[Closed] Cameron and the Greens

Correct. Dave thinks he's being very clever, but it's like watching a 6 year old play chess

Edit: against other 6 year olds

yes

Sort of covered in here... http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/everyone-looking-forward-to-the-next-5-months-of-electioneering-then/page/3#post-6615630

yep, he wants to see labour suffer the way he has with ukippers

I have some sympathy with him actually. The Greens are, on parliamentary seats, a bigger party than UKIP, so why should they not be involved. They just aren't as shouty as Farage. Obviously, there is also a good amount of "if I'm getting kicked from the right, Labour can get kicked from the left".

[quote=lunge ]I have some sympathy with him actually. The Greens are, on parliamentary [s]seats[/s] votes, a bigger party than UKIP, so why should they not be involved. As are the SNP - and they're probably more of a threat to Labour.

The Greens are, on parliamentary seats, a bigger party than UKIP

sure about that?

sure about that?

There is some measure by which UKIP are smaller than The Greens, percentage of vote at the last election maybe? Not sure on that either.

Anyway, not sure why either of them are involved, Tories, Labour and possible Lib-Dems are all that is required in my eyes.

Surely the main purpose that n the smaller players is that they help show up short comings in the big parties.

Lunge: the number of party members, green outnumber UKIP but given both are around 40k, its irrelevant really.

The fact is that the greens are seen as a "viable" leftist party to steal votes from a weak, centrist, Labour party. But if anyone actually sat down and read the policies coming out of the green party, stuffed to the gills as hey are with unreconstructed marxists, nutjobs, greenham common left overs and the like, theyd realise how daft they are. Just as unimaginable in government as UKIP.

lunge, as stoner says, individual members - though poll wise, (yougov etc.) ukip are polling around 15%, Greens and Ldems around 7% each

Yes, it's the business of politics and winning elections which is the business Cameron is in.

I think he's actually in the 'lining his and his mates pockets' game, just that right now politics is his latest scam....

Its transparently cynical opportunism to make sure the televised debates never happen. He couldn't give a flying **** about the democratic rights of the green party. He wants to go head to head with Farage, like he wants to feed his own plums into a mincer. The Tory party have been doing everything in their power to ensure the debates never take place, right from the off. This is just the latest of many wheezes

The broadcasters should just carry on and out this in his place.....

[img] [/img]

dave sounds an alright guy to be fair. i ve a mate who by a set of coincidences is a cabinet minister and a more down to earth blokey bloke you wont meet. state school educated from the wrong side of a town thats far from been the right sort of town in the first place. he s certainly not eton educated or silver spooned nor is he some sort of former banker or lawyer in fact an ordinary guy and he swears by dave.. so thats ok by me.

Already asked, never answered - Why doesn't Ed just call Dave's bluff and welcome the Greens to the debate?

Stoner - Member
But if anyone actually sat down and read the policies coming out of the green party, stuffed to the gills as hey are with unreconstructed marxists, nutjobs, greenham common left overs and the like, theyd realise how daft they are. Just as unimaginable in government as UKIP.

For example...?

ninfan - Member

Already asked, never answered - Why doesn't Ed just call Dave's bluff and welcome the Greens to the debate?

because Ed is terrified that Natalie Bennett might talk enough sense to draw a few 10thousand votes from Labour.

good luck to her.

dave sounds an alright guy to be fair. i ve a mate who by a set of coincidences is a cabinet minister and a more down to earth blokey bloke you wont meet. state school educated from the wrong side of a town thats far from been the right sort of town in the first place. he s certainly not eton educated or silver spooned nor is he some sort of former banker or lawyer in fact an ordinary guy and he swears by dave.. so thats ok by me.

@binners I think an empty chair could potentially favour the Conservatives, Farage made mincemeat of Clegg last time they had a debate and he'll do the same to Milliband. I think the TV companies know a debate without Cameron is meaningless, they are trying to bluff that they will go ahead .

Stoner - Member
But if anyone actually sat down and read the policies coming out of the green party, stuffed to the gills as hey are with unreconstructed marxists, nutjobs, greenham common left overs and the like, theyd realise how daft they are. Just as unimaginable in government as UKIP.

At least they have a set of policies... http://policy.greenparty.org.uk

Rachel

[quote=Stoner said]
The fact is that the greens are seen as a "viable" leftist party to steal votes from a weak, centrist, Labour party. But if anyone actually sat down and read the policies coming out of the green party, stuffed to the gills as hey are with unreconstructed marxists, nutjobs, greenham common left overs and the like, theyd realise how daft they are. Just as unimaginable in government as UKIP.

Brave man Stoner 😆 The greens are the last bastion for the STW lefty collective.

Why doesn't Ed just call Dave's bluff and welcome the Greens to the debate?

Because its not up to Ed. Its the broadcasters decide who takes part. They've not invited the Greens. To be fair to Millibean, he doesn't have an issue with them taking part.

But what Dave (ever the opportunist) is doing is ridiculous. He knows full well that it is always the sitting PM/President who comes off worse in TV debates. Andrew Rawnsley explained it all in Sundays Observer, detailing Daves determination, right from the word go, that they simply weren't going to happen

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/tv-election-debate-wont-happen-david-cameron-determined ]Chances of a TV election debate? Choose between zilch and nada[/url]

Still sound like an ok bloke totalshell? Sounds like I complete and utter **** to me

ahwiles - you old cynic you, I thought it was just Ed protecting the editorial independence of the TV company, 'cause we all know how he's a dedicated supporter of press freedom 😉

Edit - Binners, I posted that 7 seconds after you put yours - yes, I'm relieved to see that I was right all along, nothing to do with what that nasty man ahwiles was thinking about him not wanting the Greens there because they might take some of his votes, entirely Ed's dedication to the TV companies right to choose who is there (though a few months ago Ed said that all the parties with parliamentary representation should be invited, he magically backed away from this position when UKIP got two MP's, what a strange coincidence...)

To be fair to Millibean, he doesn't have an issue with them taking part.

Then call Daves bluff and welcome them!

nope, he's afraid.

indeed Ive read it ATG.

A relentless wishlist of nannying law.
Some perfectly good I admit, but read it again and see not one single mention of how they want to fund huge amounts of giveaway social costs.

Im no fan of VAT, it's terribly regressive, but their policy to get rid of VAT has nothing in it to suggest how on earth they plug the £100bn (3rd biggest tax income in terms of receipts BTW) whole it would open up in the UK finances.

I can write a lovely long wishlist for santa too, but I think it's rude to do that and not tell my parents how much it's going to cost them 🙂

But for proper comedy value look at policies like:

"Support the right of workers to buy their firm as a co-op
(see under workers’ rights)"

"Oppose any measures forcing European countries to sell
off public assets and services, as has happened in Greece" = Grexit/Euro disintegration faster than you can say Deep Fried Haloumi.

"A directive on a European minimum income." Someone's been smoking the Brussels Toke too long if they believe single market means common living.

etc etc

Read each policy yourself, then think what the net cost will be to either government (i.e. YOU the tax payer, or even worse IMO, our children thanks to rampant borrowing) or the economy. Some are perfectly fine but rather than just nod and go "jolly nice policy, I like that" think just how on earth its going to be funded. Because unlike what a lot of people in here would love to believe, a tax on bankers bonuses is not going to get very far. Especially not since Labour have promised to spend it 4 times over already...

PR man cameron surely knows that he needs the greens there to attack labour and more importantly to let farige weigh in on the greens, theres no way hell be able to resist the urge of slagging off the telegraphs 2nd favourite nemisis- windfarms
meaning less time to talk about Europe and other frightening stuff that Daves terrified of

There's also the point of view that Dave might be trying to get the public to draw a parallel using the Greens' relative low media/public profile and similar parliamentary standing as UKIP to try and show UKIP up as what it actually is- a small marginal party that have as much integrity as a shed built from spit.

I do think the Greens could win over a lot of voters given a half decent chance to get some policies across though, which would be a good thing I reckon.

Joe Public knows CallmeDave doesn't give a toss about the greens.

The stance he's taking just adds "bullshitter" to the "bottler" tag.

SNP have more Westminster MP's than both the greens and the daily mail fan club put together. Get Eck in there against Nige,blood would flow.

What's the problem with Co-ops?

I agree it is a ploy by Cameron, but Green party now has more members than UKIP and is closing on the Liberal Democrats, so it does seem a bit odd to exclude them.

[img] [/img]

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/confirmed-green-party-has-more-members-than-ukip--eyzQAvJyig

How many Labour Party "members" are only there due to Union affiliation?

Some perfectly good I admit, but read it again and see not one single mention of how they want to fund huge amounts of giveaway social costs.

I see a vote for the Green party as a vote for [url= http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/core-values.html ]general principles[/url], rather than specific policies - they don't stand a chance of winning in my constituency, but every vote for them is a nudge to the Labour MP that some of her constituents would like her to nudge a little further to the left and that we quite like wind farms and bikes and polar bears. In the same way, I always considered a vote for the Lib Dems to be a vote against ID cards, the Iraq War, tuition fees and the like.

Stoner - i was with you right up to "...wont somebody please think of the children..."

#missquote.

The fact is that the greens are seen as a "viable" leftist party to steal votes from a weak, centrist, Labour party. But if anyone actually sat down and read the policies coming out of the green party, stuffed to the gills as hey are with unreconstructed marxists, nutjobs, greenham common left overs and the like, theyd realise how daft they are. Just as unimaginable in government as UKIP.

The broadcasters should just carry on and out this in his place....

Binners that chair is missing a turd

Ninfan and I say this every time you ask but Ed has said he will turn up and its up to the broadcasters who they invite. He is not the one ducking anything, telling them who to invite nor chickening out. He has accepted his invite without caveats unlike dave If you get invited to a debate you dont get to say who turns up. Only a tory thinks like you and the rest can see it for the pathetic diversion and spin it is.
Please digest this information to save my saying it over and over again.

well looks like camerons played this well
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30955379
greens, plaid cymru and snp all included

cant see many of the above snaffling any conservative votes, but plenty potential labour ones

it has the added bonus of making ukip seem like one of the 'others' again as it shows them up as a minority party, for example when u compare green and ukip memberships etc

tbh regardless of camerons motives, he is correct, all parties over a certain size should be represented.

now to get rid of fptp.....

ninfan - Member

lunge, as stoner says, individual members - though poll wise, (yougov etc.) ukip are polling around 15%, Greens and Ldems around 7% each

Yar, but unfortunately it doesn't really matter because of FPTP. Electoral Calculus are predicting UKIP with no seats and 15% of the votes, the SNP with 49 seats and 4.39% of the votes. Which kind of works for me but jesus christ. Just as well we stuck with the highly fair FPTP.

Northwind - Member
ninfan - Member
lunge, as stoner says, individual members - though poll wise, (yougov etc.) ukip are polling around 15%, Greens and Ldems around 7% each

Yar, but unfortunately it doesn't really matter because of FPTP. Electoral Calculus are predicting UKIP with no seats and 15% of the votes, the SNP with 49 seats and 4.39% of the votes. Which kind of works for me but jesus christ. Just as well we stuck with the highly fair FPTP.