Wednesday 14th January 2015

[ErnstRemarx]

Good afternoon everyone, it's a long time since I last posted (before the move) but I'm still a daily follower and would like to say how grateful I am for all your considered and often expert opinions on many topics. I decided to re-register as the number of guests seems to have increased significantly and I didn't want to be judged as a potential fifth columnist!

Just a couple of small observations in acknowledging Daydreamer's comment about David Cameron not looking at the opposition front bench when speaking to them. I have noticed that he definitely will not look them in the eye when speaking until he makes his final point, he generally looks towards the bench of officials below the Speaker's chair. It looks a bit shifty to me. I have also noticed that when speaking at a podium he has a habit of wiping his left nostril with his left thumb - some of you will remember when the pen he was holding leaked and he smeared ink onto his nose, I wonder why he developed this habit? Is there anyone with some body language skills that may be able to enlighten me?

I wish you all well.

Welcome son of Martin! Kettle's on; bottle of red open on the side and sausage sarnies will be ready in a minute. Red or brown?

[rebeccariots2]

The Telegraph ‏@Telegraph 22m22 minutes ago
'Entire cities cast aside by Coalition, say Archbishops' - Thursday's Telegraph front page #tomorrowspaperstoday

[TechnicalEphemera]

Good afternoon everyone, it's a long time since I last posted (before the move) but I'm still a daily follower and would like to say how grateful I am for all your considered and often expert opinions on many topics. I decided to re-register as the number of guests seems to have increased significantly and I didn't want to be judged as a potential fifth columnist!

Just a couple of small observations in acknowledging Daydreamer's comment about David Cameron not looking at the opposition front bench when speaking to them. I have noticed that he definitely will not look them in the eye when speaking until he makes his final point, he generally looks towards the bench of officials below the Speaker's chair. It looks a bit shifty to me. I have also noticed that when speaking at a podium he has a habit of wiping his left nostril with his left thumb - some of you will remember when the pen he was holding leaked and he smeared ink onto his nose, I wonder why he developed this habit? Is there anyone with some body language skills that may be able to enlighten me?

I wish you all well.

Welcome son of Martin! Kettle's on; bottle of red open on the side and sausage sarnies will be ready in a minute. Red or brown?

Fifth Columnists, nah guests are guests.

A true fifth columnist would be Open Seas bursting Alien like from one of the regular posters accounts.

Besides for our lurking terrorists...

65A0954CE2543FA

[TechnicalEphemera]

Good afternoon everyone, it's a long time since I last posted (before the move) but I'm still a daily follower and would like to say how grateful I am for all your considered and often expert opinions on many topics. I decided to re-register as the number of guests seems to have increased significantly and I didn't want to be judged as a potential fifth columnist!

Just a couple of small observations in acknowledging Daydreamer's comment about David Cameron not looking at the opposition front bench when speaking to them. I have noticed that he definitely will not look them in the eye when speaking until he makes his final point, he generally looks towards the bench of officials below the Speaker's chair. It looks a bit shifty to me. I have also noticed that when speaking at a podium he has a habit of wiping his left nostril with his left thumb - some of you will remember when the pen he was holding leaked and he smeared ink onto his nose, I wonder why he developed this habit? Is there anyone with some body language skills that may be able to enlighten me?

I wish you all well.

Welcome son of Martin! Kettle's on; bottle of red open on the side and sausage sarnies will be ready in a minute. Red or brown?

Actually - Son of Martin Kettle - that would be a fifth columnist - but who for?

[Tizme1]

Evening all,

I have been on my travels the last few days. Took my net book with me but had some problems with it so commenting was difficult. I think I managed to keep up with most posts though. Anyway, lots to I wanted to add so here goes;

Firstly I think RR2 mentioned the latest on Farm Terrace [thanks]. I haven't read the whole of the submission document yet. Seems clear to me from the little I have read that the added plans for a school are a crock of shit - included merely to strengthen their argument. A school extension on the site is no more likely than the hospital. I'm adding a link to the local paper's article. Most btl comments are supportive of the allotment holders. You can ignore Wacko Jacko. He was outed as a local lib dem councillor so long ago I can't remember how it happened. No idea why he tries to keep up the pretence tbh. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/1 ... _minister/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whilst on my travels, I spent a few days in Bristol so went to visit the skip food project. I'd hoped to speak to the organisers but it was so busy I thought it was best just to have a meal and observe. Very busy, lots of volunteers. 5 or 6 different meal options including veggie options. There clearly are some problems to iron out but there were some nice touches too. Overall, I was really impressed, as was the friend I went with.

I saw the comments yesterday that various 'nesters' were disgruntled with some comments by Caroline Lucas. I haven't seen the comments so wondered if anyone could provide a link? I'm not going to comment on them without seeing them. Once I have seen them, I can either defend them, or if I'm also unhappy with them, I can fire off an email to Natalie asking for further clarification!

I read the article on the G about Cameron basically running scared earlier today. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tv-debates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some 'interesting' btl comments calling Miliband a coward. Wtf?! Maybe I've missed something but as I understand it [paraphrasing] Miliband has said;

1] He'd debate with whoever is there.
2] Its not for any party leader to dictate who the broadcasters invite.
3] Cameron should join the debate in the interests of democracy but if he doesn't, the debate should go ahead.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the above. But if not, I fail to see how he is a coward and in fact, providing he stays true to that stance, I'd say he's spot on. Some people are calling for him to support Cameron's stance [which obviously is a tactic to get out of the debates], and 'demand' the Greens are included. Now obviously I'd like the Greens to be included, but to my mind, for Ed to demand the inclusions of the Greens, would actually be contradictory to point 2 above. Though he has saved Cameron's arse in the past, I see no reason why he should be obliged to do so! And in fact if he made a habit of it, we'd have further good cause to doubt our so called democracy.

I've also seen/heard people suggesting that the letter sent by Ed, Clegg, and Farrage proves that 'they are all the same' blah blah blah. Does this mean people want constantly adversarial politics? Isn't it better when people can find common ground? Cameron is wrong in this, I see no reason why we should castigate Ed, Clegg, or for that matter bloody Farrage for working together to point that out.

Finally, don't know if it's been linked to while I've been trying to compose this [interrupted by a conversation with youngest son about feminism] but I wondered what your thoughts are on Natalie's letter - http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-01- ... inclusion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For me, the important point is she isn't asking them to make any demands, just to indicate they are 'open to the inclusion of the Greens'.

[rebeccariots2]

Archbishops’ pre-election assault on ‘evil’ of inequality in Coalition Britain
‘Entire cities’ being ‘cast aside’ in a nation where ‘rampant consumerism and individualism’ are the new religion, say Archbishops of Canterbury and York
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio ... itain.html

Britain under the Coalition is a country in which the poor are being “left behind” and entire cities “cast aside” because politicians are obsessed with Middle England, the Church of England says today in a damning assessment of the state of the nation.

In a direct and unapologetically “political” intervention timed for the beginning of the General Election campaign, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, warn party leaders are selling a “lie” that economic growth is the answer to Britain’s social problems.

Questioning David Cameron’s slogan “we're all in this together” they condemn inequality as “evil” and dismiss the assumption that the value of communities is in their economic output as a “sin”.

Britain, they argue has been “dominated” by “rampant consumerism and individualism” since the Thatcher era, while the Christian values of solidarity and selflessness have been supplanted by a new secular creed of “every person for themselves”.

And while London and the South East forge ahead, much of the rest of the country is still “trapped in apparently inevitable decline”, they argue.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Hi Tizme,

I believe it was a twitter related event, but Tubby knows more.

The allotment thing is bollocks, hope you can kick their second attempt into touch as well.

The thing with the Greens, and why Cameron is clever, is he suspects if they are allowed in the SNP and Plaid will pile in and render the whole thing hopeless. The best avenue for Bennett is to challenge Ofcom which would probably be enough to get it done (except Dave will find another excuse).

As for the rest Dave is slinging mud in the hope it fools a few people and everybody will give up.

[rebeccariots2]

Evening all,

I have been on my travels the last few days. Took my net book with me but had some problems with it so commenting was difficult. I think I managed to keep up with most posts though. Anyway, lots to I wanted to add so here goes;

Firstly I think RR2 mentioned the latest on Farm Terrace [thanks]. I haven't read the whole of the submission document yet. Seems clear to me from the little I have read that the added plans for a school are a crock of shit - included merely to strengthen their argument. A school extension on the site is no more likely than the hospital. I'm adding a link to the local paper's article. Most btl comments are supportive of the allotment holders. You can ignore Wacko Jacko. He was outed as a local lib dem councillor so long ago I can't remember how it happened. No idea why he tries to keep up the pretence tbh. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/1 ... _minister/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whilst on my travels, I spent a few days in Bristol so went to visit the skip food project. I'd hoped to speak to the organisers but it was so busy I thought it was best just to have a meal and observe. Very busy, lots of volunteers. 5 or 6 different meal options including veggie options. There clearly are some problems to iron out but there were some nice touches too. Overall, I was really impressed, as was the friend I went with.

I saw the comments yesterday that various 'nesters' were disgruntled with some comments by Caroline Lucas. I haven't seen the comments so wondered if anyone could provide a link? I'm not going to comment on them without seeing them. Once I have seen them, I can either defend them, or if I'm also unhappy with them, I can fire off an email to Natalie asking for further clarification!

I read the article on the G about Cameron basically running scared earlier today. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tv-debates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some 'interesting' btl comments calling Miliband a coward. Wtf?! Maybe I've missed something but as I understand it [paraphrasing] Miliband has said;

1] He'd debate with whoever is there.
2] Its not for any party leader to dictate who the broadcasters invite.
3] Cameron should join the debate in the interests of democracy but if he doesn't, the debate should go ahead.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the above. But if not, I fail to see how he is a coward and in fact, providing he stays true to that stance, I'd say he's spot on. Some people are calling for him to support Cameron's stance [which obviously is a tactic to get out of the debates], and 'demand' the Greens are included. Now obviously I'd like the Greens to be included, but to my mind, for Ed to demand the inclusions of the Greens, would actually be contradictory to point 2 above. Though he has saved Cameron's arse in the past, I see no reason why he should be obliged to do so! And in fact if he made a habit of it, we'd have further good cause to doubt our so called democracy.

I've also seen/heard people suggesting that the letter sent by Ed, Clegg, and Farrage proves that 'they are all the same' blah blah blah. Does this mean people want constantly adversarial politics? Isn't it better when people can find common ground? Cameron is wrong in this, I see no reason why we should castigate Ed, Clegg, or for that matter bloody Farrage for working together to point that out.

Finally, don't know if it's been linked to while I've been trying to compose this [interrupted by a conversation with youngest son about feminism] but I wondered what your thoughts are on Natalie's letter - http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-01- ... inclusion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For me, the important point is she isn't asking them to make any demands, just to indicate they are 'open to the inclusion of the Greens'.

Hi Tizme, good to have you back. Sorry about the pants third attempt to snatch Farm Terrace.

I'm pretty much in complete agreement with your understanding of the situation re the debates issue. I posted earlier on this - I really don't think any politician should be able to enforce decisions about who and how etc re the debates. Whilst I understand Natalie's position on seeking to be included (and I don't have any problems with the Greens being included) - I don't want to see any endorsement of Cameron's totally cynical games playing re this. He's just using the Greens - pure and simple.

[rebeccariots2]

Oh - and the media Guardian are reporting that al Jazeera are likely to bid to broadcast a debate including the Greens - will announce something in the next 24 hours or so.

Won't Cameron love that. He'll have to say YES to a debate hosted by al Jazeera.

[rebeccariots2]

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 5m 5 minutes ago
YouGov/Sun poll tonight - :LAB lead by 2%

Lab 34
Con 32
UKIP 15
Green 7
Lib Dem 6

[Tonibel]

Good afternoon everyone, it's a long time since I last posted (before the move) but I'm still a daily follower and would like to say how grateful I am for all your considered and often expert opinions on many topics. I decided to re-register as the number of guests seems to have increased significantly and I didn't want to be judged as a potential fifth columnist!

Just a couple of small observations in acknowledging Daydreamer's comment about David Cameron not looking at the opposition front bench when speaking to them. I have noticed that he definitely will not look them in the eye when speaking until he makes his final point, he generally looks towards the bench of officials below the Speaker's chair. It looks a bit shifty to me. I have also noticed that when speaking at a podium he has a habit of wiping his left nostril with his left thumb - some of you will remember when the pen he was holding leaked and he smeared ink onto his nose, I wonder why he developed this habit? Is there anyone with some body language skills that may be able to enlighten me?

I wish you all well.

Welcome son of Martin! Kettle's on; bottle of red open on the side and sausage sarnies will be ready in a minute. Red or brown?

[rebeccariots2]

Daily Mirror ‏@DailyMirror 8m8 minutes ago
Every A&E misses the four hour treatment target in worst week ever http://mirr.im/1Cn012A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is without any serious outbreaks of flu - or seriously bad weather - yet (well maybe that won't be true by tomorrow morning judging by what's going on outside here). And the NHS isn't one of Dave's priorities.

[rebeccariots2]

I think Caron must have been on the red while she was penning / typing her latest LDV blast on the debate about debates ... she doesn't seem to know the name of the leader of the Green party.

... We have Ed who must know he’s more cut out for writing worthy books in a dusty attic than slugging it out in a tv studio where he’s going to look as uncomfortable as hell. He has something to fear from everyone. Nige and Nicola are after his vote, Dave can give him a pasting on the economy, Nick has done more for disadvantaged kids in 5 years than his party did in 13 and he knows his vote is vulnerable to the Greens on the left. He must be very grateful to Dave for giving him a get out of jail free card. All he needs to do is utter the magic words “let the Greens in” and Dave will have no choice but to find another excuse to avoid debating.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/playground-p ... 44206.html

Oh and, of course, she seems to think it's all Ed's fault. As Tizme said - WTF?

Editing to add: I take it all back ... I hadn't read on ... she's referring to Nicola Sturgeon of course ... Natalie comes later. My mistake. It's still all Ed's fault though.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Hi Tizme,

I believe it was a twitter related event, but Tubby knows more.

The allotment thing is bollocks, hope you can kick their second attempt into touch as well.

The thing with the Greens, and why Cameron is clever, is he suspects if they are allowed in the SNP and Plaid will pile in and render the whole thing hopeless. The best avenue for Bennett is to challenge Ofcom which would probably be enough to get it done (except Dave will find another excuse).

As for the rest Dave is slinging mud in the hope it fools a few people and everybody will give up.

Yes, it was, pretty much. Lots of accusations of "Red Tories" from her followers and some very disingenuous posts from both Caroline and Natalie; and, thank you for not making me a liar - I said last night you were far more nuanced than those we were crossing swords with, and you have proved to be exactly that. Welcome back.

[citizenJA]

goodnight
love
JA

[Tubby Isaacs]

I saw the comments yesterday that various 'nesters' were disgruntled with some comments by Caroline Lucas. I haven't seen the comments so wondered if anyone could provide a link? I'm not going to comment on them without seeing them. Once I have seen them, I can either defend them, or if I'm also unhappy with them, I can fire off an email to Natalie asking for further clarification!

Hi Tizme, it was a load of tweets yesterday.

Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · Jan 13
Final vote on an extra £30bn of cuts: 515 in favour, 18 against - clear signal that Labour has given up opposing austerity

Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · Jan 13
Painful to watch @UKLabour wriggling on the hook, unable to explain why they are not opposing cuts of £30bn - no consistency & no courage

Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · Jan 13
Sad to watch vast majority of Lab MPs troop thro lobby with Tories to back extra £30bn of cuts - "my heart is heavier than my bag" said one
0 replies . 736 retweets 224 favourites
Reply Retweet736 Favourite224
More

There was no vote on £30bn of cuts. No dates, no amounts of money. Balance on current spending.

She also retweeted similar from the SNP.

Osborne made vote a trap- if oppose- you're spendthrift; if support- Greens and SNP attack you.

IFS's Paul Johnson did article yesterday- Labour cuts approx £7bn.

In her defence, Balls did say a while ago no new borrowing for investment, but now talking about balance on current spending. And Public Finance has done the same.

[rebeccariots2]

West Suffolk Hospital and Ipswich Hospitals look to take on community health from Serco
http://www.buryfreepress.co.uk/news/loc ... 9h.twitter

West Suffolk Hospital is joining Ipswich Hospital and Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust to deliver community health care in the county.

The three have begun the initial stages of a bid to clinical commissioning groups after Serco decided not to apply for the new Suffolk Community Healthcare contract.

The outsourcing company took on community health in 2012 in a £140million contract but had missed targets initially and overspent on the services it provided.

The Ipswich and East Suffolk and West Suffolk clinical commissioning groups are responsible for buying in community health care following the abolition of former primary care trusts.

Community health providing district nurses, speech therapists and community hospital services were previously run by the NHS.

A spokesman for West Suffolk Hospital NHS Foundation Trust confirmed this week that they were part of the bid.

In April 2014 Serco revealed that it would lose almost £18 million on three of its NHS contracts including Suffolk and in August last year it was reported it had decided to withdraw from clinical health services.

So - Serco can't deliver or make any money from these services. How much money and resource is being spent on the tendering and bidding processes for them? This is being played out all over the country now ... by far more CCGs than there were PCTs. It's madness.

Editing to add: I've just read that again - and realised that essentially they are now back with a countywide service - which as most PCTs were coterminous with local authority / county boundaries was exactly what the PCTs were commissioning and / or providing. Back to square one ... but via far more cost and fragmentation.

[rebeccariots2]

goodnight
love
JA

Goodnight JA.

(and goodnight PF, wherever you are).

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Night JA (and PF).

Bit of an aside, harking back to the ad blitz by the Coalition that we are paying for ....... did anybody notice what music they were using for the Broadband ad? Somehow appropriate.

[youtube]SHhrZgojY1Q[/youtube]

[Tubby Isaacs]

She did this in the debate too.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Chancellor agree with me that with the feeble and inconsistent opposition coming from the Labour Front Bench, there is a very good reason for seeing the SNP, the Greens and Plaid as the real opposition on this issue because we are clear and consistent about the fact that austerity is not working?

The SNP, for god's sake.

[Tubby Isaacs]

She jumped in straight after Osborne pretending they were voting for £30bn cuts there.

[Tizme1]

Hi Tizme,

I believe it was a twitter related event, but Tubby knows more.

The allotment thing is bollocks, hope you can kick their second attempt into touch as well.

The thing with the Greens, and why Cameron is clever, is he suspects if they are allowed in the SNP and Plaid will pile in and render the whole thing hopeless. The best avenue for Bennett is to challenge Ofcom which would probably be enough to get it done (except Dave will find another excuse).

As for the rest Dave is slinging mud in the hope it fools a few people and everybody will give up.

I think we can all agree Dave is 'frit'. And frankly, he has nothing to gain from the debates and everything to lose. Tough - his problem! I have some sympathy with both the for and against arguments with regards the SNP and Plaid being involved in the debates. On balance I fall into the 'no' camp simply because they can't stand in a majority of seats. That said, if they were to be included, fine - just get on with it.

If the broadcaster's did decide to let the Greens in, I don't think at this stage Cameron could then get away with arguing for SNP and Plaid as well. He hasn't previously mentioned that as a condition. And if my memory serves me correctly, he was against SNP being included in the 2010 debates.

The Greens are challenging Ofcom, and discussing with the Broadcasting companies. They are actually two separate issues, the Broadcasters could invite the Greens regardless of any Ofcom decision as indeed Ofcom themselves acknowledge. Personally, if I were in charge of any of the Broadcasting companies, I'd probably be tempted to include the Greens in the 1 discussions that includes a number of parties, but more importantly, I'd be pressing Cameron as to why his so called 'belief' that its not democratic if the Greens aren't included in that discussion, stops him from taking part in the other two debates.

I think you're right that Dave is hoping everyone gives up. I also think though its another example of his bad judgement!

[Tizme1]

Evening all,

I have been on my travels the last few days. Took my net book with me but had some problems with it so commenting was difficult. I think I managed to keep up with most posts though. Anyway, lots to I wanted to add so here goes;

Firstly I think RR2 mentioned the latest on Farm Terrace [thanks]. I haven't read the whole of the submission document yet. Seems clear to me from the little I have read that the added plans for a school are a crock of shit - included merely to strengthen their argument. A school extension on the site is no more likely than the hospital. I'm adding a link to the local paper's article. Most btl comments are supportive of the allotment holders. You can ignore Wacko Jacko. He was outed as a local lib dem councillor so long ago I can't remember how it happened. No idea why he tries to keep up the pretence tbh. http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/1 ... _minister/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whilst on my travels, I spent a few days in Bristol so went to visit the skip food project. I'd hoped to speak to the organisers but it was so busy I thought it was best just to have a meal and observe. Very busy, lots of volunteers. 5 or 6 different meal options including veggie options. There clearly are some problems to iron out but there were some nice touches too. Overall, I was really impressed, as was the friend I went with.

I saw the comments yesterday that various 'nesters' were disgruntled with some comments by Caroline Lucas. I haven't seen the comments so wondered if anyone could provide a link? I'm not going to comment on them without seeing them. Once I have seen them, I can either defend them, or if I'm also unhappy with them, I can fire off an email to Natalie asking for further clarification!

I read the article on the G about Cameron basically running scared earlier today. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... tv-debates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some 'interesting' btl comments calling Miliband a coward. Wtf?! Maybe I've missed something but as I understand it [paraphrasing] Miliband has said;

1] He'd debate with whoever is there.
2] Its not for any party leader to dictate who the broadcasters invite.
3] Cameron should join the debate in the interests of democracy but if he doesn't, the debate should go ahead.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on the above. But if not, I fail to see how he is a coward and in fact, providing he stays true to that stance, I'd say he's spot on. Some people are calling for him to support Cameron's stance [which obviously is a tactic to get out of the debates], and 'demand' the Greens are included. Now obviously I'd like the Greens to be included, but to my mind, for Ed to demand the inclusions of the Greens, would actually be contradictory to point 2 above. Though he has saved Cameron's arse in the past, I see no reason why he should be obliged to do so! And in fact if he made a habit of it, we'd have further good cause to doubt our so called democracy.

I've also seen/heard people suggesting that the letter sent by Ed, Clegg, and Farrage proves that 'they are all the same' blah blah blah. Does this mean people want constantly adversarial politics? Isn't it better when people can find common ground? Cameron is wrong in this, I see no reason why we should castigate Ed, Clegg, or for that matter bloody Farrage for working together to point that out.

Finally, don't know if it's been linked to while I've been trying to compose this [interrupted by a conversation with youngest son about feminism] but I wondered what your thoughts are on Natalie's letter - http://www.itv.com/news/update/2015-01- ... inclusion/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For me, the important point is she isn't asking them to make any demands, just to indicate they are 'open to the inclusion of the Greens'.

Hi Tizme, good to have you back. Sorry about the pants third attempt to snatch Farm Terrace.

I'm pretty much in complete agreement with your understanding of the situation re the debates issue. I posted earlier on this - I really don't think any politician should be able to enforce decisions about who and how etc re the debates. Whilst I understand Natalie's position on seeking to be included (and I don't have any problems with the Greens being included) - I don't want to see any endorsement of Cameron's totally cynical games playing re this. He's just using the Greens - pure and simple.

Thanks. Agree that Cameron is just using the Greens. From our point of view, we have to make what we can out of that. If we had a 'mature' democracy, we might actually state the point of the debates which in turn would make it much easier to agree upon the format. Are the debates to inform people of ALL their options, are they to give a binary choice, are they purely entertainment, and so on.

[Tizme1]

Hi Tizme,

I believe it was a twitter related event, but Tubby knows more.

The allotment thing is bollocks, hope you can kick their second attempt into touch as well.

The thing with the Greens, and why Cameron is clever, is he suspects if they are allowed in the SNP and Plaid will pile in and render the whole thing hopeless. The best avenue for Bennett is to challenge Ofcom which would probably be enough to get it done (except Dave will find another excuse).

As for the rest Dave is slinging mud in the hope it fools a few people and everybody will give up.

Yes, it was, pretty much. Lots of accusations of "Red Tories" from her followers and some very disingenuous posts from both Caroline and Natalie; and, thank you for not making me a liar - I said last night you were far more nuanced than those we were crossing swords with, and you have proved to be exactly that. Welcome back.

Thanks GS. I've seen Tubby has replied so I'll check that in a moment. That was a very nice thing to say about me though - I do try to be fair but no doubt I fail miserably often enough!

[Tizme1]

I saw the comments yesterday that various 'nesters' were disgruntled with some comments by Caroline Lucas. I haven't seen the comments so wondered if anyone could provide a link? I'm not going to comment on them without seeing them. Once I have seen them, I can either defend them, or if I'm also unhappy with them, I can fire off an email to Natalie asking for further clarification!

Hi Tizme, it was a load of tweets yesterday.

Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · Jan 13
Final vote on an extra £30bn of cuts: 515 in favour, 18 against - clear signal that Labour has given up opposing austerity

Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · Jan 13
Painful to watch @UKLabour wriggling on the hook, unable to explain why they are not opposing cuts of £30bn - no consistency & no courage

Caroline Lucas @CarolineLucas · Jan 13
Sad to watch vast majority of Lab MPs troop thro lobby with Tories to back extra £30bn of cuts - "my heart is heavier than my bag" said one
0 replies . 736 retweets 224 favourites
Reply Retweet736 Favourite224
More

There was no vote on £30bn of cuts. No dates, no amounts of money. Balance on current spending.

She also retweeted similar from the SNP.

Osborne made vote a trap- if oppose- you're spendthrift; if support- Greens and SNP attack you.

IFS's Paul Johnson did article yesterday- Labour cuts approx £7bn.

In her defence, Balls did say a while ago no new borrowing for investment, but now talking about balance on current spending. And Public Finance has done the same.

Thanks Tubby. I'll check them out and come back to it if that's OK. I really can't say much without seeing the actual comments. I am wondering if its a 'differentiation' exercise though - bear in mind, that as Greens, we are against the whole Austerity argument. Please note, that's me thinking out loud as it were, without seeing the comments, as opposed to an official Green Party comment!

[Hobiejoe]

If Al Murray of the FUKP needs an agent ... Hobiejoe might be able to help out. 1p a pint - that's some pledge. I'm guessing it will be only in pubs.

Crikey, I'd be honoured! However....I think that our leader, The Guv, might be a little prone to what our American cousins refer to as "mis-speaking" (or as we call it "getting caught").

I am absolutely sure that he meant to say "1p a pint wholesale", for which I am entirely in favour. An uncharacteristic slip for such a sharp operator. Perhaps he has already been corrupted by the demands of the electoral process and added beer to the usual bread'n'circuses.

Should he be doing it though? Crikey. Well, yes, be-gods, UKIP desperately need some serious mocking, but, but, but. I don't know. Something niggles. I'm going to sleep on it, so