty referendum approach Making Scottish economics a laughing stock with their currency crash denial Losing the referendum
Get on with running the country - eventually the voters will catch up..
Hm, so only 48 (variable) per cent of Scots are true Scots?
In all seriousness, this rang a bell, and I checked back to confirm my memory that the Offensive Behaviour Act is actually very popular with Scots, even Unionists:
There is a logic to inviting Plaid and not the DUP. They are fighting Lib/Lab/Con/Ukip directly in each of their seats and targets. DUP and Sinn Fein will only be fighting each other. If I was a Plaid member I'd be annoyed about being excluded. Why are the DUP so keen to be involved? And do they only want to be involved if Sinn Fein are excluded?
We've heard surprisingly little about NI so far. Would Sinn Fein really turn down the chance to be a player in a hung parliament again. And why on earth do so many people in NI want to vote for a party that wont turn up?
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
QED Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are. And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had.
That's the first time I've heard a minority described as 'typical' (except by Tories of course).
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Ipsos-Mori, 12th-19th January) :
SNP 52% (n/c) Labour 24% (+1) Conservatives 12% (+2) Greens 4% (-2) Liberal Democrats 4% (-2) UKIP 1% (-1)
You are saying that most typical Scots are incapable of recognising the price of oil or the collapse in the Euro exchange rate? What has that got to do with opinion polls for an election that is about influencing a UK wide government Are you saying that people who vote for the SNP in May will be voting to leave the UK? Are you saying that even as we speak there is a flood of Scottish people demanding to leave the UK with the price of oil as it is, with a huge black hole in its budget, with its main industry in crisis, without a currency, without a central bank and with the Eurozone in turmoil?
If you are then you have a pretty low opinion of the Scots. By no stretch of the imagination is any campaign to leave the UK going well.
You write so badly and pompously I can barely work out what you are saying, apart from your 'The referendum went appallingly for the nats' and 'typical Scots' crap. Are you suggesting 'the nats' aren't equivalent to the SNP, or that trebling their membership and potentially sextupling their Westminster MPs means things are going appallingly for them? Short sentences and no squirrels please.
Mr. G, worth considering the unique circumstances around SNP popularity: Miliband as Labour leader Collapse of Scottish Labour Independence referendum Coalition Government (tarring the Lib Dems)
The SNP have played their hand well, but they've also been dealt nice cards.
MD, Milliband I ignore , the rest were all achieved by hard graft. nice to see Labour and Lib Dems getting their just desserts
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
QED Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are. And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
You imbecile, I never said anything about you whatsoever. Next if you are so unbelievably stupid and the sole person on this site not able to understand that the SNP are actually doing incredibly well, then it just confirms what goes through my mind when I read the drivel you post.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
QED Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are. And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
You imbecile, I never said anything about you whatsoever. Next if you are so unbelievably stupid and the sole person on this site not able to understand that the SNP are actually doing incredibly well, then it just confirms what goes through my mind when I read the drivel you post.
It is incredible the way that the supporters of big three Westminster parties refuse to accept UKIP or the SNP doing well, and go to extraordinary lengths of spin to deny or downplay it
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
QED Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are. And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
You imbecile, I never said anything about you whatsoever. Next if you are so unbelievably stupid and the sole person on this site not able to understand that the SNP are actually doing incredibly well, then it just confirms what goes through my mind when I read the drivel you post.
It is incredible the way that the supporters of big three Westminster parties refuse to accept UKIP or the SNP doing well, and go to extraordinary lengths of spin to deny or downplay it
SNP doing quite a bit better than UKIP obviously
Agree, I do not expect them to like them but the petty spite and vitriol is pathetic. Stuck in a time warp trying to justify two dinosaur parties.
Is it really going to be practical to come up with a 3rd proposal if this one is rejected? Time is going to be getting pretty limited if it goes to Court.
Another key factor is that it is much easier to add people than to withdraw invitations. Once people have actually been invited it is going to be extremely difficult to withdraw someone's invitation - unless ordered to by a Court. But that seems very unlikely - if a Court does intervene it would be much more likely to be to add DUP and SF.
It seems incredibly unlikely a Court will say "SNP are not allowed to participate". And unless that happens I can't see BBC/ITV withdrawing the SNP's invitation.
Hm, so only 48 (variable) per cent of Scots are true Scots?
In all seriousness, this rang a bell, and I checked back to confirm my memory that the Offensive Behaviour Act is actually very popular with Scots, even Unionists:
David's article (for which, of course, many thanks) doesn't move us very far forward. In essence, it comes down purely to the criteria used in selecting participants for the debates.
Past performance, current polling, membership numbers, regional strength, by-election performances are all criteria of a sort. Though I'm an LD and would like to see Nick at the top table, it's a hard one to justify. Logically, only either the Conservative or Labour parties are going to lead/form the next Government so one debate has to be just the leaders of those two parties.
Then we come to the "minor" parties and here's where it gets awkward - on past "form", the LDs, SNP and DUP should be the only runners. It's entirely possible that one or more of these parties "could" have sufficient MPs to enable one of the two main parties to govern with a majority.
As for UKIP, the Greens, PC, Respect etc, etc do we invite them simply because they have MPs - after all, SF has more MPs than any of them so why shouldn't they get an invite simply because their MPs choose not to attend - what about Alliance ?
Does simply having an MP get you an invite even if you have no conceivable chance of either forming a Government or being more than a third partner in that Government ? The problem is we live in a plural democracy and that means hearing a lot of opinions (even and especially the ones we don't agree with).
The corollary of that is the discordant voices dominate and the beauty of the song is lost.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
QED Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are. And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
You imbecile, I never said anything about you whatsoever. Next if you are so unbelievably stupid and the sole person on this site not able to understand that the SNP are actually doing incredibly well, then it just confirms what goes through my mind when I read the drivel you post.
It is incredible the way that the supporters of big three Westminster parties refuse to accept UKIP or the SNP doing well, and go to extraordinary lengths of spin to deny or downplay it
SNP doing quite a bit better than UKIP obviously
Agree, I do not expect them to like them but the petty spite and vitriol is pathetic. Stuck in a time warp trying to justify two dinosaur parties.
Only interested in power, and followed by lemmings impressed by attempts to gerrymander it
David's article (for which, of course, many thanks) doesn't move us very far forward. In essence, it comes down purely to the criteria used in selecting participants for the debates.
Past performance, current polling, membership numbers, regional strength, by-election performances are all criteria of a sort. Though I'm an LD and would like to see Nick at the top table, it's a hard one to justify. Logically, only either the Conservative or Labour parties are going to lead/form the next Government so one debate has to be just the leaders of those two parties.
Then we come to the "minor" parties and here's where it gets awkward - on past "form", the LDs, SNP and DUP should be the only runners. It's entirely possible that one or more of these parties "could" have sufficient MPs to enable one of the two main parties to govern with a majority.
As for UKIP, the Greens, PC, Respect etc, etc do we invite them simply because they have MPs - after all, SF has more MPs than any of them so why shouldn't they get an invite simply because their MPs choose not to attend - what about Alliance ?
Does simply having an MP get you an invite even if you have no conceivable chance of either forming a Government or being more than a third partner in that Government ? The problem is we live in a plural democracy and that means hearing a lot of opinions (even and especially the ones we don't agree with).
The corollary of that is the discordant voices dominate and the beauty of the song is lost.
The Greens, PC, Respect etc etc put together are unlikely to get the votes of UKIP at the GE
I have been increasing the size of my bet for UKIP taking 3-4 seats at the general election. I think it offers excellent value at 6/1 (previously 7/1). Ladbrokes offer exact seat bets so am thinking of building up a take on 5 seats in case they have a strong performance on the day.
They stand a realistic chance of winning in Boston & Skegness, Clacton, Great Grimsby, Thanet South and Thurrock. However, if they underperform expectations the 3-4 seat bet looks good value, in my opinion.
The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight.
On the contrary, this is an existential threat to the NI unionists. By excluding the NI parties from the debates on the UK General Election, the Shinners can - correctly - state that the apparatus of the British state considers NI irrelevant. They would be reinforced in their stance that NI should be considered part of an all-Ireland polity. The stance of the NI Unionists that NI is part of the UK would be wounded and it would be a gift to the satirists: you can start writing the sarcasm in "Mock The Week" now.
I did a pilot project in the South of England last year that was nominally UK wide, and it was amazing how senior management just bled out when it came to the fringe: they were vaguely interested about Wales, didn't care much about Scotland nor the North of England, and got visibly upset when discussing Northern Ireland. It got so bad I started referring to them as suffering from hemispatial neglect, and the longer it went on I stopped thinking I was joking.
The Greens, PC, Respect etc etc put together are unlikely to get the votes of UKIP at the GE
I get that, I really do but the criteria for debates has never, to my knowledge, included opinion polls and performances within a Parliament but results at a GE and on that basis UKIP has a struggle to justify its inclusion.
Personally, I have no problem with UKIP being in the debates - they have come to represent a significant minority of opinion and it's a voice which has every right to be heard.
The issue is the basis on which participation is decided - it's that which threatens to exclude UKIP, the Greens and even the SNP. The issue then becomes - do you change the basis unilaterally to reflect political reality three months before an election or is it something which needed proper consultation and deliberation over a period of time ?
I doubt the world would end if we didn't have leaders' debates and it doesn't stop broadcasters having other debates and inviting whomsoever they choose.
I have been increasing the size of my bet for UKIP taking 3-4 seats at the general election. I think it offers excellent value at 6/1 (previously 7/1). Ladbrokes offer exact seat bets so am thinking of building up a take on 5 seats in case they have a strong performance on the day.
They stand a realistic chance of winning in Boston & Skegness, Clacton, Great Grimsby, Thanet South and Thurrock. However, if they underperform expectations the 3-4 seat bet looks good value, in my opinion.
There is a logic to inviting Plaid and not the DUP. They are fighting Lib/Lab/Con/Ukip directly in each of their seats and targets.
The "logic" is a post-hoc rationalisation.
I'm not a supporter of UKIP but to their eternal credit they do stand in NI, currently only for the Assembly but presumably Westminster eventually. The Greens also stand in NI, albeit (as is the way of Green parties) not the same Green party as the E&W version.
Reading through the comments, one thought occured to me, I am sure that there are many have who will correct me, but, don't you have to be an MP to take part in the debates?
For example, Sturgeon shouldn't be able to take part as she is an MSP who isn't standing for Westminster, while Salmond is an MSP who is hopeing to go South. Putting Salmond into the debates, would unfortunately, confirm the perception of Sturgeon being the Muppet at the end of Eck's string.
It will also bring Farage's presence into question.
Oh well, probably just a waste of time as the media will demand their attendance anyway.
Nice article, David, and I think you are pretty much on the money.
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
But how smart is it? Surely CCHQ is wrong about not wanting debates, and has ballsed up its attempts to kill them off, and in the process made the format worse for its own man. ...
Then there is the format which you say minimises the danger to the Tories, yet surely the opposite is true because the one thing all the opposition parties will agree on is that the government has messed things up, And now there will be five other parties saying this instead of just one, so even if David Cameron could refute all their charges, he simply won't have time.
It's a shambles.
Why should Cameron allow himself to be stitched up? Why are Labour so frit that they did not want the Greens involved? This is all thats needed - include the Greens - they have an MP. Instead Lab LD and UKIP said no. Now we have all sorts of people saying No.
What a 7 sided debate will do is show a fractured opposition. Any opposition party will complain and all the remaining 5 can agree that Labour's answer is unworkable, as indeed each 'remaining 5' can agree about each of the 6th. All of which might make the electorate favour the devil they know
Two 7-sided debates are of course bonkers. The election campaign will be dreary and tiresome anyway. This will be no fault of the politicians but the self serving TV journalists who will be desperately intent on looking clever in the background.
I'd be quite happy with no debates. The point was that the Conservatives seem to have played their hand very poorly, since they will now be blamed if the debates do not occur, and if they do go ahead, two (the 7-headers) will be in the format worst for their own party.
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
I bet a "white" "farmer" would have been allowed in !
I have been increasing the size of my bet for UKIP taking 3-4 seats at the general election. I think it offers excellent value at 6/1 (previously 7/1). Ladbrokes offer exact seat bets so am thinking of building up a take on 5 seats in case they have a strong performance on the day.
They stand a realistic chance of winning in Boston & Skegness, Clacton, Great Grimsby, Thanet South and Thurrock. However, if they underperform expectations the 3-4 seat bet looks good value, in my opinion.
I am yet to be convinced about Thurrock.
Didn't Lord Ashcroft's polling give UKIP a lead of about 5%?
I think the Labour candidate is weak and I am not entirely sure why she was selected. The debate at a local school was interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, Polly Billington appeared to be towing the party line and reading pre-prepared attack lines. She was pulled up on this. Polly came across as just another Labour party drone. Secondly, when interviewing a number of the school children afterwards they seemed quite receptive to UKIP's message. Children arn't known for their support of UKIP. Labour would be a far more likely choice.
I could be wrong as I am not familiar with the constituency and am only going by what is available on the internet.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
QED Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are. And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
You imbecile, I never said anything about you whatsoever. Next if you are so unbelievably stupid and the sole person on this site not able to understand that the SNP are actually doing incredibly well, then it just confirms what goes through my mind when I read the drivel you post.
It is incredible the way that the supporters of big three Westminster parties refuse to accept UKIP or the SNP doing well, and go to extraordinary lengths of spin to deny or downplay it
SNP doing quite a bit better than UKIP obviously
Agree, I do not expect them to like them but the petty spite and vitriol is pathetic. Stuck in a time warp trying to justify two dinosaur parties.
Until we move on from first past the post, the time warp continues.
There is a logic to inviting Plaid and not the DUP. They are fighting Lib/Lab/Con/Ukip directly in each of their seats and targets.
The "logic" is a post-hoc rationalisation.
I'm not a supporter of UKIP but to their eternal credit they do stand in NI, currently only for the Assembly but presumably Westminster eventually. The Greens also stand in NI, albeit (as is the way of Green parties) not the same Green party as the E&W version.
Isn't there a 'sister party' association between the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and the Lib Dems? Also didn't there used to be between the Official Unionists and the Tories, although the Tories have since fielded their own candidates without much luck.
The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight.
On the contrary, this is an existential threat to the NI unionists. By excluding the NI parties from the debates on the UK General Election, the Shinners can - correctly - state that the apparatus of the British state considers NI irrelevant. They would be reinforced in their stance that NI should be considered part of an all-Ireland polity. The stance of the NI Unionists that NI is part of the UK would be wounded and it would be a gift to the satirists: you can start writing the sarcasm in "Mock The Week" now.
I did a pilot project in the South of England last year that was nominally UK wide, and it was amazing how senior management just bled out when it came to the fringe: they were vaguely interested about Wales, didn't care much about Scotland nor the North of England, and got visibly upset when discussing Northern Ireland. It got so bad I started referring to them as suffering from hemispatial neglect, and the longer it went on I stopped thinking I was joking.
The unique political situation in Northern Ireland is already evident given that none of the main political parties have any seats there at all, and barely ever run. Given that the unionist position is currently 65% in opinion polls, to 17% against, I don't think the lack of representation in debates is going to swing it.
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
I bet a "white" "farmer" would have been allowed in !
If someone is a well paid farmer in their home country, whether they are black, white or brown, there is less risk they are going to try to illegally stay in the UK to do black market work. If they are street sellers getting by on a few dollars a day, the risk is much higher. I don't see what race has to do with it.
The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight.
On the contrary, this is an existential threat to the NI unionists. By excluding the NI parties from the debates on the UK General Election, the Shinners can - correctly - state that the apparatus of the British state considers NI irrelevant. They would be reinforced in their stance that NI should be considered part of an all-Ireland polity. The stance of the NI Unionists that NI is part of the UK would be wounded and it would be a gift to the satirists: you can start writing the sarcasm in "Mock The Week" now.
Oh I completely understand the Dogmatic reasoning behind DUPs desire for inclusion. But the thread was on the prospects of court action and the success of a legal challenge - in which case, it is pretty much unlikely that Dogma will be considered remotely relevant.
The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight.
On the contrary, this is an existential threat to the NI unionists. By excluding the NI parties from the debates on the UK General Election, the Shinners can - correctly - state that the apparatus of the British state considers NI irrelevant. They would be reinforced in their stance that NI should be considered part of an all-Ireland polity. The stance of the NI Unionists that NI is part of the UK would be wounded and it would be a gift to the satirists: you can start writing the sarcasm in "Mock The Week" now.
Oh I completely understand the Dogmatic reasoning behind DUPs desire for inclusion. But the thread was on the prospects of court action and the success of a legal challenge - in which case, it is pretty much unlikely that Dogma will be considered remotely relevant.
Reading through the comments, one thought occured to me, I am sure that there are many have who will correct me, but, don't you have to be an MP to take part in the debates?
Why? Surely it's for party leaders and it's a moot point who would be the best person to represent the SNP.
In any case, if the debates happen post-dissolution there aren't any MPs.
The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight.
On the contrary, this is an existential threat to the NI unionists. By excluding the NI parties from the debates on the UK General Election, the Shinners can - correctly - state that the apparatus of the British state considers NI irrelevant. They would be reinforced in their stance that NI should be considered part of an all-Ireland polity. The stance of the NI Unionists that NI is part of the UK would be wounded and it would be a gift to the satirists: you can start writing the sarcasm in "Mock The Week" now.
I did a pilot project in the South of England last year that was nominally UK wide, and it was amazing how senior management just bled out when it came to the fringe: they were vaguely interested about Wales, didn't care much about Scotland nor the North of England, and got visibly upset when discussing Northern Ireland. It got so bad I started referring to them as suffering from hemispatial neglect, and the longer it went on I stopped thinking I was joking.
The unique political situation in Northern Ireland is already evident given that none of the main political parties have any seats there at all, and barely ever run. Given that the unionist position is currently 65% in opinion polls, to 17% against, I don't think the lack of representation in debates is going to swing it.
I'm not so sure. If one concedes that a demos is not part of the greater demos, then the argument that the former should be governed by the latter is fatally wounded.
Reading through the comments, one thought occured to me, I am sure that there are many have who will correct me, but, don't you have to be an MP to take part in the debates?
Why? Surely it's for party leaders and it's a moot point who would be the best person to represent the SNP.
In any case, if the debates happen post-dissolution there aren't any MPs.
But who are the party leaders? The head person in Westminster with an outside chance of being PM or the leader of a party who will not stand for election and will not represent anyone in Westminster?
Comments
Their masterstrokes ?
Offensive behaviour at football act
Closing down golf clubhouses with their pernicious drink driving stunts
Dividing the country with their nasty referendum approach
Making Scottish economics a laughing stock with their currency crash denial
Losing the referendum
Get on with running the country - eventually the voters will catch up..
Of course, my preference for axing the debates entirely would also remove any unfairness on either side.
Miliband as Labour leader
Collapse of Scottish Labour
Independence referendum
Coalition Government (tarring the Lib Dems)
The SNP have played their hand well, but they've also been dealt nice cards.
Are you saying that people who vote for the SNP in May will be voting to leave the UK? Are you saying that even as we speak there is a flood of Scottish people demanding to leave the UK with the price of oil as it is, with a huge black hole in its budget, with its main industry in crisis, without a currency, without a central bank and with the Eurozone in turmoil?
If you are then you have a pretty low opinion of the Scots. By no stretch of the imagination is any campaign to leave the UK going well.
In all seriousness, this rang a bell, and I checked back to confirm my memory that the Offensive Behaviour Act is actually very popular with Scots, even Unionists:
ANTI-SECTARIANISM FOOTBALL LAWS (percentage)
In favour: 73
Against: 13
Don’t know: 14
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-mind-of-the-nation-part-2/
Anyway, have a nice weekend. It's a nice sunny day here and I hope it is as bright a day for you.
We've heard surprisingly little about NI so far. Would Sinn Fein really turn down the chance to be a player in a hung parliament again. And why on earth do so many people in NI want to vote for a party that wont turn up?
Thanks for proving my point you little bigoted swine that you are. You lets not forget were the first to throw out the epithet 'nasty'. Your typical response conforms just how narrow minded you are.
And lets not forget that you cannot answer even the most basic criticism of your claim that things are going well for your cause. Everything has gone backwards for Scottish independence since the referendum.
My god with all that is going on in the world, Page3 is totally and utterly irrelevance.
SNP doing quite a bit better than UKIP obviously
Another key factor is that it is much easier to add people than to withdraw invitations. Once people have actually been invited it is going to be extremely difficult to withdraw someone's invitation - unless ordered to by a Court. But that seems very unlikely - if a Court does intervene it would be much more likely to be to add DUP and SF.
It seems incredibly unlikely a Court will say "SNP are not allowed to participate". And unless that happens I can't see BBC/ITV withdrawing the SNP's invitation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Which is why it is always sensible to avoid sweeping but qualified generalisations.
(Ironically, it was put together by an Englishman.)
David's article (for which, of course, many thanks) doesn't move us very far forward. In essence, it comes down purely to the criteria used in selecting participants for the debates.
Past performance, current polling, membership numbers, regional strength, by-election performances are all criteria of a sort. Though I'm an LD and would like to see Nick at the top table, it's a hard one to justify. Logically, only either the Conservative or Labour parties are going to lead/form the next Government so one debate has to be just the leaders of those two parties.
Then we come to the "minor" parties and here's where it gets awkward - on past "form", the LDs, SNP and DUP should be the only runners. It's entirely possible that one or more of these parties "could" have sufficient MPs to enable one of the two main parties to govern with a majority.
As for UKIP, the Greens, PC, Respect etc, etc do we invite them simply because they have MPs - after all, SF has more MPs than any of them so why shouldn't they get an invite simply because their MPs choose not to attend - what about Alliance ?
Does simply having an MP get you an invite even if you have no conceivable chance of either forming a Government or being more than a third partner in that Government ? The problem is we live in a plural democracy and that means hearing a lot of opinions (even and especially the ones we don't agree with).
The corollary of that is the discordant voices dominate and the beauty of the song is lost.
They stand a realistic chance of winning in Boston & Skegness, Clacton, Great Grimsby, Thanet South and Thurrock. However, if they underperform expectations the 3-4 seat bet looks good value, in my opinion.
I did a pilot project in the South of England last year that was nominally UK wide, and it was amazing how senior management just bled out when it came to the fringe: they were vaguely interested about Wales, didn't care much about Scotland nor the North of England, and got visibly upset when discussing Northern Ireland. It got so bad I started referring to them as suffering from hemispatial neglect, and the longer it went on I stopped thinking I was joking.
Personally, I have no problem with UKIP being in the debates - they have come to represent a significant minority of opinion and it's a voice which has every right to be heard.
The issue is the basis on which participation is decided - it's that which threatens to exclude UKIP, the Greens and even the SNP. The issue then becomes - do you change the basis unilaterally to reflect political reality three months before an election or is it something which needed proper consultation and deliberation over a period of time ?
I doubt the world would end if we didn't have leaders' debates and it doesn't stop broadcasters having other debates and inviting whomsoever they choose.
I'm not a supporter of UKIP but to their eternal credit they do stand in NI, currently only for the Assembly but presumably Westminster eventually. The Greens also stand in NI, albeit (as is the way of Green parties) not the same Green party as the E&W version.
For example, Sturgeon shouldn't be able to take part as she is an MSP who isn't standing for Westminster, while Salmond is an MSP who is hopeing to go South. Putting Salmond into the debates, would unfortunately, confirm the perception of Sturgeon being the Muppet at the end of Eck's string.
It will also bring Farage's presence into question.
Oh well, probably just a waste of time as the media will demand their attendance anyway.
I think the Labour candidate is weak and I am not entirely sure why she was selected. The debate at a local school was interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, Polly Billington appeared to be towing the party line and reading pre-prepared attack lines. She was pulled up on this. Polly came across as just another Labour party drone. Secondly, when interviewing a number of the school children afterwards they seemed quite receptive to UKIP's message. Children arn't known for their support of UKIP. Labour would be a far more likely choice.
I could be wrong as I am not familiar with the constituency and am only going by what is available on the internet.
In any case, if the debates happen post-dissolution there aren't any MPs.