Friday 6th March 2015

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 2:23 pm

'Dobson says Liverpool has had the second worst cuts of any council in the UK. Every person in the city has lost £252 in services. Yet Labour have voted with the government to back another £30bn in cuts, he says.'

Not that crock of shit downright lie again. Bravo Greens, you've done it again.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 2:28 pm

1.

I still think the best way to save the UK is for Labour to govern with SNP support

Maybe.

But, the SNP strategy for the last two decades has been to replace Labour in Scotland. At the moment this is being resisted by arguing 'if you vote SNP you will let the Tories in'. If Labour can be seen to govern with the support of the SNP that argument will be no more. The risk is that it makes the SNP's current predominance permanent.

I am not sure what Labour can do to resist the SNP surge. if you are Scottish, what would you vote for

(a) a leftwing party

or

(b) a leftwing party with added Scottish sectionalism?

I do know that it is arguable that the SNP are really rightwingers in leftwing clothing (see eg the deal with Trump) but that is a hard sell given the parties respective policy stances (eg Trident replacement).

2.

There is a big gap between the predictions of May2015, the Guardian, and the rest, on expected SNP seats.

http://may2015.com/category/seat-calculator/

I too find it hard to believe Scotland will return 50+ SNP MPs, 40 seems a more realistic maximum for the kind of reasons AK gives (but notice that only two outfits are predicting Labour to be largest party, electionsetc, and electoralcalculus who May2015 do not include in their survey

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html

This political studies prediction by 500 "experts" also gives the SNP far fewer than 50

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5Ik-g ... VnSlE/view

Gives Lab 282
Tory 278
Ukip 7
LD 25
SNP 29
Green 2

-where they are finding the second Green seat is a mystery to me. They'll do well to hold on to Lucas'.

The center of the spreads in the spreadbetting market tells a similar story

http://www.sportingindex.com/spread-bet ... ts-markets

as do the crossover points in the odds for individual seats

)

3. Grayling

An embarrassment to the office he holds. Here is a long piece explaining why the cuts to legal aid are barbaric (and why legal aid is not just another 'welfare state' cost).

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n21/frederick- ... r-ideology

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 2:33 pm

Labour releases attack ad over Cameron’s TV debate cowardice

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-re ... cowardice/

Whooooooooooooo

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 2:37 pm

Now that we know poorly people can't claim ESA again in 6 months (see above) these rules apply -

Jobseekers claiming JSA are not required to apply for zero-hour-contract jobs. They will not be sanctioned for failing to apply for such jobs.
They will not be sanctioned for failing to accept such jobs if offered.

Jobseekers claiming Universal Credit may not refuse a zero-hour-contract job without good reason and are subject to sanction if they do.
The only exception is when the jobseeker can provide evidence that the ZHC is exclusive.

The same rules apply to ESA WRAG claimants.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 2:47 pm

ephemerid wrote:Now that we know poorly people can't claim ESA again in 6 months (see above) these rules apply -

Jobseekers claiming JSA are not required to apply for zero-hour-contract jobs. They will not be sanctioned for failing to apply for such jobs.
They will not be sanctioned for failing to accept such jobs if offered.

Jobseekers claiming Universal Credit may not refuse a zero-hour-contract job without good reason and are subject to sanction if they do.
The only exception is when the jobseeker can provide evidence that the ZHC is exclusive.

The same rules apply to ESA WRAG claimants.

The only exception is when the jobseeker can provide evidence that the ZHC is exclusive.

That's an onerous stipulation for anyone to comply with.
Many ZHC's are informal.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 2:54 pm

How many extra votes is this expected to get?

David Cameron backs repeal of ban on hunting with dogs

http://gu.com/p/46d5v" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:07 pm

Cameron found missing from MPs' election leaflets after Miliband jibe
UK prime minister suggested Labour MPs did not want to be pictured with party leader, but some Tories’ campaign material lacks his photo, too

h[url]ttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/0 ... are_btn_tw[/url]

Cheeky buggers!

The fourth leaflet down. Which party would you say it represented?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:10 pm

citizenJA wrote:
ephemerid wrote:Now that we know poorly people can't claim ESA again in 6 months (see above) these rules apply -

Jobseekers claiming JSA are not required to apply for zero-hour-contract jobs. They will not be sanctioned for failing to apply for such jobs.
They will not be sanctioned for failing to accept such jobs if offered.

Jobseekers claiming Universal Credit may not refuse a zero-hour-contract job without good reason and are subject to sanction if they do.
The only exception is when the jobseeker can provide evidence that the ZHC is exclusive.

The same rules apply to ESA WRAG claimants.
The only exception is when the jobseeker can provide evidence that the ZHC is exclusive.

That's an onerous stipulation for anyone to comply with.
Many ZHC's are informal.

It is onerous.

It's also carte blanche for employers (again) who can basically offer any work under pretty much any conditions.
There are hundreds of "jobs" on Universal Jobmatch like this.

These often informal "on-call" arrangements are not always put in writing, and I doubt many companies would admit to exclusivity even when they offer a written contract; there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from fast-food companies etc. to support the idea that people are informally exclusive, ie. they don't get work unless they stand by for the work and don't do anything else.

Don't forget - UC is being rolled out nationally (Ha Ha) for all "straightforward" claims.
These are usually the single/no dependents/no HB/no complications claimants - who generally don't claim for long.
They are more likely to find work quickly, and the figures show they are thus more likely to work in care, retail, food, or other areas where these contracts are so common.

If the adviser mandates someone to apply for a ZHC at Macdonalds or Asda, they will have to do so or be sanctioned on UC.
The UC Claimant Commitment also has an undertaking to use UJM for jobsearching, so the chances of being mandated to apply for a ZHC are getting more likely the more UC is rolled out.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:11 pm

What did IDS say was the absolutelydefinitivecastironguaranteed timetable (exceptwe'llgoslowlyandtestcarefullyeverystepoftheway) for the nationwide roll-out of Universal Credit that is now underway?

From 'Home life' (Wandsworth Council's housing newletter, Issue66, March 2015):

Wandsworth Roll Out

The roll out will be undertaken in stages. It has been confirmed that Wandsworth Job Centre Plus will be included in the first stage, with a start date due to be between February and April 2015.

Once stage one is complete universal credit will be available at one in three job centres across the UK, with more job centres to roll-out in subsequent stages until national expansion is complete in spring 2016.

I'll keep an ear out, around the area, for people's experiences as they sign on for UC instead of JCA but I haven't heard of anyone, yet.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:14 pm

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 hr1 hour ago

A 7-sided TV debate as proposed by Cameron could go ahead: ITV said to be considering “breaking ranks” with BBC/SKY http://bit.ly/1zUp1ew

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:17 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 hr1 hour ago

A 7-sided TV debate as proposed by Cameron could go ahead: ITV said to be considering “breaking ranks” with BBC/SKY http://bit.ly/1zUp1ew

Am I missing something? If this was supposed to be a group debate, what difference does this make? Cameron can still be empty chaired in the others?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:18 pm

Worse than Rwanda: life prospects in Britain’s poorest areas
The 18-year gap in active lifespan between richest and poorest in modern Britain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... areas.html

Fucking disgraceful

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:22 pm

More on ESA........and Maximus.

If you are a person with a job, but have to go off sick for a while with something that lasts for some time (eg. cancer or a fracture, say) you have to supply medical certificates for the duration.
The new Health and Work Service (run by a subsidiary of Maximus) is contracted to help employers get you back to work. The HWS rings you at home and discusses your return to work.
If HWS decides you should go back to work, irrespective of the view of your GP or consultant, the employer is within his rights to sack you if you do not comply.

If you have cancer, and your treatment is likely to leave you unable to work for several months but your employer wants to keep your job open for you, he can do so and not involve HWS.
However, if your Statutory Sick Pay runs out before you can go back to work, you are entitled to claim ESA. As long as you provide certification, you're OK for the first 12 weeks.
After that, you get the WCA to determine entitlement after week 13. This is now done by Maximus.

If you get a WRAG allocation, you must comply with the jobsearch conditionality - even though you already have a job.

There have been several cases recently in which people with serious illness, but who are expected to make a full recovery in time, have jobs to go back to but are claiming ESA temporarily because their SSP has run out, have been sanctioned for failing to comply with work-related activity.

So if you are ill, too ill to work, but actually have a job, you have to look for another one if you need to claim ESA for a while.
Even if you provide proof that your job is waiting for you, you have to engage with work-related activity or else.

It's mad.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:38 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 hr1 hour ago

A 7-sided TV debate as proposed by Cameron could go ahead: ITV said to be considering “breaking ranks” with BBC/SKY http://bit.ly/1zUp1ew

Michael Crick has apparently tweeted that this isn't true and the broadcasters will be issuing a joint statement "soon". The plot thickens.......

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:40 pm

LadyCentauria wrote:What did IDS say was the absolutelydefinitivecastironguaranteed timetable (exceptwe'llgoslowlyandtestcarefullyeverystepoftheway) for the nationwide roll-out of Universal Credit that is now underway?

From 'Home life' (Wandsworth Council's housing newletter, Issue66, March 2015):

Wandsworth Roll Out

The roll out will be undertaken in stages. It has been confirmed that Wandsworth Job Centre Plus will be included in the first stage, with a start date due to be between February and April 2015.

Once stage one is complete universal credit will be available at one in three job centres across the UK, with more job centres to roll-out in subsequent stages until national expansion is complete in spring 2016.
I'll keep an ear out, around the area, for people's experiences as they sign on for UC instead of JCA but I haven't heard of anyone, yet.

That's pretty much the timetable for most places.

It assumes that the majority of new JSA claims will be UC in about a year's time - I doubt that will happen. If Labour win in May, there may be a halt to the whole thing (I hope so) while Reeves decides if she can "rescue" it.

Just suppose it all carries on - there is a natural "churn" of JSA claimants; 80% of new claimants find work within 6 months. That's about 2 million people most years. They will all go on to UC.
They are the ones who will be most likely to be forced to apply for low-paid or ZHC work; however many hours they do, if it's less than 35, they will still have jobsearch conditions, and in some cases if they work 35 hours they may still have those conditions if their pay is very low - all of which are subject to sanction.

As things are, any JSA claimant who is still claiming after 6 months can expect two sanctions before the year is out. The 3-year rate has increased tenfold and the 5-year rate has doubled - this is mainly due to the Work Programme, which so far has had more than 1.5 million on it and more than half of those still don't have work after the full 2 years. 500,000 of them have been sanctioned.

What is already a very punitive system is being ramped up a notch or several under UC. If it ever gets rolled out to people who claim ESA, Income Support, Carers Allowance, and all those currently on tax credits and/or HB, between 7 and 9 million people will be brought into the work programme system and the sanctions regime.

It's not just UC that needs a pause - it's the whole system.

As engineers everywhere say - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It wasn't broke. It fucking well is now.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 3:54 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 hr1 hour ago

A 7-sided TV debate as proposed by Cameron could go ahead: ITV said to be considering “breaking ranks” with BBC/SKY http://bit.ly/1zUp1ew
Michael Crick has apparently tweeted that this isn't true and the broadcasters will be issuing a joint statement "soon". The plot thickens.......

Thanks AK.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:04 pm

Breaking news on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .

Edited to remove an extra "n"

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:05 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB 1 hr1 hour ago

A 7-sided TV debate as proposed by Cameron could go ahead: ITV said to be considering “breaking ranks” with BBC/SKY http://bit.ly/1zUp1ew

BBC reporting now that all four broadcasters have just issued a statement that they plan to go ahead with the three scheduled debates exactly as proposed with exactly the same people invited. It is up to the parties to decide whether they take part but not to decide whether or not the planned debates happen.

Edit: Snap PF!

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:10 pm

Ha ! stitch that ya fat ham faced fecker

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:12 pm

PorFavor wrote:Breaking news on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .

Edited to remove an extra "n"

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:13 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Breaking nnews on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .
Ha!

He'll do them then. He has to.

He's got nnnnnno choice, really, has he?

(Thanks for preserving my immortal prose. Are you after PaulfromYorkshire's title?)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:15 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Breaking nnews on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .
Ha!

He'll do them then. He has to.

Well yeah, though I suspect even now Crosby will be advising him not to attend and try to tough it out by posing as an above the fray "statesman"

What is now surely clear to everybody is that the team around Dave have played this abysmally. If the PM had said at the start of the year (say) that he wasn't doing them come what may, he would have taken a hit but it might just have been containable. Not much chance of that now......

(after a week's break, my election review is up at the usual place btw

)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:18 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Ha ! stitch that ya fat ham faced fecker

Did you see this Toby?

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-re ... cowardice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:19 pm

All that expensive education & training as a PR man (at television of all places) and he still manages to paint himself into a corner. he's going to look a right old stupid tw*t now if he comes scuttling back after trying to look hard & controlling with his 'final offer' & sending the lying buffoon Shapps out to all who would listen to him bleating on about how it was the broadcasters fault yada yada.

On the other hand if the broadcasters empty chair him he will still look a fool. he's toast either way.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:20 pm

PorFavor wrote:Breaking news on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:21 pm

The debate fiasco just highlights what a crap negotiator hamface is.

He has to be the worst I've seen in a top job for a long while (apart from Ed Woodward that is - AK knows who I'm talking about)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:21 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Breaking nnews on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .
Ha!

He'll do them then. He has to.
Well yeah, though I suspect even now Crosby will be advising him not to attend and try to tough it out by posing as an above the fray "statesman"

What is now surely clear to everybody is that the team around Dave have played this abysmally. If the PM had said at the start of the year (say) that he wasn't doing them come what may, he would have taken a hit but it might just have been containable. Not much chance of that now......

(after a week's break, my election review is up at the usual place btw )

Indeed. And as I said yesterday, if he won't deign to turn up and tries to demean the other participants on the "No show without Punch" basis, he'll just come across as even more arrogant than usual. (Hard to imagine that that's possible I know, but true nonetheless, I believe.)

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:23 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
PorFavor wrote:Breaking nnews on the BBC -

The debates will go ahead as planned. Over to you, Dave . . .
Ha!

He'll do them then. He has to.
Well yeah, though I suspect even now Crosby will be advising him not to attend and try to tough it out by posing as an above the fray "statesman"

What is now surely clear to everybody is that the team around Dave have played this abysmally. If the PM had said at the start of the year (say) that he wasn't doing them come what may, he would have taken a hit but it might just have been containable. Not much chance of that now......

(after a week's break, my election review is up at the usual place btw )

Ages ago I read that Crosby was going to have a job reining Dave and Osborne in; they were headstrong and liked to go their own way. I reckon right about now he - Crosby, is tearing his hair out.

The short film Labour have put together showing Dave's countless contradictions over debating, is a classic.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:24 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:All that expensive education & training as a PR man (at television of all places) and he still manages to paint himself into a corner. he's going to look a right old stupid tw*t now if he comes scuttling back after trying to look hard & controlling with his 'final offer' & sending the lying buffoon Shapps out to all who would listen to him bleating on about how it was the broadcasters fault yada yada.

On the other hand if the broadcasters empty chair him he will still look a fool. he's toast either way.

Never forget that his PR career at Carlton was mainly involved with the ITVDigital fiasco that effectively destroyed Carlton TV.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:24 pm

So, turn up with his tail between his legs acting weak, or not turn up and appear aloof?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:24 pm

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:25 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Toby Latimer wrote:Ha ! stitch that ya fat ham faced fecker

Did you see this Toby?

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-re ... cowardice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ta for that ohso, I hadn't seen it, i think there was a brief clip on one of the news progs earlier. Been taking a bit of a back seat for a couple of days to recharge the old grey matter and put the black dog back in it's kennel.

I need to do this periodically, this politics malarkey is enough to drive one up the wall otherwise.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:28 pm

Here's the letter from the broadcasters to Craig Oliver:

Dear Craig

Thank you for your letter of 4th March.

We are responding as the broadcasters' group and as you released your letter to the press we will be making this response public too.

The broadcasters have over the past six months worked hard to ensure that our viewers have the opportunity to watch election debates in 2015. We have done so in an independent, impartial manner, treating invited parties on an equitable basis. We have listened to the views expressed by all parties and, as we promised from the outset, have kept evidence about electoral support, public attitudes to the debates and appropriate participation under review.

The debates were enormously well received by 22 million viewers in 2010 and our research has shown that there is a public desire and a public expectation for debates in 2015.

We have consistently set out our intention to hold three debates during the unusually long formal election campaign period -- 30th March to 7th May 2015. We spaced the planned debates two weeks apart, twice the length of time between debates as compared to 2010. The dates -- 2nd April, 16th April and 30th April -- were first published in October 2014 and have not been changed.

We believe that the formal election period is the right time to hold election debates. It is the point at which the parties have published their election manifestos and the point at which the electorate as a whole is most engaged with discussion of election issues and the public debate about the future of the country.

In October we proposed one head-to-head debate between the two leaders who could realistically become Prime Minister and two debates between more parties. We listened to all parties' views on the proposals -- both those initially invited and others -- and we reviewed the developing evidence on electoral support and public attitudes to the debates. In discussions the Conservatives argued for a more inclusive set of debates and in particular called for the inclusion of the Greens. We listened to that argument and to others expressed by other parties and by members of the public. We considered evidence of increased electoral support for some parties -- notably the SNP and to some degree the Greens -- and looked at some evidence that there was public support for a more inclusive format in the debates.

Taking into account all these factors, we made a decision to adjust our proposal to make it even more inclusive -- keeping the two party head-to-head debate but expanding the two multi-party debates to include all the main choices available to voters in England, Wales and Scotland. The parties included were: Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens.

Separately, it was confirmed that BBC Northern Ireland and UTV were planning debates including all the five separate major parties in Northern Ireland -- DUP, Sinn Fein, UUP, SDLP and the Alliance Party.

The two sets of debates would enable all voters in the United Kingdom to see debates with the leaders of the main choices they were able to vote for.

We noted the Conservatives' initial welcoming tone for our amended proposal.

On the basis of this proposal -- first tabled in October -- and amended to take into account changing facts and input from parties, notably including the Conservatives, we have conducted numerous meetings and conversations with representatives of all parties invited. These have taken place in an organised manner, following clear agendas and in a generally good atmosphere.

We have listened to the views of all parties as we've framed the rules for the 2015 debates. The draft rules which all parties have been given are based on the 2010 rules, amended for the changed circumstances of 2015 and in particular the potential participation of seven parties.

The plan -- as you know -- for the multi-party debates has been for two 2 hour debates, allowing sufficient time across the two programmes for all seven leaders to participate in a full discussion on a good range of the really big issues facing the country at this election. The leaders would have the opportunity to address questions posed by the studio audience. The format would allow them to give an uninterrupted answer to the question and then would open up the debate to a moderated discussion between the leaders for up to around 17 to 18 minutes on each question. We think this format, over the course of the two multi-party debates, will allow a proper discussion across a good range of subjects. It does, however, require two debates and a substantial allocation of time to each programme.

Once we have received any further comments from the parties on our draft detailed arrangements we will publish the arrangements as we did in 2010.

This process has all happened in a very orderly manner and we're grateful to representatives of all the parties who've engaged constructively with us.

On 4th March you wrote to us tabling an idea that you had not raised in the previous six months of discussions.

There are elements of it which we welcome and elements which we don't believe have been fully thought through.

The Conservative Party proposal -- as we understand it -- is for:
• One debate
• 90 minutes in duration
• Involving seven parties
• The DUP should be allowed to make its case to be included
• It should take place in the week of 23rd March
The letter makes no mention of the head-to-head debate which we had previously understood the Conservatives were in favour of.

We believe the proposal for just one debate of 90 minutes duration is insufficient to cover the main election issues with seven participants. Our 2 x 2 hour debates format will allow all seven leaders sufficient time to discuss properly a good range of the main election issues. One 90 minute debate with seven leaders would inevitably lead to much less ground being covered, with much shorter contributions from all involved.

We welcome the fact that the Conservatives propose the same seven parties included in our plans. We have included all the main parties available as choices to all voters in England, Scotland and Wales.

We note that you say the DUP should be allowed to make its case to be included. We have already considered the DUP's case very thoroughly. We have responded to the DUP saying that we do not believe there is any obligation on us to invite the DUP or any other Northern Ireland party to take part. It would be unfair and partial to invite the DUP and not the other four major parties in Northern Ireland. We believe voters in Northern Ireland will be well served by the BBC Northern Ireland and UTV debates. The party systems in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain are different and our debates plan reflects that.

We welcome the fact that you have for the first time in six months indicated a seven day period in which the Conservatives would definitely join a debate.

We have given your proposal serious consideration but we don't think it achieves the goal of providing our viewers with election debates that can properly explore a reasonably full range of issues.

We do, however, welcome the positive elements of your letter.

In light of that we propose the following:

We will continue to plan for the three TV debates on 2nd April, 16th April and 30th April as discussed extensively with all parties.

Sky and Channel 4 have already said they are prepared to host the two party debate on a different date if the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties can agree. Failing that the broadcaster preparations will continue for 30th April.

The ITV debate on 2nd April and the BBC debate on 16th April will be produced and broadcast as planned. They will both be scheduled for 2 hours in peak time starting at 8pm.

The debate on 2nd April is just four days later than the period in which you have expressed a desire to debate and is more than a month before the election.

We very much hope that all invited leaders will participate in the broadcast debates. However, in the end all we can do -- as impartial public service broadcasters -- is to provide a fair forum for debates to take place. It will always remain the decision of individual leaders whether or not to take part.

The debates will go ahead and we anticipate millions of viewers will find them valuable as they did in 2010. Our invitations will remain open to all the invited leaders right up to broadcast. We'll set no deadlines for final responses. We very much hope all the leaders will participate.

The Heads of News of all four broadcasters would welcome the opportunity to meet Mr Cameron, or his representative, to discuss the debates.

Yours sincerely,

Sue Inglish (BBC)
Michael Jermey (ITV)
Dorothy Byrne (Channel 4)
Jonathan Levy (Sky)

(my bold)

So, empty chair threat is real

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:30 pm

Where does this leave his beloved 'logjam' clearing excersise ? I demand to be told !

I don't pay my taxes to be suffering endless logjams at the behest of the broadcasters.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:32 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
Toby Latimer wrote:Ha ! stitch that ya fat ham faced fecker

Did you see this Toby?

http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-re ... cowardice/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ta for that ohso, I hadn't seen it, i think there was a brief clip on one of the news progs earlier. Been taking a bit of a back seat for a couple of days to recharge the old grey matter and put the black dog back in it's kennel.

I need to do this periodically, this politics malarkey is enough to drive one up the wall otherwise.

That sounds sensible.
I don't get the pooch on my shoulder too often these days thank goodness, but when I do a complete switch off for a few days helps no end.

I'm getting increasing levels of panic at the thought of what might happen in May.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:33 pm

'Sky and Channel 4 have already said they are prepared to host the two party debate on a different date if the leaders of the Conservative and Labour parties can agree. Failing that the broadcaster preparations will continue for 30th April.'

Hmm, the 1v1 leadership debate needs to be after the manifestos have been published (and away from the budget). If Cameron says yes and asks for a change of date is this reducing the benefit? Yes I realise I'm searching for flies in ointment.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:34 pm

Pinched from pk1's post, above -

This process has all happened in a very orderly manner and we're grateful to representatives of all the parties who've engaged constructively with us.

On 4th March you wrote to us tabling an idea that you had not raised in the previous six months of discussions.

There are elements of it which we welcome and elements which we don't believe have been fully thought through.

Ouch. Still, nice to see the Conservatives are being consistent on the not fully thought through front. I like people to be reliable.

(Thanks pk1.)

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:35 pm

CPS says the founder and former principal of the Bradford's Kings Science Academy, Sajid Raza, has been charged with fraud.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:38 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Where does this leave his beloved 'logjam' clearing excersise ? I demand to be told !

I don't pay my taxes to be suffering endless logjams at the behest of the broadcasters.

Can we have the Monty Python "Lumberjack" song? Seems appropriate.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:38 pm

Oh, and Norman Smith, John Piennar and all you political commentators that said Cameron would get his way. Choke on that.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:42 pm

We are responding as the broadcasters' group and as you released your letter to the press we will be making this response public too.

Possibly my favourite line.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:46 pm

I take my hat off to the broadcasters - well done all!

Craig Oliver's snide little missive clearly cut no ice with them - and Cameron's pratting about has caused all of this.

Good.

Now we will see what transpires - I still think he'll agree to something or other then find a last-minute excuse by manufacturing a national emergency that only his attendance at a COBRA meeting can possibly solve.......

Whatever.

Anyone fancy a game of Call My Bluff?

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:50 pm

PorFavor wrote:
Toby Latimer wrote:Where does this leave his beloved 'logjam' clearing excersise ? I demand to be told !

I don't pay my taxes to be suffering endless logjams at the behest of the broadcasters.
Can we have the Monty Python "Lumberjack" song? Seems appropriate.

No.

Cameron will be far too busy to put on women's clothing and hang around in bars.

He will be shitting himself.

If there is a log-jam in that department, I will volunteer to assist.

My Sister Tutor always recommended a Soap-and -Water enema, thus: "High, Hot, and a Helluva Lot"

I'm ready when you are, Dave!

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:52 pm

Would Dave do the debate if they gave him some fish to point at?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:52 pm

Craig Oliver has written back basically stating Dave will do the 7-way debate only as outlined the other day.

Ah well, let him be shown up for the twat he is #shrug

edit to add:

Tom Newton Dunn ‏@tnewtondunn 2m2 minutes ago
Breaking: No10 also stands firm on debates. Craig Oliver says broadcasters' response "disappointing",and will only talk about March 23 offer

Toby Latimer · Post by **Toby Latimer** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:53 pm

Stupid Boy

: image-1-for-editorial-pics-15th-june-2011-gallery-731844499.jpg (79.38 KiB) Viewed 12931 times

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 4:56 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
We are responding as the broadcasters' group and as you released your letter to the press we will be making this response public too.
Possibly my favourite line.

Mine too. I said ouch when I read it. Talk about iron fist in a velvet glove.

LadyCentauria · Post by **LadyCentauria** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 5:01 pm

Toby Latimer wrote:Where does this leave his beloved 'logjam' clearing excersise ? I demand to be told !

I don't pay my taxes to be suffering endless logjams at the behest of the broadcasters.

The poor man wasted all those months eating boiled eggs and suchlike in order to create his logjam and then had to take that horrid-tasting medicine – and spend hours in the loo – to eventually clear his logjam. Must have been so painful for him, poor little lamb. He though he'd found a sure-fire way to avoid his enema

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 5:02 pm

Have we had this one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH0ERUg ... freload=10

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Fri 06 Mar, 2015 5:04 pm

Lucas is searching for stardust.

In her address, former leader Ms Lucas will say the Green Party should join forces with the SNP in the next Parliament to maximise their influence on the next government.

"With the rise of the SNP, and with our own Green surge, we have the chance to forge a new grouping in Parliament. A progressive alliance.

That's the local government nationalizing, council tax freezing, SNP.