To think the Green Party are just making themselves look ridiculous?

[curiousgeorgie]

They really seemed to be gaining support...

But this new 'we will evict the queen from Buckingham palace and put her into a council house' just makes them sound stupid?

I've seen Green Party supporters on facebook sharing this post with excitement and glee but... Really?

Of course they can, but they along with all other broadcasters (including Murdoch's Sky) were in effect tied to the judgement made by OFCOM as to what constituted a major party.

To use this as an example of left wing bias at the BBC is utter garbage.

According to Sunday's Times, they think the profit motive has no place in healthcare. That's new drug development ended then.

Absolute twaddle star

fullfact.org/factcheck/law/did_ofcom_say_greens_cant_take_part_leaders_TV_debates-38221

Ofcom could only have forced them to be legally obliged to allow the Greens to take part but they refused to do so. They left the final decision to the BBC who wanted to exclude the Greens but had to climb down. Might be a good idea to do a bit of basic fact checking before you start pointing the finger at other people for getting things wrong when you're chatting tripe.

No the only thing they are tied to by OFCOM is what major parties must be included. They didn't class the Greens as a major party which meant the decision to include them or not was left entirely to the broadcaster. OFCOM did not force them to exclude the Greens, they chose to do so.

Maybe they chose to exclude them because they are a bunch of fucking loonies.

Maybe they chose to exclude them because they are a bunch of fucking loonies

Even if that were true, surely it is not the BBCs place to decide that especially as UKIP fall into that category They should be presenting the options that people have when voting, not deciding for the nation.

It really irritates me when people talk about abolishing the monarchy because hardly anyone ever discusses what it would mean, in practical terms, to reconstruct the constitution in such a way. Such "discussions" about the monarchy are almost always from an ideological point of view.

When you are talking about abolishing the monarchy, you are basically talking about dismantling and reconstructing the foundation of the power of the state ... because, yes, all state power still issues, in constitutional terms, from the Monarchy.

Just because the Queen doesn't wield the power she has doesn't mean she doesn't have any. It is not simply a question of booting her out of Buckingham Palace.

One British constitutional expert once estimated that a peaceful transition from Monarchy to Republic would require fifteen years of legal preparation beforehand (I can't remember which expert it was).

But consider this ... look how long the Saville Inquiry into the events of Bloody Sunday took. Twelve years! Now consider how long it would take for a constitutional change of the magnitude it would require to abolish the Monarchy.

I tell you, William would be dead and buried by the time they sorted it all out.

Exactly Fine, and it's interesting the BBC are prepared to tolerate loonies who take votes off the Tories, but not loonies who take votes off Labour.

Technically yes, but if the BBC or any other broadcasters (Chan 4, SKy Channel 5) had included one party not considered a major party by OFCOM and no others (with equally if not more compelling cases for inclusion such as the SNP) they'd have been on shaky ground. They were tied in spirit, if not the letter of the law by OFCOM's judgement.

If you are convinced this is proof of BBC left wing bias, why did Sky (owned by Murdoch) and Channel 5 (owned by UKIP supporting Richard Desmond) not offer a place to the Greens?

I think a lot of what seems 'mental' or 'loony' to people now will actually seem like common-sense in 30 to 40 years time.

I can remember my father being treated as a loony growing up, because he believed in this weird, tin-pot idea called 'climate change' (or 'global warming' as it was back then). And, much to the disgust of his family, he altered his life to try to reduce his impact on the planet. They laughed and said it was impractical, ridiculous, stupid and that he was making his life unnecessarily difficult. He was treated as an idiot and an eccentric.

In twenty years time, perhaps a lot of the policies that surprise people on this thread and that are treated with such derision now will seem common sense. Maybe people will go back to discussions like this and marvel at how they didn't see it coming, even though all the signs were there pointing to what needed to be done.

I hope that's going to be the case, because the alternative: that we keep doing the same old, same old, will have led to irreversible damage by that point, and we will all be screwed.

Mumsnets centre-rightness much in evidence here.

Seriously??? I consider my politics to be entre-right. 9 days out of 10 MN reads like the online home of Guardianish leftism to me

I suppose if you are deluded radical enough to think the Greens are talking sense then MN could possibly read as centre-right

The British monarchy is englands biggest tourism draw hands down.

says no one. Furthermore, that money pit we call the monarchy also gets massive sovereign grant, as well as the duchys of whatever.

Their ideas on Al-Qaeda and ISIS are worrying. The citizens income is also a terrible idea as it will go to large swathes of people who have no need of support from the state. It would be better to give higher amounts to poorer people.

I agree their stance on AQ and ISIS are worrying, but it is principled free association stance. I think it clashes with their "free speech as long as it doesn't incite violence". those groups incite violence.

As for the citizens income, there are recommendations in the US that have support from both labour and conservatives with a similar idea. The idea being that you give (I think the number they had was $12,000-$15,000, much more than 71 pounds/week) to everyone, while removing essentially all other public support (i.e. axing all other welfare. This of course is key). Part of the appeal is the simplicity - since you have now gotten rid of all the infrastructure you need to deal out welfare, you get huge savings.

Private Eye published a useful cut-out-and-keep guide to save you all having to buy newspapers between now and May.

Daily Mail: Ed Miliband is weird
Daily Mirror: David Cameron is posh
The Times: Poll shows Ed Miliband is weird
The Guardian: Poll shows David Cameron is posh
The Telegraph: Cressida Bonas thinks Ed Miliband is Weird
The independent: David Cameron is weird and Ed Miliband is posh
The Daily Express: Nigel Farage is not weird or posh
Financial Times: Markets plunge as posh/weird index rises

I was thinking of voting for the Greens, on the basis they're the least dangerous option. Now though, it just appears they are even more unrealistic and hopeless than the other options.

I was going to vote for them but am seriously reconsidering. I want to have a protest vote against LibLabCon but I don't want Labour to take on any of the Greens more nutty policies.

It looks like I will end up not voting at this rate.

Maybe they chose to exclude them because they are a bunch of fucking loonies

The lunatics are certainly in charge of the asylum now!

The Queen in a council house may have been a joke, but it's a bit spiteful - gloating over someone's demise.
Where my sister lives a husband and wife stood as Green candidates for neighbouring constituencies. This involved a lot of hard work on their part and I thought good for them, particularly as they would most likely lose their deposits.
We received the Green Party literature through the letter box and under education it said removal of charitable status for private schools and abolition of selective education.
Therefore I was quite surprised to hear that the son of the two Green candidates had not only gone to a private school which takes full advance of its charitable status, but is also extremely selective. Namely: Eton.
Do as I say, not so as I do, it seems.

YANBU. I like some of their policies and would support the abolition of the monarchy in particular, but yes the legalisation of prostitution and the right to join terror groups do put me off somewhat...

That's an absolute load of shite star and you know it. If the broadcasters hands were tied by Ofcom's decision in the way you claim then how come they are now going ahead with the debate with the Greens? If what you're saying is correct they wouldn't be able to go ahead on that basis, as Ofcom's position hasn't changed. The fact that they have shows that you are demonstrably talking absolute bollocks.

As is your nonsense about Sky not including the Green's either. They are holding a head to head between Cameron and Miliband with no UKIP either. It's fair to exclude both or include both. But for the BBC to exclude just one of them because they may pose a danger to their political allies (Labour) is just bias.

I think star that in reality you know precisely how biased it is, but because it's a bias that supports people you agree with you're prepared to overlook it. I imagine that if on, say Sky, UKIP were exlcuded to protect the Tories while the Greens were put in to damage Labour you'd probably get your dungarees in a right twist about that.

That's an absolute load of shite star and you know it

it isn't and I don't but keep peddling your 'BBC is a left wing cabal' bullshit, if you feel it helps, never mind the facts eh?

The format and the type of debates and their timings were agreed amongst the broadcasters, none of them are making unilateral decisions. This is something you have monumentally failed to grasp.

worksallhours ......I don't think its a good enough reason to keep the monarchy just because it would apparently take 15 years to do a peaceful transition from monarchy to republic. (Though I think 15 years is vastly overestimated). Cut away all the ridiculous red tape and you'd get nothing like that figure.
Just because it's something that's always been there doesn't make it right and I really dont see how in the 21st century we still have as head of state a person who is there purely through the accident of birth. There is nothing about the family to admire and I
don't believe they make a jot of difference to the number of tourists coming into the UK.
I also think it's wrong to think of an American style republic as an alternative to the monarchy. The Irish Republic gets by fine with a president and is a lot cheaper than the royal family. The income from all the royal estates would revert back to the people if the royals weren't there...We certainly wouldn't be out of pocket.

writtenguarantee - do you not think there's a difference between believing in a set of principles and acting on them?

Don't get me wrong - I really dislike everything about AQ and ISIS. I think they're absolutely rotten, violent, misogynistic ideologies. And unlike most people, I have actually been in an AQ terror attack so I'm not some naive idiot who thinks these groups are 'really' fluffy inside if only we could see it. However, I don't think it should be a crime to agree with their ideas. In fact, I don't see how we can really 'solve' the problem of this fundamentalist extremism until we accept that people do have a serious, modern commitment to these ideologies, and we investigate why they feel that way and what we can do about it (a lot of it may come down to some brutal things that are hidden in capitalist foreign policies. If you'd seen your entire family blown up in a US drone attack, you might feel quite extreme too).

I do think, though, that anyone who participates or plans seriously to participate in actual violence must have the book thrown at them. Human life is infinitely precious, on both sides.

If you think m the Greens are a single issue party, I think you don't understand how fundamental their views on the environment are to their policies. All the other mainstream parties start from the basic premise that modern capitalism is basically fine. The Greens start from the basic premise that modern capitalism is not good and therefore we require radical changes to the way we live. There is no point attacking them on the grounds that their plans will cost too much money when they are quite open about the fact that they want zero or declining growth. How will it be paid for? By what some might see as declining standards of living and others might see as greater equality combined with lifestyle changes.

You're contradicting yourself now Star, first you were adamant that OFCOM had made the decision about the Green's being excluded. Now you're insisting that the broadcasters are deciding for themselves.

OFCOM made it possible for the BBC to exclude the Greens legally but it was the BBCs decision to make. The fact that the broadcasters are liaising with each other over the debates doesn't change the fact that it was the BBCs decision to exclude the Greens, there's no suggestion that any other broadcaster forced that on them, it was the BBCs call.

I don't think anybody can really say with any seriousness that the BBC doesn't have a left wing bias, it's laughable to suggest they don't and they don't even particularly try and hide it. The exclusion of the Greens was howling obviously done to protect their Labour allies. Why else would they have done it?