FlyTheNest

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:02 pm**

howsillyofme1 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: depends whether they want the debates more than not inviting the greens
You miss the point, if they invite the Greens they will have to invite the other minor parties.
Not sure that is necessarily the case and I am sure a compromise will be reached if needed if they want to do it enough

Why would Galloway and say the EDL want to compromise? What is in it for them?

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:03 pm**

howsillyofme1 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote: depends whether they want the debates more than not inviting the greens
You miss the point, if they invite the Greens they will have to invite the other minor parties.
Not sure that is necessarily the case and I am sure a compromise will be reached if needed if they want to do it enough

If it's about polling figures and past performances in election, UKIP are a dicey call. In fact, if it were to be solely on current popularity, you'd have an excellent case for including the Greens and excluding the FibDems...

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:05 pm**

Aha! Just as predicted by FTNers - well done my friends, your political attennae and character judgement of CMD are spot on...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-threaten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So - bucket of lard, do we think. or a very, very large beetroot to occupy his chair?

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:07 pm**

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, let’s not pretend we’re not afraid
For all the brave words, we are scared, and that’s OK – sensible people are scared in scary times

http://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2 ... dom-speech" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_massacre_of_1961

Interesting link via a Michael White article in the Guardian. I'd never heard of it before.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:08 pm**

Tizme1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: Right, so logically in 1997 The Natural Law party would qualify as a major party, as well as the BNP and of course The Monster Raving Loony party.
I think the main point is that if TV companies want to hold debates with Ukip but without the Green Party, Ofcom's opinion is that this would be acceptable within the political balance rules and the evidence they have produced to back their opinion is not unreasonable. It in no way stops TV companies from including the Greens if they choose to and their choosing not to still mostly reflects unfavourably on them. The interesting question is whether David Cameron will continue to use the supposed unfairness of including Ukip and not the Greens as an excuse to dodge the debates.
The ruling doesn't just relate to the TV debates though. It applies to media coverage throughout the Election campaign. If the media are for instance covering a story in a particular constituency and they invite comments from any candidate, they have to invite/allow comments from all the 'main party' candidates. They wouldn't have to invite comments from the Green Party candidate. If this were in say Norwich South, it would mean the Green candidate could be excluded from commenting, despite the fact we are polling in second place there.

In addition, we are polling in third place overall among the under 40's and in second place amongst students. So, it could be argued The Greens are the party of the future. Further exposure might lead to an increase in support. Equally it might not. Either way, it is undemocratic if people are not given the opportunity to hear our views on an equal basis with other parties.

I don't think Ofcom ruling the Greens aren't a major party means they can be ignored by the media. I also don't believe it prevents them from being involved in the TV debates. I think it's a collusion between the the t-v companies and the Tories that is keeping them out of debates, that aren't going to happen anyway, in my opinion. Hence my comment above about Cameron's next move being of interest.

Personally I think who takes part in the debates should be based on the number of seats a party is going to stand in rather than how popular someone guesses they might be. That way voters can make an informed decision about new parties, rather than just hear from ones they already know about. Certainly that's what would happen if the debates were about informing people. I don't really get why past performance comes into it at all

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:08 pm**

Charlie Hebdo: Dismantling nine mistaken assumptions about the Paris atrocities
By TEHMINA KAZI | Published: JANUARY 8, 2015

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/char ... trocities/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:09 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Aha! Just as predicted by FTNers - well done my friends, your political attennae and character judgement of CMD are spot on...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-threaten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So - bucket of lard, do we think. or a very, very large beetroot to occupy his chair?

Someone Tweeted a Steve Bell type condom filled with lard.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:15 pm**

seeingclearly wrote:I wrote a reply, Citizen JA, to your post, but lost it. What do you or I or anyone do with this. I'm in a way an incomer as well as a native of this country. See it as an insider and from outside. Though yesterday's events were in France it will reverberate here too.

I've taken the liberty of truncating your post because it's the part written with me specifically mentioned in your work.

I'm a writer but not a good one. I'm not begging for a compliment; it's a fact. I'm not a good writer but I must write. With more practise, I may become a better writer. I went back to look at what I'd posted earlier.

CitizenJA
Next to that, I say it's hard to absorb all the crisis, tragedy, ongoing difficult, ordinary, horror. What am I supposed to do with it all? Change what I can, help where I'm able, try not to make anything worse.

I read a lot of news, reports, statistical data, legislation, current affairs...I have difficulty following some topics. I hadn't realised until today 'Charlie Hebdo' isn't the name of one person writing for a French newspaper who'd been killed yesterday (along with others). The killers were reportedly Islamic.

I hung back from commenting further or questioning others about this event because I don't know what to do, think or say about it. Other things are happening along with this event.

I've made a commitment to non-violent action. Violence doesn't work. It achieves nothing but death, further sorrow, it makes a mess, it's dysfunctional. I work to cultivate compassion within myself instead of fear. In response to violence, I work to return non-violent, open-hearted, compassion & non-retaliatory justice. I must do this. Or I'm a disgrace in my own eyes. My life is that important to me, as is every person I share the planet with. I make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes. I try to not make the same mistakes. I ask that others not use violence. Some people use violence. I ask that they do not use violence.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:21 pm**

yahyah wrote:Charlie Hebdo: Dismantling nine mistaken assumptions about the Paris atrocities
By TEHMINA KAZI | Published: JANUARY 8, 2015

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/char ... trocities/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And here is my friend, Yahyah, always at exactly the right time, giving me information I need to help my education.

Another thing, you'd written some time back about a reading group. Where are you at on the Nye Bevan bio? I'd like to know your opinion. Has a book group formed yet? May I be invited?

Love,
JA

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:24 pm**

howsillyofme1 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:I don't know what guidelines Ofcom have, if they have any precise ones at all.

I don't think though when you've got a party with, on current evidence, as much support as the Lib Dems, that they should be excluded.
I believe they have explained their thinking quite well.

It is now up to the broadcasters to invite them anyway and call Cameron's bluff - I will not be holding my breath for the BBC but I cannot see the others letting him get away with it that easily

He can say he's not going to do it but if all the other leaders say that they will he will have no choice in the matter. Not showing up will firstly be seen as a negative by voters, not the brave stance he's trying to portray it as, and secondly if he doesn't show up then that will allow Farage to be the 'Voice of the Right' and mop up soft Tory voters and undecideds who lean to the right. Farage isn't going to try fighting to win votes from the Left if he's unopposed on the Right.

And should be actually stick to his guns and refuse to take part he'll get murdered in the media and by the other politicians who will delight in reprinting all those demands for a debate he publicly made to Gordon Brown.

He knows he'll have to do it, he's just trying to ensure that the Green are there to attack Labour from the left in the hope that they'll chip away enough voters for him to sneak through again. He's just playing realpolitik.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:32 pm**

Labour didn't waste any time in getting this out.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:36 pm**

henry919
3m ago
0 1

Looks like all the usual critics of Mr Cameron will have to eat humble pie. A real statesman...now come on Clegg and Miliband...please also do the decent thing...or can't you bring yourselves to be democratic?

Well done indeed.

Best quote from Grauniad - not even satirical......

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:37 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Aha! Just as predicted by FTNers - well done my friends, your political attennae and character judgement of CMD are spot on...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-threaten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So - bucket of lard, do we think. or a very, very large beetroot to occupy his chair?

I read your response to a late night post I wrote a few days ago, thank you, valuable post...I wanted to clarify something - I can & do ask people with different political views from my own to change them & vote Labour -while I respect everyone's right to vote for political parties I find objectionable & respect also the person with different political views, it's important to keep communication flowing - the person you had a pint with who'd said they're voting UKIP - you mused over not taking the conversation further. You did the right thing. I can't remember exactly what that was but it was the right thing to do.

edited because it didn't convey what I was going on in my head while I was writing it.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:49 pm**

Hadn't seen this, from a year ago, admittedly. But pretty shit.

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/2 ... ing-grapes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Economist repeating 1,200 Mid Staffs bollocks.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:52 pm**

yahyah wrote: At 4am I got up to make some early breakfast and read some extracts from the Dhammapada, the reported words of the Buddha. ''....hate is never conquered by hate. Hate is conquered by love. This is an eternal law.'' Maybe one day we will evolve sufficiently to be able to live in that way.

Yes.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:56 pm**

To have gone out on a limb like this, old Empty really must think that the Greens will help him in a debate.

Sure, Miliband will have to face both ways, but the Greens will also surely deflect some of the "Red Ed" bollocks, and will help get the agenda away from Cameron and Fargle. And audiences who probably won't consider the Greens may enjoy them landing blows on Cameron.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:57 pm**

I think Cameron could be replaced in the debates with a large yellow chicken sitting in a bucket of shit.

He hasn't got a leg to stand on here and he knows it. I give it two days before he gives in. He cannot legally argue UKIP are a minor party as Ofcom have awarded them major party status.

The real question should be if The Greens are included in the first debate will you unconditionally sign up to all of them? I bet he wouldn't answer that.

By the way on the Lib Dems are not a major party line, utter bollocks. After May they will have a minimum of 15 MPs, making them the third largest party in England, and the fourth largest in the UK.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 6:59 pm**

Tubby Isaacs wrote:To have gone out on a limb like this, old Empty really must think that the Greens will help him in a debate.

Sure, Miliband will have to face both ways, but the Greens will also surely deflect some of the "Red Ed" bollocks, and will help get the agenda away from Cameron and Fargle. And audiences who probably won't consider the Greens may enjoy them landing blows on Cameron.

No he knows the next step would be for Galloway to try and get on board, or he would find another excuse.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:06 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:To have gone out on a limb like this, old Empty really must think that the Greens will help him in a debate.

Sure, Miliband will have to face both ways, but the Greens will also surely deflect some of the "Red Ed" bollocks, and will help get the agenda away from Cameron and Fargle. And audiences who probably won't consider the Greens may enjoy them landing blows on Cameron.
No he knows the next step would be for Galloway to try and get on board, or he would find another excuse.

That won't wash, surely.

He can't not take part because of his endorsement of debates in the past, and because the others would go ahead anyway. He can't keep the Greens row up for four months. He must think they'll help him.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:10 pm**

I think this is Adam Boulton taking a subtle swipe at David Cameron over the debates.

Adam Boulton ‏@adamboultonSKY 12 mins12 minutes ago
No news conferences, extended interviews or debates #DCn'estpasCharlie

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:15 pm**

Spacedone wrote:I think this is Adam Boulton taking a subtle swipe at David Cameron over the debates.

Adam Boulton ‏@adamboultonSKY 12 mins12 minutes ago
No news conferences, extended interviews or debates #DCn'estpasCharlie

This is why it's unfathomable what Cameron's doing.

He's kept a lot of the media onside by making himself (if not his party) look like he could be invited to their dinner parties. Detoxifying is about the media, as well as voters.

Makes no sense to mess them about.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:25 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Aha! Just as predicted by FTNers - well done my friends, your political attennae and character judgement of CMD are spot on...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-threaten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So - bucket of lard, do we think. or a very, very large beetroot to occupy his chair?

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:25 pm**

Tubby Isaacs wrote:To have gone out on a limb like this, old Empty really must think that the Greens will help him in a debate.

Sure, Miliband will have to face both ways, but the Greens will also surely deflect some of the "Red Ed" bollocks, and will help get the agenda away from Cameron and Fargle. And audiences who probably won't consider the Greens may enjoy them landing blows on Cameron.

I'm pretty sure Empty's game - as well as knowing he won't come out of the debates well, whoever they're with - is to use it to help split the left some more. It has been pointed out by several commentators that he has recently taken to always referring to the Greens first when he talks about other parties and by doing this and bigging their supposed exclusion up he hopes to increase their protest profile and make things more difficult for Labour. There was an article a few days ago describing the Tories split the left strategy ... this fits perfectly.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:25 pm**

ErnstRemarx wrote:Aha! Just as predicted by FTNers - well done my friends, your political attennae and character judgement of CMD are spot on...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... e-threaten" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So - bucket of lard, do we think. or a very, very large beetroot to occupy his chair?

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:31 pm**

Willow904 wrote:
Tizme1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I think the main point is that if TV companies want to hold debates with Ukip but without the Green Party, Ofcom's opinion is that this would be acceptable within the political balance rules and the evidence they have produced to back their opinion is not unreasonable. It in no way stops TV companies from including the Greens if they choose to and their choosing not to still mostly reflects unfavourably on them. The interesting question is whether David Cameron will continue to use the supposed unfairness of including Ukip and not the Greens as an excuse to dodge the debates.
The ruling doesn't just relate to the TV debates though. It applies to media coverage throughout the Election campaign. If the media are for instance covering a story in a particular constituency and they invite comments from any candidate, they have to invite/allow comments from all the 'main party' candidates. They wouldn't have to invite comments from the Green Party candidate. If this were in say Norwich South, it would mean the Green candidate could be excluded from commenting, despite the fact we are polling in second place there.

In addition, we are polling in third place overall among the under 40's and in second place amongst students. So, it could be argued The Greens are the party of the future. Further exposure might lead to an increase in support. Equally it might not. Either way, it is undemocratic if people are not given the opportunity to hear our views on an equal basis with other parties.
I don't think Ofcom ruling the Greens aren't a major party means they can be ignored by the media. I also don't believe it prevents them from being involved in the TV debates. I think it's a collusion between the the t-v companies and the Tories that is keeping them out of debates, that aren't going to happen anyway, in my opinion. Hence my comment above about Cameron's next move being of interest.

Personally I think who takes part in the debates should be based on the number of seats a party is going to stand in rather than how popular someone guesses they might be. That way voters can make an informed decision about new parties, rather than just hear from ones they already know about. Certainly that's what would happen if the debates were about informing people. I don't really get why past performance comes into it at all

The Greens are consistently ignored by the media though, there's some evidence of this in the link below. How can people make a considered choice as to who they wish to vote for, if the range of choices aren't put before them equally? Broadly I agree with you that the debates should be based on the number of seats a party is going to stand in. As you say, that would happen if the debates were about informing people. My greater concern though is not about the debates, but the fact this ruling means the media can give as much or as little coverage as it likes to the Greens throughout the election campaign. The evidence to date suggests coverage of the Green Party will be minimal. And that simply isn't democratic.

http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/new-data ... he-greens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:31 pm**

Willow904 wrote:
Tizme1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote: I think the main point is that if TV companies want to hold debates with Ukip but without the Green Party, Ofcom's opinion is that this would be acceptable within the political balance rules and the evidence they have produced to back their opinion is not unreasonable. It in no way stops TV companies from including the Greens if they choose to and their choosing not to still mostly reflects unfavourably on them. The interesting question is whether David Cameron will continue to use the supposed unfairness of including Ukip and not the Greens as an excuse to dodge the debates.
The ruling doesn't just relate to the TV debates though. It applies to media coverage throughout the Election campaign. If the media are for instance covering a story in a particular constituency and they invite comments from any candidate, they have to invite/allow comments from all the 'main party' candidates. They wouldn't have to invite comments from the Green Party candidate. If this were in say Norwich South, it would mean the Green candidate could be excluded from commenting, despite the fact we are polling in second place there.

In addition, we are polling in third place overall among the under 40's and in second place amongst students. So, it could be argued The Greens are the party of the future. Further exposure might lead to an increase in support. Equally it might not. Either way, it is undemocratic if people are not given the opportunity to hear our views on an equal basis with other parties.
I don't think Ofcom ruling the Greens aren't a major party means they can be ignored by the media. I also don't believe it prevents them from being involved in the TV debates. I think it's a collusion between the the t-v companies and the Tories that is keeping them out of debates, that aren't going to happen anyway, in my opinion. Hence my comment above about Cameron's next move being of interest.

Personally I think who takes part in the debates should be based on the number of seats a party is going to stand in rather than how popular someone guesses they might be. That way voters can make an informed decision about new parties, rather than just hear from ones they already know about. Certainly that's what would happen if the debates were about informing people. I don't really get why past performance comes into it at all

The Greens are consistently ignored by the media though, there's some evidence of this in the link below. How can people make a considered choice as to who they wish to vote for, if the range of choices aren't put before them equally? Broadly I agree with you that the debates should be based on the number of seats a party is going to stand in. As you say, that would happen if the debates were about informing people. My greater concern though is not about the debates, but the fact this ruling means the media can give as much or as little coverage as it likes to the Greens throughout the election campaign. The evidence to date suggests coverage of the Green Party will be minimal. And that simply isn't democratic.

http://www.noiseofthecrowd.com/new-data ... he-greens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:32 pm**

You can see in the commentary that The SNP and Plaid are trying to get on as well, so if they open the door to the Greens they will be next.

In fact if Ofcom change their mind on major party status Cameron would probably have to suck it up, as that would let the Greens in and nobody else. However he is desperate to avoid debates.

I think Tubby is right, if Dave pisses the media about over this they are going to hammer him.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:34 pm**

Andrew Gwynne MP retweeted
Stewart Wood ‏@StewartWood 1h1 hour ago
Cameron's letter to the Head of Sky News extolling the importance of election debates to British democracy. In 2009.
http://news.sky.com/story/720470/camero ... ders-on-tv" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

Dear John

Thank you very much for your letter about a televised debate between the leaders of the main political parties.

You are absolutely right that we urgently need to reinvigorate our political system - and holding a live television debate between the party leaders would be one important way of doing just that.

I have long supported the idea of holding television debates at election time.

I've pressed Gordon Brown about this in the House of Commons and I raised the issue with him again in a letter in July.

The case for a televised debate is compelling: it would engage the public, help answer their questions, and bring a General Election alive.

I am delighted that Sky has taken the lead and is now organising a television debate, and I look forward to taking part.

As you say, other countries have benefited from having televised debates at election time, and I also thought the television debates worked well during the last Conservative leadership campaign.

Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons are no substitute for a proper primetime studio debate.

People want more than the brief exchange of questions they get at Wednesday lunchtime.

They want to see the leaders of the main political parties talking in detail about the issues that matter to them, setting out the policies on offer, and opening themselves up to public scrutiny.

At the next General Election, people are going to face a huge choice about the future of our country.

They want politicians to be clear about where they stand. A full-length television debate has a big part to play in providing this and I look forward to working with you to make it happen.

With best wishes,

David Cameron

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:36 pm**

howsillyofme1 wrote:
Thanks for posting this but I disagree as I cannot accept that violence is the correct response to satire. In some ways I feel sorry for some of the people who carry out these acts because they are often (not always though) exploited and used by those who do not deserve an ounce of sympathy.

I understand your point of view, and agree entirely with the last sentence. Many people I know would be offended by what I wrote, they have quite strong views, and express themselves in terms of western intellectual political views, and tbh don't really see things through any other lense. I think you do.

I'm not religious myself but understand it takes time for views to change and that includes western religious views, which are quite hard to eradicate from thinking too, even when people think they have left them behind. My problem with satirising Islam is that it is having its own internal dialogue at the moment and is as a consequence very polarised, rather like the one that Christianity had that prompted all kinds of wars and suffering. And eventually resulted in more open thinking. Perhaps people simply tired and were exhausted by it. Are we damaging this process or creating a backward looking process by the pressure we exert. I think we are, because I grew up in places with very peaceful Muslim communities, and there were a lot like them, now nearly all fractured and in trouble, mostly because of first world meddling.

In some cultures mockery is considered very insulting. Like throwing down a gauntlet. We talk about 'taking offence'. We don't do that about religion for the most part but might get very heated about football. It's our culture. And respecting their religion is Islamic culture. And there are a lot of Muslim baiters out there, from classroom bullies to media giants. I'm not okay about offending people about their faith. I would not do that to anyone, though I might take issue with Christmas. And be a grinch.

Satire and mockery aren't present in all cultures. And I'm not happy, myself, in imposing them because of my belief system, even if I find them clever, amusing or politically astute. And the same goes for any visible signs of religious affiliation, I choose tolerance first, but not of violence or anything that goes with it.

I'm not Charlie, because while I absolutely disagree with what happened to the people who died yesterday I think CharlieHebdo knew they were doing what you describe, and it doesn't sit well with tolerance as I know it.

I'm not Charlie also because though I can empathise and feel solidarity with the victims and family I am not them, it's an emotive political stance I won't take. I am also not my lovely Muslim neighbours and their lovely children. I do not have more than an inkling of how they are feeling, but know it affects them, as does the graffiti that regularly appears on a long white wall adjacent to their home,(vile does not begin to describe it) and which targets the Muslim girl students at the very multicultural school across the road. I would regard doing so as being similar to the way white Americans unthinkingly usurp the struggle of black people, while being unaware of how deeply predjudice circumscribes some black lives.

In my very multicultural school overseas we never ate or drank in front of our Muslim school friends during Ramadan, it would have been unkind to do so, and would have caused them suffering. To me the issue of satire and mockery is the same. Our teachers likewise never expected Muslim students to draw people, because that is forbidden in Islam. So cartoons break that rule, which has, at its heart some very egalitarian ideas. Rarely ever discussed.

You say 'we' are too sensitive to satire. Personally I love it along with all sorts of other visual and verbal humour. And know it is a valued part of our culture. I do remember having to relearn it after many years away though, humour is not the same everywhere, nor does it serve the same purpose. I like those differences, and am irked when I see an acceptance of them equated to 'pandering' to other cultures, or diluting our own.

Violence and murder are not cultural expressions and it is distressing to see the two being confused, mostly by people with very extreme views.

Tbh, I am tired of the media portayal of different ethnicities altogether. We are humans with different and interesting histories. We should be building new and better realities, but the media persists in polarising us. It was interesting to read that racist behaviour to Chinese people is barely recognised but is on the rise. We rather stupidly don't seem to believe it exists, because Chinese people are 'well integrated'. When my two children were subject to this I was told it was only a joke, when they were described as slitty eyed by kids in their school. I, for complaining, and wanting this to be discouraged, was deemed over sensitive. Not religion, I know, but intolerance takes many forms.

I've strayed a little, or perhaps a lot, and while I've referred to your post this is not aimed at you, but perhaps more a response to my own thoughts on reading it.

Peace. And may this fresh wound be healed rather than picked over. Thebwhole world needs that healing.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:41 pm**

Being on UK wide debates is no good to the SNP or Plaid, surely.

Their thing is "we're proper Scots and Welsh not like those who have stand in England as well".

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:44 pm**

Having trouble posting to FTN at present - anyone else? Especially images.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:45 pm**

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Being on UK wide debates is no good to the SNP or Plaid, surely.

Their thing is "we're proper Scots and Welsh not like those who have stand in England as well".

They still want in, you would have to ask them why.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:47 pm**

: Camerons Chickens.jpg (116.54 KiB) Viewed 8918 times

Isabel Hardman
‏@IsabelHardman
"I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great"

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:51 pm**

Same here, Rebecca. Lots of error messages.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:53 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Being on UK wide debates is no good to the SNP or Plaid, surely.

Their thing is "we're proper Scots and Welsh not like those who have stand in England as well".
They still want in, you would have to ask them why.

Keeping themselves in the news?

The DUP don't seem bothered. They're not running against UK-wide parties. I think that's the difference.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:54 pm**

Yep RR2, hence the duplicated post (which I can't delete).

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:58 pm**

What do folk reckon the odds are on DC unnecessarily calling a COBRA during the election campaign? I'd say about evens.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 7:58 pm**

Diana Johnson retweeted
Mike Le-Surf ‏@MikeLeSurf 11m11 minutes ago
in, out, in, out, and now back in. ex-Ukip candidate does the political hokey-cokey: http://www.yourthurrock.com/Oh-circus-L ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

THE LABOUR candidate for South Basildon and East Thurrock, Mike Le-Surf has slammed the decision by former Ukip candidate, Kerry Smith to stand as an independent in the coming General Election.

Cllr Smith quit Ukip after a furore over racist comments. He now sits as an independent on Essex and Basildon Councils.

Mr Le-Surf said: "The sideshow continues. Mr. Smith has been a member of both the Conservative and Ukip parties and is now standing as an independent parliamentary candidate in South Basildon and East Thurrock.

I think residents may now be getting a bit fed up with the electoral games being played out by the right-wing parties in our constituency...

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:00 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:To have gone out on a limb like this, old Empty really must think that the Greens will help him in a debate.

Sure, Miliband will have to face both ways, but the Greens will also surely deflect some of the "Red Ed" bollocks, and will help get the agenda away from Cameron and Fargle. And audiences who probably won't consider the Greens may enjoy them landing blows on Cameron.
I'm pretty sure Empty's game - as well as knowing he won't come out of the debates well, whoever they're with - is to use it to help split the left some more. It has been pointed out by several commentators that he has recently taken to always referring to the Greens first when he talks about other parties and by doing this and bigging their supposed exclusion up he hopes to increase their protest profile and make things more difficult for Labour. There was an article a few days ago describing the Tories split the left strategy ... this fits perfectly.

Good point- so thinking ahead of the debates rather than what happens in them.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:02 pm**

frightful_oik wrote:What do folk reckon the odds are on DC unnecessarily calling a COBRA during the election campaign? I'd say about evens.

Thought he'd call one in the light of Charlie Hebdo.

He must have had something important like a meeting with Lynton.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:02 pm**

Who's on Question Time tonight? Is it worth watching (hmmm, I know the stock answer to that but bear with me please)?

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:06 pm**

: Camerons Chickens 2.jpg (45.99 KiB) Viewed 8892 times

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:08 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:Who's on Question Time tonight? Is it worth watching (hmmm, I know the stock answer to that but bear with me please)?

Julia Hartley-Brewer, David "Almost Human" Davis, Vince Cable, Jimmy Wales and Liz Kendall. So, no, not really.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:10 pm**

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:What do folk reckon the odds are on DC unnecessarily calling a COBRA during the election campaign? I'd say about evens.
Thought he'd call one in the light of Charlie Hebdo.

He must have had something important like a meeting with Lynton.

I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:15 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:What do folk reckon the odds are on DC unnecessarily calling a COBRA during the election campaign? I'd say about evens.
Thought he'd call one in the light of Charlie Hebdo.

He must have had something important like a meeting with Lynton.
I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.

I thought they did call one today ....? Am I totally batty? (Don't answer that.)

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:21 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thought he'd call one in the light of Charlie Hebdo.

He must have had something important like a meeting with Lynton.
I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.
I thought they did call one today ....? Am I totally batty? (Don't answer that.)

Yes they did. May chaired it.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:26 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote: Thought he'd call one in the light of Charlie Hebdo.

He must have had something important like a meeting with Lynton.
I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.
I thought they did call one today ....? Am I totally batty? (Don't answer that.)

Just googled it. Apparently Theresa May called one yesterday. Of course that doesn't mean someone didn't call another one today. When you google "Cameron" and "cobra" there's just pages and pages of them....

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:26 pm**

Tizme1 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.
I thought they did call one today ....? Am I totally batty? (Don't answer that.)
Yes they did. May chaired it.

And to be fair you would expect them to do so. Slightly surprised Dave let Teresa chair it though. I imagine they reviewed intelligence, agreed to step up border security and to watch out for small boats crossing the channel.

Edited to add - the spelling is deliberate.

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:29 pm**

Tizme1 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote: I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.
I thought they did call one today ....? Am I totally batty? (Don't answer that.)
Yes they did. May chaired it.

Oh, she called it yesterday and chaired it today. I see. I'm being a bit slow today....

Posted: **Thu 08 Jan, 2015 8:31 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
frightful_oik wrote:What do folk reckon the odds are on DC unnecessarily calling a COBRA during the election campaign? I'd say about evens.
Thought he'd call one in the light of Charlie Hebdo.

He must have had something important like a meeting with Lynton.
I think he would have to invite Miliband along. In fact technically he wouldn't be an MP. I therefore think it unlikely.

Cameron would still be PM though until a new gov is formed so if necessary he would/could chair a COBRA meeting. Gus O'Donnell pointed out today [or was it yesterday] that after the election if there wasn't a working majority, a new Coalition could take much longer to form and Cameron would still have to stay as PM while that was being negotiated. Shame he never bothered to mention that publicly after the last election when the media, press and various Tory and Lib dem MPs were referring to Gordon Brown 'squatting in Downing street'. It boiled my piss at the time especially as Brown was told in no uncertain terms by O'Donnell, the Palace, Cameron, and Clegg, that it was his constitutional duty to stay until the coalition had been formed.

FlyTheNest

Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015

Re: Thursday 8th January 2015