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?

You really aren't clued up on this at all are you?

In the first instance, Greens were excluded (in practice) by Ofcom's ruling on what constituted a major party. Then Cameron threw a hissy fit (he is now chucking his toys out the pram demanding the NI parties are included, his end game is to kill the debates or turn them into a gang show so they become meaningless)

Then the major broadcasters got together and put together an alternative proposal that would allow Comeron to take part (that's all of them,not just the BBC) that included the Greens, the Scottish and Welsh nationalists.

Go on then, give me evidence of systematic left-wing bias at the BBC. I am guessing like every other right winger, you think because the BBC is to the left of the published press (largely run by and in the interest of the right-wing press barons who own them).

You are talking absolute nonsense Star and you are contradicting yourself. You keep insisting that OFCOM excluded the Greens but they are now taking part in the debates despite the fact that OFCOMs position hasn't changed which PROVES that you are incorrect in saying that OFCOMs order that they weren't a major party effectively excluded them. So it was the BBCs call all along.

David Cameron was very clever for refusing to take part because it was immediately obvious that the BBC was using the debates to gain a political advantage for their favoured party (Labour) by refusing to allow the Greens to debate. I think you're just cross because he effectively called their bluff on it and forced a climb down when you wanted Labour to get this unfair advantage.

The rest of the media isn't supposed to be impartial. I think the central idea of the BBC, a single non-biased state run broadcaster is excellent. But we don't have that anymore, and when the BBC is doing things which are designed to benefit their political allies in something as crucial as a general election there is a problem with ethics.

Now go off and have a lie down and decide whether OFCOM or the BBC excluded the Greens because you seem to be blaming one in one post then the other in the next. And it doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's not true that OFCOM could force the Greens off the debate because they still don't class them as a major party but they're still taking part because IT WAS THE BBCs decision ALL ALONG!!

Do the reasons for initial green exclusion in the tv debates matter particularly?

Soloman is almost right about the Greens, with the proviso that the keyword is sustainable, rather than declining. And the greens are right, both that capitalism is bad for the environment and society, and that infinite growth can't continue forever. We've already had warnings on all those fronts. So a vote for the one party that has always acknowledged those problems and spent some time thinking about possible solutions is the only thing that makes sense to me, even if I don't necessarily agree with everything they say.

I'm sure abolishing slavery, and organising votes for women took several years as well.

For fuck's sake Moan as I have stated that the BBC cannot decide unilaterally to include or exclude the Greens or any other party unilaterally. After the OfCom proposals were scuppered by Cameron, the broadcasters (collectively) agreed new formats for the debates, including the timings and the formats. There is nothing contradictory in that.

Something you conveniently ignore as you grind away with you axe.

Yet you are quite happy to prattle on about left wing bias at the BB,, yet haven't offered a scintilla of evidence, let alone substantiate your claims that they are attempting to rig the election.

Go on then, give examples of systematic left-wing bias at the BBC.

pinefruits, you are doing it! Only perceiving the issue from an ideological perspective upon inheritance and power!

I never said that the practical and legal aspect of abolishing the monarchy was a reason to keep the monarchy, only that no-one ever discusses the practical and legal aspects ... and it is a pretty huge consideration -- because one thing that bothers me about such an endeavour is how we actually guarantee that power moves from the Monarchy to the places and roles where we actually want it to reside and how we guarantee we have the kinds of checks and balances we would want.

The Queen actually has a lot of power, but she just doesn't use it -- to the point where if we simply supplanted the Queen with an elected Head of State, that President, in my view, would have waaaaay too much power for comfort.

Before you advocate abolishing something as a serious politician, you need to be 100 percent clear about what would replace it and how you would get there (and how you avoid an enormous f'k up in the process).

My shivering scenario would be getting rid of the Queen only to end up with a British Berlusconi. My nightmare scenario would be getting rid of the Queen to find the entire process of power transition becomes hijacked by a radical party, we are plunged into civil war and end up with a British version of Turkmenbashi.

You may say that would never happen but people, for time immemorial, have thought the very same -- only to find that actually it did happen and now loads of people are dead and the only things in the supermarket are sacks of mouldy potatoes.

Yes they CAN. It's like banging my head against a brick wall. OFCOM did not 'propose' anything, they did not put forward the idea of a political debate without the Green's. They were asked to make a ruling on what constituted a major political party which would affect their entitlement to Party Political Broadcast and their legal right to be involved in the televised debate.

OFCOM did not give them major party status which would have meant they had the legal right to be included. This effectively handed back the decision to be taken at the BBCs discretion and they decided not to include the Greens. But this was purely the call of the BBC themselves, not OFCOM.

As I said, OFCOMs decision that the Greens are not a major party has not changed, but they are now included in the debates. So if OFCOMs judgement was somehow binding and prevented them from taking part why are they now doing so? They could only do it if OFCOMs ruling wasn't binding, and isn't so to suggest that it was all down to OFCOM is patently ludicrous.

The BBC organized its debate and beyond the legal framework of major parties who must be included they are free to pick and choose who they invited to take part and they chose not to invite the Greens. It's absolutely laughable to suggest that OFCOM was responsible for this, they weren't they handed the decision back to the BBC and the BBC alone made that decision.

As I have repeatedly said, the BBC did not make unilateral decisions about the format of the debates. they were made collectively by the broadcasters.

Quite why you are according the BBC the status of prime movers in this is completely transparent. It is to prop up your argument that the BBC is a left wing front organisation. Yet after the third time of asking you cannot point to a single shred of evidence of systematic left wing bias at the BBC.

I will ask a third time, where is the evidence to support this claim?

One of the biggest injustices of all time was apartheid, the dismantling of it could have so easily plunged South Africa into civil war. Nothing is without risk, a country could just as easily slide into civil war because of the huge gap between rich and poor. You can believe in having a monarchy or not but keeping it so as not to take the risk of civil strife is not a good enough reason.

"The Queen actually has a lot of power, but she just doesn't use it"

Surely, by logical conclusion, that means that this power isn't really needed and does not, in fact, need to reside anywhere at all?

I think constitutional/political theorists and especially lawyers can sometimes get their knickers in a twist about a lot of technicalities that don't really matter all that much, and which are perfectly soluble with a bit of thought. It's not like our system right now is perfect by any stretch, and we clink and clank along.

Also, the risks of change in a reasonably stable economy are often over-stated. People said exactly the same things about anarchy and turmoil over the idea that the middle classes would get the vote in the lead up to 1832, and there was plenty of ridicule of the idea of women voting in the hundred years before this was granted as well (lots of people arguing that it would be like enfranchising children and lunatics, creating discord in every home in the country etc etc etc).

I don't think the Green Party did themselves any favours with the crack about the Queen's council house, and it may well cost them a fair number of votes.

But don't judge them on that alone. Legalising drugs for instance - others have also suggested it and for many years now. If you consider that half of all crime against property (I admit that the figure isn't consistent across studies) is committed by drug users to fund their habit, just think how much police resourcing that takes up not to mention prison places. David Cameron as a young Tory MP backed more lenient penalties for the possession of cannabis and ecstasy - and allowing heroin to be prescribed to addicts in "shooting galleries". This from the BBC (5 September 2013). These sorts of issues need to be prioritised again.

Are the Greens wrong in saying that globalisation is a race to the bottom? They want to promote national self-reliance which can only be good.

Some of their policies don't work for me and I'm still not decided if I'll vote for them or not, but I don't see anything very encouraging in the other party's manifestos. The economy, the environment - it all seems to be heading in one direction. Maybe we need something radical to turn it around.

For goodness sake. So what do you think happens then Star? You think some body of shadowy broadcasters get together and dictate to the BBC exactly what they are going to broadcast? Ten minutes ago you were adamant that is was Ofcom.

Of course they don't, that's nonsense. Ofcom has dictated a set of terms which tell the broadcasters which parties are the major parties and who they are therefore legally obliged to include. Ofcom's own guidelines, rather than telling broadcasters they are obliged to exclude other parties it says they are required to consider if they should be included too.

There is not some central body which is dictating to the broadcasters who they can and can't have in their debates beyond that.

Where an earth are you getting this idea from that the BBC have no control? Please link me to your evidence for this because I think you've just made it up of the top of your head because you can't blame it on Ofcom.

stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/broadcast/guidance/831193/section6.pdf

All in here, makes it very clear that beyond the major parties requirement broadcasters can exercise their own discretion as to who is excluded.

What you have failed to grasp is that the proposal is a joint proposal between a consortium of broadcasters, who have put together a proposal between them for a series of debate, the participants, and are now negotiating (as a collective) with the political parties. In the first instance, they consulted with OFCOM on what was the definition of a major party. All very sensible. The

The BBC aren't negotiating individually with the political parties and then ITV negotiating separately etc the broadcasters are collectively negotiating a package of debates.

Yes, the BBC could withdraw from the consortium of broadcasters trying to put together the leaders debates and negotiate a separate series, but they aren't so the point is null and void.

I am getting bored of asking this now, are you going to give examples of the left wing bias at the BBC? Seems strange that you can't or won't. Especially when your entire argument rests on this notion.

Without anything approaching evidence, you are in tinfoil helmet conspiracy theorist territory.

The broadcasters put the proposals together though. It's not like they're having them imposed on them by other people, they wrote the bids. And it's been made very clear that the invitation to the debate will be made by BBC Governers. So I really can't see how the decision rests with anybody apart from the BBC.

It is almost like she is a double-agent, sent to ruin the Greens from the inside.

But don't judge them on that alone. Legalising drugs for instance

I think future generations will look at the war on drugs and wonder how a policy that's been such an outright failure could continue for so long (have any of it's goals been achieved?).

I think the same about prostitution. I am not convinced that those laws are protecting the people they are designed to protect.

Anti-monarchy too? They are on a roll!

Are the Greens wrong in saying that globalisation is a race to the bottom? They want to promote national self-reliance which can only be good.

I am not convinced of this. Perhaps we can't viably compete on the trousers market, and that's ok. I see no sense in subsidizing the trouser making industry just so we can make them here.

I agree written The war on drugs is why so many people are dying, Leah Betts died from drinking too much water, if there was better advice when purchasing these from a reputable supplier it would save lives. The war on drugs achieves nothing - except for wasting money! It's been proven in countries all over the world yet we still insist on forging ahead to criminalise someone who just wants to smoke a spliff!

I agree about the drugs. A lot of them are far less destrucitive than alcohol. Legal hugs worry me more. I used to go to raves as a teenager so am not ignorant of drugs.

A couple of weeks ago I found myself in a pretty horrible situation where a friends teenager was essentially dumped at my house after taking a legal high. It was absolutely horrendous, I couldn't believe what it did to her, she couldn't speak, was having spasms and looked like she had cerebral palsy, it was one of the most frightening experiences of my life. We put towels on her neck which brought her down but it was touch and go an ambulance was called. It was horrific. I can't see the comparative harm of MDMA.

But then again would the Greens just legalise legal highs which had been banned too?

Natalie Bennett did not say the Greens would evict the queen from Buckingham Palace and put her in a council house.

She was asked about Green Party policy to build more council houses.
She was also asked about GP Policy to abolish the monarchy.

Then the interviewer asked her if that meant the Queen would have to live in a council house, and NB said : "I can’t see that the Queen is ever going to be really poor, but I’m sure we can find a council house for her."

Murdoch press shit-stirring as usual.

The Queen might like being in a council house. Presumably she wouldn't have to do any royal duties so she could spend her remaining years chilling.
Would all drugs be legalised? Could we buy opium from chemists?

Rather them than bloody UKIP. Mind you, rather the Official Monster Raving Loony Party than UKIP.

And taking what the Torygraph has to belch as a guide? LOLOLOLOL.

As if the Queen would ever qualify for a council house.

In the last week I learned three things about the Greens. First was that greenpeace desecrated the Nazca lines in Peru and the greens thought it was a great idea.
Second the greens want some terrorist organisations to be let off the hook, presumably that includes the greenpeace activist now looking at jail time in Peru
Third, the Greens seem to think that Frakking at the Eden project for a geothermic well is ok, but Frakking for gas and oil elsewhere is spewed from the bowels of satan

I spent some time yesterday reading the green party manifesto. They appear to be rather utopian and idealist rather than pragmatic, which is what I liked about them.