Thursday 5th.March 2015.

WelshIan · Post by **WelshIan** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 1:38 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:there are two get outs. Miliband says he wants

(i) a head to head debate

and

(ii) a seven way debate

Without Cameron, there will be neither.

So no, he won't be attending any debates with other leaders if Cameron is not present.

Yes, there is wriggle room in what has been said today regarding the debates, you and Andrew Sparrow have pointed this out - and thanks for bringing that up. But Ed Miliband has all the way along said that he will debate anyone, any time, anywhere.
If he pulls out now because David Cameron is not taking part in the debates, what message does that send out? That he's just the same? That plays more into the hands of UKIP, Green, etc surely, than debating them does? And it will piss off some Labour voters who thought he was different and possibly make some party members rethink why they are out campaigning for him. For the activists here, if Ed pulls out of the debates due to the non-show of Dave, would your view of Ed change?
I can see why, in the 'politics as a game' view, pulling out of the debates would be a smart move, but we have suffered 5 years of a Prime Minister and Chancellor who see politics as a game. I hope (and believe) Ed is bigger and better than that.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 1:57 pm

WelshIan wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:there are two get outs. Miliband says he wants

(i) a head to head debate

and

(ii) a seven way debate

Without Cameron, there will be neither.

So no, he won't be attending any debates with other leaders if Cameron is not present.
Yes, there is wriggle room in what has been said today regarding the debates, you and Andrew Sparrow have pointed this out - and thanks for bringing that up. But Ed Miliband has all the way along said that he will debate anyone, any time, anywhere.
If he pulls out now because David Cameron is not taking part in the debates, what message does that send out? That he's just the same? That plays more into the hands of UKIP, Green, etc surely, than debating them does? And it will piss off some Labour voters who thought he was different and possibly make some party members rethink why they are out campaigning for him. For the activists here, if Ed pulls out of the debates due to the non-show of Dave, would your view of Ed change?
I can see why, in the 'politics as a game' view, pulling out of the debates would be a smart move, but we have suffered 5 years of a Prime Minister and Chancellor who see politics as a game. I hope (and believe) Ed is bigger and better than that.

I didn't watch the debates last time, have had doubts about their worth in general but after I saw Ed Miliband (and others) on Ask the Leaders I've been looking forward to the debates. I really want to hear direct from the leaders rather than through the prism of the media. The Sky hosted question and answer sessions were fun, informative and thought provoking and I'd really like to see more properly chaired political debate in this country in general. I've realised that one of the things that has turned people off of politics is the interrogation type interviews between tv presenters and their prey, who are attacked and worried like a criminal suspect hauled up in front of Gene Hunt who is desperate to pin something, anything, on them. You so rarely see politicians pitted directly against each other with a proper mediator chairing the discussion, ensuring every opinion is heard and with no views or agenda of their own.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:00 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... id-cameron" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(The G seems to have put a spider thingy on the web pages to stop you copying text)
By David Schneider

:lol!:

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:02 pm

We've had posts in the past about the coalition's new flat rate state pension that starts being phased in next year. Confusion seems to reign about how much some of us will actually get, and worries that people who were fully paid up under the current system [30 years of contributions] will not fully qualify for the flat rate pension which needs 35 years NI contributions.

Just noticed a piece in the Mail which says ''the minimum number of qualifying years rises from 30 to 35 years next year, although this new minimum initially applies only to those at the start of their working lives, and will be tapered in for older people with an existing work record.''

That's the first time I've seen that mentioned.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pens ... z3TWGtYdIx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:12 pm

Further to Nick Clegg's willingness (nay, keenness) to pretend to be David Cameron in a head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband -

How could he possibly square that with appearing as the LibDem leader in the wider debates where, presumably, he would be saying entirely different things (yes, second nature and all - but still . . . . )?

However, it would be hilarious to watch him do it in the wider debate. Watching him run from one podium to another, doing a quick-change act en route, is something I'd love to see.

Post by **adam** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:18 pm

Saying that citing 'a seven way debate' is a get-out if there aren't seven is as absurd as the claim that planning to freeze energy prices would stop them falling.

Again - Cameron has made a huge, huge miscalculation if he thinks he can refuse to debate without there being a come back on him, and there is no way at all that Labour will hand that advantage back to him by refusing to attend anything.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:23 pm

Ed looks very relaxed about it.

<iframe src="https://embed.theguardian. ... ></iframe>

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:23 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Morning all.

I'm not so sure that Clegg stepping in as super sub (in his own mind) is actually a bad thing.
...

[my bold]

Clegg as super sub??? I thought that was the boy Gideon...

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:25 pm

Flip, my attempt to embed the video didn't work.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:25 pm

adam wrote:Saying that citing 'a seven way debate' is a get-out if there aren't seven is as absurd as the claim that planning to freeze energy prices would stop them falling.

Again - Cameron has made a huge, huge miscalculation if he thinks he can refuse to debate without there being a come back on him, and there is no way at all that Labour will hand that advantage back to him by refusing to attend anything.

I'm wondering if Cameron's banking on the media letting him off the hook to a degree either by accepting his miserly single 7-way debate offer or by giving up altogether. I'm really not sure he could get away with being empty chaired in 3 debates. If the broadcasters stick to their guns it could be a very costly outcome for him.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:37 pm

yahyah wrote:Flip, my attempt to embed the video didn't work.

AFAIK, only Youtube will embed.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:40 pm

yahyah wrote:Flip, my attempt to embed the video didn't work.

I copied the address and watched, he comes across great

Thanks for posting

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 2:49 pm

Incidentally, I've been reviewing the likely debates outcomes as we now stand and I can't quite work out the situation Spinning Hugo is talking about where Ed Miliband would be wise to refuse. These are the three possible outcomes as I now see them.

a) original 3 debates go ahead with Cameron empty-chaired and Ed Miliband enjoys the advantage of an hour to himself.

b) broadcasters agree to Cameron's 'ultimatum' and a single 7-way debate goes ahead with little advantage to Miliband or Cameron.

c) the broadcasters give up.

Although it is possible, I suppose, the broadcasters might decide on 2 multi party debates without Cameron and no head-to-head, I can't see why they would do this when they have the opportunity to do one multi party debate with Cameron. So at what point would Ed Miliband be 'wise' to refuse because it would make him appear less important than Cameron? There isn't one. Spinning Hugo is living up to his name. At least I managed to dig out a couple of diseased shrubs whilst mulling it over so it's not as if I've wasted any time on what is, after all, a blind alley.

Tish · Post by **Tish** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 3:01 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
prompted in large part, I regret to say, by your long standing dislike of EM.
If I thought he were a fool, then I would expect him to debate Farage et al with no Cameron. It would be foolish to give equal standing, time and credibility to the various 'Westminster outsiders' (and no mark Clegg) he would be ranged against.

It is because I think more highly of him than that that I am sure that no such debates will take place. Labour just isn't that desperate at this point.

I don't think it would be foolish at all to treat all the other parties with respect and debate them on an equal footing. Whatever we may think about Farage, Bennett, Surgeon et al, the fact is that about 30% of the electorate are currently considering voting for them. The main vibe of this election is the disenchantment that so many of the electorate feel with the two main parties, if Ed Miliband was to basically say "I'm not going to do these debates without Cameron becouse the rest of you are a bunch of pygmies" it would be very damaging. It would make him look arrogant and out of touch, and reinforce the unfair image that some people have of him that he's "just the same."

By doing the debate anyway he's showing that he's listening to the views of the disengaged voters who are currently flirting with UKIP or the Greens. And a debate with the SNP would be a definite boon, becouse if the polls are right things can't get much worse in Scotland anyway.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 3:04 pm

mikems wrote:Tory trolls are desperate to distract attention from Cameron's refusal of a head to head debate. Hence the frantic nonsense, the incessant tedious point making, the absurd interpretations and assertions...all refusing to look directly at that central fact.

Sad it has come to that here. I hope it won't be tolerated for long.

SH can make the points he wants to, and those points get debated. Factual refutation is the answer, as ever.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 3:17 pm

I think SH has the wrong end of the stick, but it is genuinely unfair to compare his posts here with some of the truly mindblowing stuff in the "other place" today. I can see why he takes the line he does, but also think that he is mistaken.

Ah well, it will all come out in the wash soon enough

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 3:38 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... id-cameron
(The G seems to have put a spider thingy on the web pages to stop you copying text)
By David Schneider

From the middle of the article, as a taster and to encourage people to pop over to the Graun and have a read of the whole thing!

In order to cut through the chaotic situation which now exists because of this crazed obsession you have with actually allowing the public to hear some policies discussed, we wish to make it clear that the prime minister will only take part in one debate. This is on condition that the debate includes not only the Greens, the nationalists and the DUP, but also the Monster Raving Loonies, the Make Benedict Cumberbatch King of Scotland party and at least 256 other party leaders. These should include 30 dead party leaders as, if democracy is to be truly served, why should only the living have a voice? No dead leaders standing alongside the living – no debate.

@AAW: Nothing should stop you from copying and pasting bits out for fair comment but they have started floating quick-links to enable easier sharing via twitter or email.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 3:41 pm

Funny how there's suddenly huge interest in the MSM in ECB quantitative easing.

That wouldn't be a deliberate strategy to get Chicken off the front pages would it?

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 3:43 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:
AngryAsWell wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... id-cameron
(The G seems to have put a spider thingy on the web pages to stop you copying text)
By David Schneider

From the middle of the article, as a taster and to encourage people to pop over to the Graun and have a read of the whole thing!

In order to cut through the chaotic situation which now exists because of this crazed obsession you have with actually allowing the public to hear some policies discussed, we wish to make it clear that the prime minister will only take part in one debate. This is on condition that the debate includes not only the Greens, the nationalists and the DUP, but also the Monster Raving Loonies, the Make Benedict Cumberbatch King of Scotland party and at least 256 other party leaders. These should include 30 dead party leaders as, if democracy is to be truly served, why should only the living have a voice? No dead leaders standing alongside the living – no debate.
@AAW: Nothing should stop you from copying and pasting bits out for fair comment but they have started floating quick-links to enable easier sharing via twitter or email.

I can't copy anything from the G "comments" section today, assumed it was something on the site stopping it

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:35 pm

Chick chick chicken, lay me an egg for my tea.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:46 pm

Ian Dale's guest, LBC's political editor Theo Usherwood, saying the broadcasters will go ahead with debates as currently planned, with an empty chair if Cameron doesn't turn up, but the host will read out the Conservative policy on each particular question when it would have been Cameron's turn to speak. Apparently, that is within Ofcom rules on participation and representation...

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:50 pm

Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:50 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:Ian Dale's guest, LBC's political editor Theo Usherwood, saying the broadcasters will go ahead with debates as currently planned, with an empty chair if Cameron doesn't turn up, but the host will read out the Conservative policy on each particular question when it would have been Cameron's turn to speak. Apparently, that is within Ofcom rules on participation and representation...

Hopefully followed by the words 'Mr Cameron refused to appear'.

I notice Jim Naughtie made a snide comment to Ali Campbell this morning because a senior Labour person wasn't made available for the programme, so surely Cameron should be treated the same way.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:54 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Odd that they didn't predict Cox would respond in that way!

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:56 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:Ian Dale's guest, LBC's political editor Theo Usherwood, saying the broadcasters will go ahead with debates as currently planned, with an empty chair if Cameron doesn't turn up, but the host will read out the Conservative policy on each particular question when it would have been Cameron's turn to speak. Apparently, that is within Ofcom rules on participation and representation...

So long as we don't get the chair interrupting a la Humphrys with "Yes, but the Conservatives would say...."

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 4:58 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Odd that they didn't predict Cox would respond in that way!

Certainly makes you wonder what that twat (Tredinnick) is doing on the science and technology committee. Ranks up there with Jeremy Hunt's belief in homeopathy. I mean, where do they find these people?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:02 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's this (the bit I've bolded) about, do you think?

He went on to brand critics “ignorant, because they never study the subject and just say that it is all to do with what appears in the newspapers, which it is not, and they are deeply prejudiced, and racially prejudiced, which is troubling.” (Independent - my emphasis)

(Thanks for the link.)

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:03 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Odd that they didn't predict Cox would respond in that way!
Certainly makes you wonder what that twat (Tredinnick) is doing on the science and technology committee. Ranks up there with Jeremy Hunt's belief in homeopathy. I mean, where do they find these people?

Eton and Charterhouse respectively, guaranteed to make you lose touch with reality.

ErnstRemarx · Post by **ErnstRemarx** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:10 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What's this (the bit I've bolded) about, do you think?

He went on to brand critics “ignorant, because they never study the subject and just say that it is all to do with what appears in the newspapers, which it is not, and they are deeply prejudiced, and racially prejudiced, which is troubling.” (Independent - my emphasis)
(Thanks for the link.)

Who knows? Who can possibly discern what the hell's going on in his head?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:10 pm

Our Glorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General is as lazy as he is craven.

He has left his ministers to do the work of government with no control.

That's why things like this happen -

https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/ ... ampaigner/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cameron cannot defend his record with any veracity because, along with the corruption, the incompetence, the arrogance, the cronyism, the mendacity, the viciousness, the spite......stories like this show what he has allowed his ministers to impose on the people.

Cameron knows that he can spin the figures on the debt, the deficit, the jobs, the new-builds, and a whole lot of other crap that we all know isn't true - but he can't hide from this. This is what his policies have meant for many people. This is the result of Tory ideology.

He is responsible for a young woman with terminal cancer being expected to attend work programme appointments. A young woman who had a cancer eating away at her brain; a young woman who was going blind, couldn't walk properly, couldn't speak properly, and was being fed by tube; a young woman who knew she was dying but kept going with courage and relentless cheerfulness and gratitude despite it all.

He is responsible. He leads a government that does to hundreds of people what was done to Charlotte Ryan every single day.

Somewhere deep down in what passes for his soul he knows this.

There will be a reckoning one day.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:11 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mr. Tredinnick, your magic thinking crap in place of properly funded social security provision & the NHS won't work.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:15 pm

ephemerid wrote:Our Glorious Ronsealed Fishpointer General is as lazy as he is craven.

He has left his ministers to do the work of government with no control.

That's why things like this happen -

kittysjones.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/for-lotte-ryan-a-friend-and-fellow-campaigner/

Cameron cannot defend his record with any veracity because, along with the corruption, the incompetence, the arrogance, the cronyism, the mendacity, the viciousness, the spite......stories like this show what he has allowed his ministers to impose on the people.

Cameron knows that he can spin the figures on the debt, the deficit, the jobs, the new-builds, and a whole lot of other crap that we all know isn't true - but he can't hide from this. This is what his policies have meant for many people. This is the result of Tory ideology.

He is responsible for a young woman with terminal cancer being expected to attend work programme appointments. A young woman who had a cancer eating away at her brain; a young woman who was going blind, couldn't walk properly, couldn't speak properly, and was being fed by tube; a young woman who knew she was dying but kept going with courage and relentless cheerfulness and gratitude despite it all.

He is responsible. He leads a government that does to hundreds of people what was done to Charlotte Ryan every single day.

Somewhere deep down in what passes for his soul he knows this.

There will be a reckoning one day.

Heartbreaking.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:16 pm

Gool Peren Lowen!

'Tis St. Piran's Day so Clegg says Cornwall can have a Cornish Assembly if he's in government next time, similar to the Welsh Assembly, with legislative powers on matters such as housing, healthcare, and transport. There'd be a referendum on the proposals. It wouldn't be a new layer of local government, mind, being built out of Cornwall Council – so it's actually more like the plans for Manchester, although with no mention so far of a Mayor, either elected or imposed. The idea was voted through at the last Lib Dem conference so it is official party policy; but I don't think the 'how' was fleshed out.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:17 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:Ian Dale's guest, LBC's political editor Theo Usherwood, saying the broadcasters will go ahead with debates as currently planned, with an empty chair if Cameron doesn't turn up, but the host will read out the Conservative policy on each particular question when it would have been Cameron's turn to speak. Apparently, that is within Ofcom rules on participation and representation...

Who's giving the responses to the questions relating to the last five years of Tory policies & the impact they've had upon the country & people?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:17 pm

PorFavor wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What's this (the bit I've bolded) about, do you think?

He went on to brand critics “ignorant, because they never study the subject and just say that it is all to do with what appears in the newspapers, which it is not, and they are deeply prejudiced, and racially prejudiced, which is troubling.” (Independent - my emphasis)
(Thanks for the link.)

He is quoted elsewhere as saying:

“Firstly, these are old, misquoted, comments that I made some time ago in a magazine interview. Secondly, I did not suggest that astrology should be used to tackle the NHS crisis, as has been reported, nor that it should be available using public funds through the NHS.

“What I wanted to draw attention to was the fact that in many cultures, especially in the Indian sub-continent, Hong Kong and China, astrology and healthcare are linked, and that many people around the world believe that by having an understanding of your body from an astrological point of view that it can assist you in helping with personal health decision-making.”

So he may mean that the people who dislike astrology are writing off the cultural and religious beliefs of other racial groups.

He also says it was a Lib Dem fit up against him !
The Astrological Journal says: ‘Contrary to some reports, Tredinnick has not called for astrology to be used as a medical tool on the NHS'.

http://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local ... ed-8768201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think a plague on both their houses [astrological or otherwise].
Brian Cox can be a sanctimonious bore when it comes to the wonders of science.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:22 pm

Rowena Mason ‏@rowenamason 3m3 minutes ago
Ukip MEP Janice Atkinson on plea for spies to recruit on Mumsnet: "What do we want from our security services - James Bond or Mary Poppins?"

Janice 'the Finger' Atkinson at her most charming again. What an asset for the sisterhood she is. That must be why she fits the UKIP bill so well.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:26 pm

Joe Anderson ‏@joeforliverpool 7m7 minutes ago
My Open Letter to Green Party Councillors and Candidates attending Green Party conference in Liverpool http://liverpoollabour.org/news/open-le ... andidates/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …

The Labour Liverpool Mayor has written to the Green Party.

Post by **letsskiptotheleft** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:32 pm

Apols if this has been posted, already. 12% lead for Labour in London only polling.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 87287.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:34 pm

Clegg: I’ll take Cameron’s place and defend government’s record if he’s too important to take part in the debates
http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-ill-ta ... 44889.html

It might not surprise you to know that there are some BTL on this Lib Dem Voice piece who think Clegg is right to say he'll defend the government's record ... oh yes there are. And also no surprise that there are others who are tearing their hair out at such a shoot ourselves not just in the foot but in the goolies and armpits for good measure strategy - really not happy with the idea of identifying themselves as the enablers of the bedroom tax, NHS reorganisation and so many other infamous policies.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:35 pm

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 3m3 minutes ago
BBC reject DUP appeal to take part in the debates

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:40 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:Gool Peren Lowen!

'Tis St. Piran's Day so Clegg says Cornwall can have a Cornish Assembly if he's in government next time, similar to the Welsh Assembly, with legislative powers on matters such as housing, healthcare, and transport. There'd be a referendum on the proposals. It wouldn't be a new layer of local government, mind, being built out of Cornwall Council – so it's actually more like the plans for Manchester, although with no mention so far of a Mayor, either elected or imposed. The idea was voted through at the last Lib Dem conference so it is official party policy; but I don't think the 'how' was fleshed out.

That's kind of him.

Evidently, he is unaware of the Seneth an Stenegow Kernow, the revived Cornish Stannary Parliament, re-established in 1974.

It exists to fight against the UK governments' refusal to concede that it exists or accept Cornwall's right to its' own constitution.

My ex, a Tredinnick (who is no relation to the other of that ilk mentioned earlier), told me all about it and speaks Cornish.

Had the Cornish been able to keep their language (as the Welsh and Scottish Celts have) and retained even a smidgeon of independence, they wouldn't be in the situation they are now.
Showmaster was prevented from learning Welsh at school because he went to grammar school; the Welsh language was considered only fit for the lower orders until common sense prevailed.

Perhaps Clegg, as a graduate in social anthropology and a career politician, might have thought to check first - Cornwall already has an assembly/parliament with a historic tradition, which simply needs endorsement from Westminster to take its' rightful place in the politics of the county.

They might even decide to go completely independent and strip all titles and lands from their Duke. I'd pay to see that.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:44 pm

citizenJA wrote:
LadyCentauria wrote:Ian Dale's guest, LBC's political editor Theo Usherwood, saying the broadcasters will go ahead with debates as currently planned, with an empty chair if Cameron doesn't turn up, but the host will read out the Conservative policy on each particular question when it would have been Cameron's turn to speak. Apparently, that is within Ofcom rules on participation and representation...
Who's giving the responses to the questions relating to the last five years of Tory policies & the impact they've had upon the country & people?

If Ed's sat there all on his ownsome, he will be able to respond to the questions he is asked by bringing in that sort of stuff.
On a sort of compare-and contrast basis. He's clever enough to discuss his manifesto with a few digs here and there, I reckon.

PS, J - thanks for the PM. x

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:44 pm

yahyah wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
What's this (the bit I've bolded) about, do you think?

He went on to brand critics “ignorant, because they never study the subject and just say that it is all to do with what appears in the newspapers, which it is not, and they are deeply prejudiced, and racially prejudiced, which is troubling.” (Independent - my emphasis)
(Thanks for the link.)

He is quoted elsewhere as saying:

“Firstly, these are old, misquoted, comments that I made some time ago in a magazine interview. Secondly, I did not suggest that astrology should be used to tackle the NHS crisis, as has been reported, nor that it should be available using public funds through the NHS.

“What I wanted to draw attention to was the fact that in many cultures, especially in the Indian sub-continent, Hong Kong and China, astrology and healthcare are linked, and that many people around the world believe that by having an understanding of your body from an astrological point of view that it can assist you in helping with personal health decision-making.”

So he may mean that the people who dislike astrology are writing off the cultural and religious beliefs of other racial groups.

He also says it was a Lib Dem fit up against him !
The Astrological Journal says: ‘Contrary to some reports, Tredinnick has not called for astrology to be used as a medical tool on the NHS'.

http://www.hinckleytimes.net/news/local ... ed-8768201" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

To be honest I think a plague on both their houses [astrological or otherwise].
Brian Cox can be a sanctimonious bore when it comes to the wonders of science.

Thanks for rounding that out. Informative.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:44 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Clegg: I’ll take Cameron’s place and defend government’s record if he’s too important to take part in the debates
http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-ill-ta ... 44889.html
It might not surprise you to know that there are some BTL on this Lib Dem Voice piece who think Clegg is right to say he'll defend the government's record ... oh yes there are. And also no surprise that there are others who are tearing their hair out at such a shoot ourselves not just in the foot but in the goolies and armpits for good measure strategy - really not happy with the idea of identifying themselves as the enablers of the bedroom tax, NHS reorganisation and so many other infamous policies.

It is very noticeable that Lib Dem Voice posts are nearly all male.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 5:52 pm

letsskiptotheleft wrote:Apols if this has been posted, already. 12% lead for Labour in London only polling.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics ... 87287.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good though those figures are, there are a couple more we should have a chance of winning- Harrow East and Ilford North. Affluent but high minority population.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 6:00 pm

''Full disclosure: as a committed neo-Blairite I quite like Tony Blair''

Good job Dan Hodges told us that, who'd have guessed it ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... d-Why.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 6:09 pm

QT tonight:-

from Glasgow. The panel includes Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the treasury Danny Alexander MP, SNP minister for Europe Humza Yousaf MSP, leader of the Scottish Conservatives Ruth Davidson MSP, Labour's deputy leader in Scotland Kezia Dugdale MSP, journalist Toby Young and crime writer Val McDermid.

A panel of six no less! They should make the first question about our cowardly PM and devote half an hour to it. Will they though? I doubt it.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 6:11 pm

Halfway through catching up today and you all may know by now but the debates would be empty seated and the requirement for balance in the Miliband/Cameron debate would be for the tory manifesto to be read out.

Cameron has shot himself in the foot here. He won't face up to Ed Miliband for a debate and we're counting on him to face up to world leaders like Putin?

I can't see Miliband ducking the 7-way even if Cameron drops out. It's too good a platform to get past the media's twist on events.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 6:14 pm

ErnstRemarx wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
ErnstRemarx wrote:Bless my soul. Just read it!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 88421.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Odd that they didn't predict Cox would respond in that way!
Certainly makes you wonder what that twat (Tredinnick) is doing on the science and technology committee. Ranks up there with Jeremy Hunt's belief in homeopathy. I mean, where do they find these people?

I've studied the subject. In my considered opinion, Tredinnick is an outlier on the spectrum of reason. Seemingly, he fails to recognise the limitations of astrology and the risk of very real harm that could easily arise should vulnerable people place astrological advice ahead of medical advice - let alone the risk to medics of mockery, or worse, from sceptical patients. He stresses that he's talking about 'serious astrology' not 'newspaper astrology' but the majority of people who put store in matters astrological only encounter 'newspaper' astrology and tend to put their faith in one particular astrologer, at that. What would he do? License astrologers from a particular school? Outlaw newspaper and magazine astrology columns? Can you imagine that chaos that would ensue in clinics, surgeries, and hospitals, as people read in the paper that it was or wasn't a good day for an operation or that Pisceans' innate foot-problems flaring up might signify something deeper going on!? Or would patients have to have individual transit charts drawn up before anything was done and the inability of most people to categorically state their exact time of birth and place of birth (adjusted for time-zones, local daylight-saving schemes, etc., degree, minute, second, latitude, and longitude) as the lack of that information might increase the risk of failure or harm arising from a particular medical procedure?

I could go on to speculate about only licensing practitioners with both a medical degree and a degree in medical or psychoanalytical astrology; reductions in one part of the array of clinical services leading to an increased budgetary pressure to provide clinical astrologers, complete with a) their education and b) suitable premises; and on the potential usefulness of astrology in psychological counseling and psychoanalysis – especially, in weaning the over-dependent off their reliance on astrology! But I'll shut up before this turns into another one of the books I've not yet writ...

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Thu 05 Mar, 2015 6:20 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:
Do you genuinely think that there is any leader on that proposed panel of seven who would trouble Miliband in the slightest?
I don't know. I thought (and think) Farage is a buffoon and that Clegg would get a useful uplift from debating with him last year, but I was wrong. Farage stuffed him. I wouldn't want to make any predictions about how the debates would go (other than that Bennett would be useless).

I do however state that Miliband will not debate with other leaders without Cameron. Nothing to do with his being scared or thinking he might lose. Rather it is because he won't want to give them equal standing.

Everyone clearly disagrees with me. As another popular figure on the Guardian's pages says, we will see.

Actually I do agree with you regarding giving them equal standing. Clegg gave UKIP political validation in the debates he had with Farage.

But then, as I mentioned above, it's too good a platform for Miliband to pass up, a direct live feed to the country, no editing etc. That's what's important, aside from us most people will only see these debates (if they bother at all) and won't even read the rewriting of the nights comments in the press afterwards. At worst he will be badly lit and as with his radio interviews (BBC, cough) he'll probably be the one with the broken microphone.

Gut feeling, he'll do it. Plus it makes Cameron all the more the national joke if the he avoids that one too.