"Four-fifths of public want Green party in TV leaders’ debates"

[WhistlingPot]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/poll-green-party-leaders-election-debates

Seems reasonable to me!

I quite like the Independents take on why they shouldn't be allowed though.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/let-me-list-the-reasons-that-the-green-party-should-definitely-not-be-allowed-into-the-tv-election-debates-9873964.html

They should be there so people can hear there daft policies

The same could be said for all parties though, depending on your viewpoint.

It's important to get a full range of views and policies out there so they can be challenged and counter arguments heard, then people can make their own minds up. That's the point of this thread really. Wishful thinking though.

I think that the Greens should be given a chance,

They have been given a chance in Brighton and made a right pig's ear of it. Hopefully they will be voted out soon. I haven't met a single person who doesn't want to get rid asap.

The Green Party wants "immediate and unconditional nuclear disarmament"

I think people need to think carefully about that. What is being suggested is immediate unilateral disarmament

I've read their policies. Some I agree with but on the whole they are rather idealistic and risk our defence.

wingsoverscotland.com/the-second-class-nation/#more-65303

WhistlingPot …. I see that you are starting to share my frustration re the seemingly inherent inability of the majority of party leaders to PROVIDE detailed policies and how they’d be delivered/costed, but re your ”Are you sure you're not feeling a bit chicken Isitmebut?”

I’d suggest that I am one of the last posters on this board either frightened of the facts/detail, or willing to debate them, as evidence by posts here and the now cancelled(?) Politics Board – as while I firmly believe the Labour Party from 1997 to 2010 having inherited a growing, balanced, economy was totally incompetent over several departments, I am also willing to provide the FACTS on why I believe that, and encourage criticism/debate on the present administration.

Too many politicians and voters must find it politically convenient to both hide behind and hate what they call “ideology”, as if they actually looked at the record of their traditional political party, rather than their soundbites, they might not want to trust their family’s future to that party.

The Greens this election appears to want a policy on every domestic issue rather than their more traditional ground, and frankly while I don’t agree with most of their main populist policies e.g. renationalise railways, as to my mind how much more debt will the country go into to do this – I believe all the time necessary to explain their policies, should be given by the media.

Oh and the policy to PAY for many of their policies, the tax on banking transactions (I debated at great length on the Politics Board) again sounds great, but as I outlined, it would be hugely difficult to administer due to the different type of transactions and very tight bid/offer spreads currently given to institutional clients, SO the cost will be past on to the customers, us e.g. via extra costs to our Pension Funds.

UKIP as Nigel Farage is on record rubbishing his entire 2010 General Election manifesto (“drivel”) AFTER the vote scores were on the doors, they are clearly not a political party of policy ‘detail’ , so will rely on rubbishing every other party leader and their policies – once again, good entertainment, but as the next 5-years will very much determine our future for the next 15-years (IMO), it could work out costly in several ways.

The SNP and Plaid Cmyru are very well established parties but simply put, have always relied on getting a money pot and distributing it, so my only objection here is that they will spend their time doing what they have always done, look for policies that benefit their own voters and own countries, rather than see the bigger UK picture that PAYS for it, now and in the future.

Personally, I think Cameron will have to attend the debates, as if we just have Labour, the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid C, and Greens debating how best to make the evergreen UK Money Tree produce a ‘fairer society’ than the one socialism left behind through a global boom - while thumping the private sector businesses and jobs ‘manure’ that keeps the tree growing - the resulting economic failure and anarchy, like Greece and elsewhere in Europe, FALLS RIGHT INTO UKIP’s HANDS.

At the end of the May day, either Cameron or (more likely) Miliband, will dictate the ‘ideology’ the UK will follow from 2015, and if EITHER get it wrong the consequences for the UK will be felt for generations to come, so NO PRESSURE THEN, so screw the soundbites, ‘SHOW US THE FACTS’ not false promises of 'more jam today', in reality they cannot provide.

Isitmebut my chicken comment was intended as a lighthearted joke as I really don't think you are in any way "chicken". Maybe it didn't come across that way. No offence intended

WhistlingPot .... I'm sorry if I came across as offended, as I have a relatively thick skin and have to have on Mumsnet - I now wish that I'd have just said 'always willing to talk turkey'. lol

Just watching the Daily Politics; re immigration and the apparent problem that the Conservatives have not mentioned it within their six key policy 2015 general election document.

Aaaaaagh …. how CAN there be a worthwhile or constructive UK ‘conversation’ on immigration at any time until the general election, including within a Leaders Debate, WHILE WE REMAIN IN THE EU, as freedom of movement is a key pillar of the EU that seems non negotiable within - and while you CAN have some control over NON EU immigration, as Cameron proved, there will remain little, or no control over EU citizens. FACT

If the UK while remaining in the EU has no control over NET immigration, why on earth have controlling immigration as a key policy within your six now – Conservative leader Michael Howard in opposition had it in 2005 as one of his six before most of the social damage was done, and where did it get him, a 2005 60 odd seat Labour majority and the rise of UKIP.

So the SOLE ISSUE/DEBATE there is DO WE HAVE AN EU REFERENDUM, which is the ONLY WAY the politicians will follow the will of the people via a democratic vote, as voting UKIP ensures there will NOT be a referendum, while the Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens, that are likely to be the main parliamentary 2015-2020 block – have no interest that I can see, in EVER allowing a UK referendum on the subject.

So a Leader Debate including Farage highlighting/stoking immigration fears, unless he bombs (which based on his oratory skills is doubtful), it GUARANTEES that we both remain in the EU and have no control over NET EU immigration.

Talk about the democratic process screwing itself, and the Leader Debate part in it – hence UKIP Douglas ‘swivel eyed’ Carswell’s Daily Politics platform, disingenuously accusing the Conservatives of not caring about immigration, when UKIP’s very existence/votes ensures no EU referendum will happen for at least 5-years – as well he (and Farage), knows.

At present i will not be voting for any party My sympathies are with UKIP and their Brexit policy but I the local UKIP PPC is not one that I will vote for.

So I've seriously considered the Tories, but I cannot bring myself to vote for Cameron as he is spineless, cowardly and breaks pledges without a thought. He has also explicitly stated that in any In/Out referendum he would be camapaigning to stay in. That means that unless he allows his MPs a free vote, the whole Tory party will be campaiging to stay in. In those circumstances I dont consider the referendum would be fair.

If the Tories had a different leader who stated he would allow a free vote on any In/Out referendum I would probably vote for them.

I used to sneer at Boris as a potential leader but lately I have been impressed with some of his ideas and after reading his book on Churchill, Boris truly 'gets it'. When you look at what else is on offer as potential Tory leaders, Boris is not such a long shot, although I still have a real problem with his past.

Yes, Isitmebut i know that youll tell me that if i dont vote Tory there wont even be a refrendum etc I've heard that a thousand times, but I would rather we had no referendum at all than have one under rigged circumstances of a 'whipped' Tory campaign for retaining membership.

And you're right to point out that the Tories dont have immigration as a central tenet to the GE2015 campaign because they know that they cannot reduce non-EU migration while remaining in the EU. Cameron does not have the courage to face a debate on that and I find his attempts to brush this under the carpet and his coyness and reluctance to particpate in a TV debate are just holding the electorate in contempt.

I wont waste words on the Eds. They are just a complete joke.

I cannot forgive the LibDems for saddling my kids with massive student loans.

The Greens are very worthy but wooly-headed.

The BNP disgust me.

That leaves the Monster raving Loony Party - who seem to be making the most sense and also want to leave the EU.

...voting UKIP ensures there will NOT be a referendum, while the Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens, that are likely to be the main parliamentary 2015-2020 block have no interest that I can see, in EVER allowing a UK referendum on the subject.

That's the problem Isitmebut

If we voted Tory and secured a referendum the British people are highly unlikely to vote OUT when every political party uou mentioned above and the Tories and the SNP and the whole EU machine will be campaigning for them to vote IN.

For a referendum to be a truly democratic process you need to give equal airtime etc to both proposals. That would be impossible when the only voices against would be UKIP, the Greens and the MRLP.

It would be even worse to be permanently shackled to the EU and probably well on the road to the adoption of the Euro and full political union, based on a rigged, unfair referendum. Better not to have one at all.

WetAugust ….. I really don’t know what to say about all your comments, other than re Cameron being “spineless”, I would argue strongly that NOT making any tough decisions to cut the £157 billion deficit cloth BEFORE 2010, knowing they’d be unpopular, was spineless - not being the dude leading a coalition making them, against an opposition party opposing everything, now pretending to have acquired deficit reduction religion.

Furthermore to your confusion of a “whipped (dodgy) EU vote”; why do you care if 300 or so Conservative’s get a “free vote” in a referendum of 60 odd MILLION people, when rich, poor, a politician, or just plain stupid, everyones vote is EQUAL????

Re the in/out EU debate, you are CORRECT that every main party would rather the UK stays IN, but for most of the Conservatives, the whole model of the EU in its present form is uncompetitive in a global market place as evidenced by Europe’s current slump – and if they accepted that EU fat, inefficient, bureaucratic, anti business red tape machine of a government that sits in Brussels, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to rebalance a UK economy that by 2010, was run on similar lines.

Re an EU referendum DEBATE BEFORE HAND, why wouldn’t UKIP get enough ‘air time’ for f-f-f-gods sake, have they not for the past several years on ANYTHING to do with the EU?????

And to say that we should allow the United Kingdom Independence Party to CONTINUE to peddle their far right wing ‘stuff’ causing so many problems in Europe, as the UK public won’t make ‘the right decision’, or an informed decision, based on the FACTS put before them, is frankly undemocratic bollocks – as evidenced by the “spineless Cameron” legislated Scotland Independence vote, where thankfully (based on current energy prices) the Scottish electorates heads, won versus their hearts.

Clearly you do not disagree with me that for UKIP voters, votes for UKIP by those wanting UK government action after 2010 on the EU and/or immigration, IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.

P.S. If the Greens are indeed anti EU, I apologise for not knowing that in earlier posts.

Oh and you need to review 'the Lib Dems saddled my kids with student loans', that was a problem before the last general election, to be decided on after a Report that would report after the 2010 general election.

The Lib Dems are in coalition, so if the Conservatives did not agree with their policy, its not their sole baggage, and if in 2010 there would have been a UK budget deficit closer to France, rather than around 3 x over theirs at nearly £160 billion - maybe, just maybe, we could have afforded NOT to have raised fees further than Labour already had.

If you could stop frothing for a moment...

If, as you say, the Tories realise the EU is a dead weight of a millstone, why does Cameron want to stay in?

Don't put words in my mouth re UKIP, as you appear to have done in your last post.

Stop absolving Dave from everything because he couldn't do everything he wanted because limpy Clegg stopped him. I dont buy it. I'm sick of debating the coalition etc with you, endlessly so I'm calling a halt to it.

Me “frothing”, or gobsmacked at your logic?

Re Cameron, the Conservatives and the EU, similar to your feelings, I can’t be ‘asked’ to explain once again to you the original free/common market principal, versus the bureaucratic monolith it has become became - looking to fiscally, legally, monetarily, integrate, with a common currency and interest rate what can’t be - numerous very different economies, from near Emerging to Mature economic status, into a honking big Federal State.

Re UKIP “words in mouth”, the United Kingdom Independence Party, if politically true/honest with their name and to their voter support, they would SUPPORT a Conservative EU Referendum. –

But as per your opinion, UKIP either does not trust, or want to trust, the electorate to vote OUT – so back to my original Leadership Debate point, why should Cameron have to face the Farage/UKIP hypocrisy, of their campaigning to LEAVE the EU, but not supporting the ONLY MEANS of that happening????
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793688/farage-backs-miliband-ukip-want-labour-win-election-fear-cameron-win-eu-referendum.html

Re “absolving Dave” and what you are sick of (hearing what you don’t want to hear), may I suggest you read my comment again, putting SOME OF THE BLAME of the coalition putting UP tuition fees, onto a ‘Dave’ led Conservative Party. Duh.

Are all Tories as friendly as you?

Gissa kiss and I'll tell you.

Now I can't speak for other voters, but if "unfriendly" means taking the the time to cut through the political lies and double speak by looking at the FACTS, I'd like to think so, but I doubt it - as if UKIP still has 15-18% of the 2015 vote made up of mainly Conservatives looking to leave the EU and gets a TOTALLY PRO EU SOCIALIST BLOCK dictating European policies etc for the next 5-10 years - then they are as "friendly" as you.

And frankly those are friends that I and future generations can do without. IMLO

The Tories will be the biggest party. People will look at Ed and ask themselves whether he's up to the job and the answer will be NO. I keep telling you this.

WetAugust …. While I totally respect that the ‘Tories will be the biggest party’ feeling in your water for quite a while now, but both factually and ideologically, the evidence currently before us, does NOT agree with your water works.

FACTUALLY.

• UKIP take 2-3 Conservative votes to 1 Labour vote in contested marginal seats.

• UKIP currently polling 15% to 18%, inflicted huge electoral damage on the Conservatives in 2010, with just 3% on the General Election votes, *with post election analysis showing that around 26,000 UKIP votes across around 20 odd key marginals, made the difference between a Conservative government and a Coalition, with their policies horse traded using the manifestos of two political parties manifestos.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/7693877/General-Election-2010-Ukip-challenge-cost-Tories-a-Commons-majority.html

• Conservatives due to voter numbers within electoral boundaries, need to be around 8% ahead of the opinion polls in 2015 to potentially win the same amount of seats as Labour, as evidenced by the 2005 and 2010 General Election results; 2005 Labour with 35% of the vote had a 66 seat MAJORITY government, 2010 Conservatives with 36% of the vote had a 20 seat MINORITY government.

IDEOLOGICALLY.

There are many who would rather a Labour government, no matter what they did, be in power than a Conservative government - while Conservative voters are clearly more 'fickle'.

And you yourself, as evidenced in your past few posts, while seeming content for UKIP to (at best) allow the Conservatives to have a minority government, you still BLAME the Conservatives (and Lib Dems) for NOT being able WITHIN a coalition, to fulfil in government their pre General Election manifesto promises, the OTHER party won’t agree with, never mind vote it through parliament.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11252159/Ukip-and-the-hard-Left-are-both-blinded-by-Tory-hatred.html

But seriously, how can anyone not vote for the nice Mr Miliband; having been a minister in the last government subbing out 2-3 million of our jobs and leaving British workers unemployed - from 2015 he is standing up for the (now) working British, even promising with very little detail to increase their standard of living, which I THINK, involves giving every working class family A NEW KITCHEN TABLE.

I can’t wait. lol

Trying to get back to the Leader Debate, but based on the above debate, 3 recent opinion polls look somewhat confusing for the Conservatives and Labour, but reasonably good news for the Greens and UKIP.
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-general-election-2015-what-do-the-latest-polls-show-9974927.html

Labour/Conservatives, while one poll each has one 5 to 6% ahead of the other, 2 out of three have Labour ahead.

UKIP 13-17%.

Greens 4-8%.

Green Party membership has just overtaken UKIP and Lib Dems. Surely the media should be finding out why by giving them a platform?

Thats been shown to be a fallacy as Greens count lapsed members as 'life members'.

Many voters don’t care about the Leader Debate, either they feel politician can’t be trusted, their policy soundbites are vague enough not to be held to account, or will just not be voting, full stop.

On that note, WHAT is Miliband going on about today;accusing the government of disenfranchising 1 million voters, as to me it looks a perfect example of why voters don’t trust politicians?

Please correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Labour sign up to the change in the electoral voting system, that meant young voters were not automatically register, they had to register themselves?

And the reason it had to change, was all the voter register shenanigans, mainly in traditional Labour held seats

“Police To Patrol More Than 100 Polling Stations”
news.sky.com/story/1265690/police-to-patrol-more-than-100-polling-stations
”Councils are also investigating irregularities on nomination, voter registration and postal vote forms.”

Why is Labour so desperate for anti government headlines and extra 2015 votes when they have the following potential Westminster seat advatages;

• Due to uneven constituency voters, in numbers of voters needed they have around a 30 parliamentary seat advantage over the Conservatives.

• There are more Pandas in Scotland than Conservative MPs, and likely to be similar after 2015.

• Immigrants tend to vote for socialist parties, most NON EU migrants can vote in a General Election (EU citizens can’t) and according to recent MigrantWatch revised stats, of the net 4 million migrants to the UK from mid 1997 to mid 2010, around 2/3rds were NON EU.

And now he has to badmouth the Coalition to get more votes, what a statesman, seriously what is the democratic point of the debates if leaders will be just as tricksy on the substance of their policies?

WetAugust genuine question, do you have a link to any evidence that the Green Party "counts lapsed members as life members"?

It would seem an odd practice for the Greens, seeing as they are viewed as having the most integrity and given they usually sell life membership for £400 my.greenparty.org.uk/civicrm/membership/joining why would they give that away to lapsed members?

On a Google search for "Green Party lapsed members life" there doesn't seem to be any articles published confirming this, only rumours by UKIP twitterers.

The only article I can see makes reference is non-committal and looks at membership numbers across the parties, stating that:

"the figures should be treated with caution as the parties are not independently monitored.

Some have introduced different levels of membership with lower fees, while there have been reports of lapsed members being left on the books in order to maintain numbers."

www.heraldscotland.com/politics/wider-political-news/surge-in-green-party-membership.1421334891

KouignAmann I agree it is the surge in increased Green membership that is relevant and of public interest. If membership is to be a measure of success and marker of whether a party deserves to join a leadership debate (personally I don't think it should be in isolation) clearly it's something that should be independently monitored.