Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Don't be like that Fred.

Robbed from across the road.


http://labourlist.org/2015/03/labour-releases-attack-ad-over-camerons-tv-debate-cowardice/

David Cameron gets his bluff called big time!

From: http://news.sky.com/story/1440135/tv-election-debates-letter-to-pms-media-boss

TV Election Debates: Letter To PM's Media Boss
Read the letter broadcasters have sent to Downing Street about the Prime Minister's involvement in election TV debates.
20:16, UK, Friday 06 March 2015
Craig Oliver Downing Street Communications Director


Craig Oliver is the Prime Minister's communications director

The letter to David Cameron's director of communications from Sky, BBC, ITV and Channel 4 reads as follows:

Letter From 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)

Fred1new Send an email to Fred1new View Fred1new's profile - 06 Mar 2015 17:12 - 57328 of 57335

JB<

Chose your words more carefully!

Many stupid situations start from the use of inflammatory words.
---------------------

Your dead right Fred , you should be less insulting.

Max,

Thanks for posting BBC debate proposals letter.

I would think the majority of the interested potential voters viewers would see it as reasonable.

Certainly, Crosby, Cameron and crew have cornered themselves.

I don't know if an empty chair would be less informative than Cameron, but at least it would be honest.

-----------

Interesting how the said "lost" paedophile files of the 1980s are turning up.

Maybe what is causing Dodgy Dave his problem in Scotland is his his slippery proposals on the eve of the Referendum Vote and "apparent" reneging on them subsequently by muddying the waters with other "devolutionary" policies (ready for u-turning on).

He probably thought he was causing problems for Labour in Scotland, but didn't realise how the "leftist" backlash would reflect back on his "chances".

It begins to look more and more like a Cameron retreat to his bunker and blaming all around him for his own failings.

Ukip on track for 100-plus second places across England

Analysis predicts huge breakthrough as Nigel Farage provides main threat to three parties

Toby Helm

Saturday 7 March 2015 17.00 GMT






Ukip is on course to come second in at least 100 seats at the general election as it displaces the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems as the main opposition across large parts of the country, according to new analysis of the party’s electoral prospects on 7 May.

The extraordinary potential haul of Ukip “silver medals” – in an addition to a likely tally of half-a-dozen or so seats at Westminster – would represent a massive breakthrough for Nigel Farage’s anti-EU party, which failed to achieve even a single second place in 2010.

The analysis, conducted by Robert Ford at the University of Manchester for the Observer, suggests that the biggest threat to the established parties from Ukip will come in future local and national elections after May, once it has put down local roots and established itself in the minds of voters as a real alternative to the incumbent party.




It also means that the future of the UK in the EU – normally not a top issue on the doorsteps – will become far more central to election debates, as Ukip candidates press the case for the country to quit the EU and apply pressure for an in/out referendum.

Examining Ukip’s strength, as well as byelections in this parliament, Ford concludes that Farage’s party will pile up “silver medals” across industrial and urban regions in the north, as well in parts of the Midlands, the south east and East Anglia and the south west.


The party is polling at between 10% and 15% in most polls. In today’s Opinium/Observer poll it is on 14%.

“At a conservative estimate, there look like being 70 to 100 Ukip silver medals at the election and it could well be more,” said Ford, who co-authored a book on the rise of Ukip – Revolt on the Right – with fellow don Matthew Goodwin..



More: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/mar/07/ukip-100-second-places-may-election-nigel-farage

i see the age old stunt of making a giveaway budget just before an election is making a reappearnce

however, i'm certainly glad to see a clampdown on major companies moving their income/profits offshore to avoid tax
how effective (watertight) that proves to be is very much open to question for it's a age-old truism that the more complex (embracing) the tax system is made, the more loopholes are created

meanwhile, philip green is all set to offload BHS which will give him yet another shipload of tax-free dosh
hmm!

Good God Manuel,

You are improving.

Why wasn't this done under Maggie Thatcher and this government?

On a lighter note have a look at this video from the past Welsh humour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phOjW5KLC9w

Might bring back memories.

fred - it will amaze you but slightly that i have my own brain that i regularly engage :-)

Vote green, you know it makes sense!



Rodents to be given human rights under Green Party plans

Environmentalist party will also propose creating a fleet of hospital ships to serve the developing world, cutting the size of National Lottery prizes and banning the Grand National




Green party members also propose a ban on commercial horse and dog racing Photo: PAUL ELLIS/AFP



Matthew Holehouse
By Matthew Holehouse, Political Correspondent

1:54PM GMT 07 Mar 2015



Animals would be protected under human rights laws and new taxes imposed on nappies under plans to be considered by the Green Party.


The insurgent environmentalist party, which hopes to hold the balance of power after the General Election by winning up to ten seats, will also propose creating a fleet of hospital ships to serve the developing world, cutting the size of National Lottery prizes and banning the Grand National.


The policies, set to become official policy during a series of debates on Saturday, underline the radical ambitions of Britain’s fastest-growing political movement, which now has 55,000 members – more than the Liberal Democrats or Ukip.


Natalie Bennett, the party leader, this weekend heralded a “peaceful political revolution” at the General Election.


Her party plans to form an alliance with the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru to force a minority Labour government to spend billions of pounds a year more on welfare and abandon the Trident nuclear deterrence.


She sought to outflank Ed Miliband from the left with a lengthy denunciation of tax avoidance, foodbanks and low pay.

In a sign of the party’s growing appeal, Lily Cole, the Cambridge graduate and model, will on Sunday night appear alongside Ms Bennett during a panel debate on “Latin American experiments in direct democracy.”

The proposed policies come on top of the party's existing platform of legalising hard drugs and brothels, placing new restrictions on advertising and air travel, imposing taxes on large presents and pop stars and cutting economic growth to zero in order to protect the planet.



More greeny bollox here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/green-party/11456572/Rodents-to-be-given-human-rights-under-Green-Party-plans.html

Try a lower gear when you are having difficulties.

Max,

Have a look at some of the other green policies.

Some make sense.

But remember Dodgy Dave's "HUG a HUSKY"

=-===-=-

Also have a look at the KIPPER party said stance and policies on NHS, IMMIGRATION NUMBERS, etc., which now seems to have crashed .

All parties have they “lunatic” fringe and UKIP attracts more than most.

============
What I am getting fed up with is the persistent question of “would labour form a coalition government with the SNP?”.

Of course they would to get into control of government.

If necessary to govern, would they accept an alliance if not a coalition with SNP and Lib/Dems?

Yes.

Would they use the period to push through reforms of House of Lords, boundaries, representational voting and Political Funding?
Maybe.

Would both parties, if not in power do their best to vote down a now “dysfunctional” tory party?
Yes, of course they would.

Personally, and I may be completely wrong, but I see SNP party and its voters, having very similar core values to Labour supporters, with the exception of the "belief" in "Political Independence for Scotland".
Also, I think that many of their "said" voting support are reacting against tory party’s ideology of "austerity" and the apparent closeness of labour with the torrids during the Referendum.

I haven't been to Scotland for a number of years, but when I did wander around with the Scottish "branch" of the family, I notice the same "social" poverty that I saw in parts of the North of England and South Wales.

That is what I think many maybe voting against, rather than "for" in the G.E..

===-=-=-=-=-

PS.

I doubt that Labour or Lib/Dems would want another election close to the one in May because of the Coffers being empty.

Not sure about SNP's funding, but the tories would mind they would ask for a little the country's tax donations they have already paid to the "backers".

Brain dead! What sort of lunacy would it be to have a coalition with a party intent on their country becoming Independent of GB?

How many reports are being hidden or suppressed by the present government.

The Paedophile files?

-------

The report by Lord Rose and the Lansley reforms of the NHS, which even the Chair of the Health Select Committee Dr Wollaston said be should be published are being suppressed.

I suppose Jeremy Hunt is living up to the standards which one has become use to from Cameron.

Cover up the ineptitudes.

I hope Labour has enough sense to make a "little" list and put them on hoardings in the last few weeks of the elections.
---==-=-

Interesting report "a recent report" by independent think tank the King's Fund said that the Lansley over haul left structures so "complex, confusing and bureaucratic" that the organisation of the service "is not fit for purpose".

How much did the government waste due its mistaken ideology?

Caroline Flint refuses to rule out SNP pact
12:53Sunday 08 March 2015
8
HAVE YOUR SAY
THE SCOTTISH National Party is not the “social conscience” of Labour, shadow energy secretary Caroline Flint has said.

But she refused to rule out a coalition after the election, in which Labour is widely predicted to lose many of its Scottish seats to the SNP.


Ed Miliband and other senior figures within the party have come under increasing pressure to end speculation a pact may be on the cards.
The Prime Minister has said the Labour leader should explicitly rule out a deal with the SNP “if he cares about this country”.

David Cameron’s remarks followed a suggestion by former Tory chairman Lord Baker that a grand coalition between the Conservatives and Labour may be necessary to avoid the SNP holding the balance of power at Westminster.

Today Ms Flint said her party would take no lectures from the SNP about how it could “somehow be more progressive then Labour”.

She told The Andrew Marr Show: “We are focused on winning a Labour majority government. Let me say this. We do not want, we do not need and we do not plan to have any coalition with the SNP.
“There is going to be a choice at this election between who will sit in Number 10. It is a choice between Labour or the Conservatives forming a majority government.

“Every vote that is cast for the SNP makes it more likely that David Cameron will retain the keys to Number 10.

“The SNP is not the social conscience of the Labour party. They might like to see themselves like that but they are not.

“We are the party that will repeal the bedroom tax, we will raise the minimum wage, we will freeze energy prices, a policy the SNP do not support, and we are a party based on our record over 100 years of supporting social justice and success for working people.

“We are the party of the NHS. We are the party of the minimum wage and we are the party of equality. We are not going to take any lectures from the SNP about how they can somehow be more progressive than Labour. That is just not the case.”
Nicola Sturgeon’s party has benefited from a poll surge in recent months which could see them make massive gains in Scotland, potentially casting her as kingmaker following May 7.

The SNP leader has ruled out supporting a Tory government and said it was “unlikely” the SNP would enter a formal coalition with Labour in the event of a hung parliament, but indicated her MPs could work with Mr Miliband’s party on an “issue-by-issue basis”.

Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman said her party did not want to go into coalition with anybody, but she too failed to rule out a deal with the SNP.

She told Sky News’ Murnaghan: “It’s not a sensible question ... The question is put forward by two sides.

“It is put forward by the Tories who want to talk up the SNP because they don’t think they can talk up their own record.

“It is put forward by the SNP because they know people in Scotland hate the Tories quite justifiably. The only way to protect people in Scotland from another Tory Government is not to vote SNP but to vote Labour.

“We are planning and working towards a majority.”
9 comments

Labour must enjoy being in opposition. By refusing to rule out any form of pact with the SNP they are sealing their fate of another 5 years in opposition.


Nation of Drunks. That's not how it works. In a hung parliament the sitting PM gets first chance to form a government. That government can only continue if it wins a Vote of Confidence. If it cannot then Her Maj sends for the Leader of the Opposition to try. If he can then form a government that can pas a Vote of Confidence then his government continues in office. That's what happened in 1974 and in 2010.

Since the SNP will not support the Tories it matters not a jot whether Scotland returns 59 SLAB or 59 SNP MPs to Cameron's chances of remaining PM.

"Every vote that is cast for the SNP makes it more likely that David Cameron will retain the keys to Number 10."
/////
How does that work then?

Party with the most seats win and gets to form a government first.

Even a minority one.

Tory/UKIP/DUP

"Every vote that is cast for the SNP makes it more likely that David Cameron will retain the keys to Number 10."
/////
How does that work then?
In 4 Scottish councils the labour party have joined a coalition with the tories, while the SNP have entered no coalitions with the tories.
The SNP have promised not to enter a coalition with the tories at westminster, the labour party have not, and one of their MP's has openly called for one, along with a tory peer.
Which is the anti-tory party Ms Flint, the one that joins them in coalitions or the one that refuses to ?


Where the unionist parties and the Labour Party in particular have gone wrong is that they are more concerned with the views of people who are not voting for them than they are of the views of people who are voting for them.

Having thought about this, I will be voting Labour in May but as it stands it is purely on the basis that I wish to support my local MP who deserves to retain his seat.

If, after May, Milliband does any sort of deal with the SNP then he has lost my vote for good.