Cameron really does take us for mugs. Are we really expected to believe that his sudden show of solidarity with the Green party, over their exclusion from the TV election debates, has anything to do with his sympathy for the so-called "minor parties"? (Morning Star,09/01/15) Is it really "surprising support" as Luke James suggested, or is there, as would befit such a duplicitous prime minister, an ulterior motive? Cameron`s unexpected concern for fairness over the debates` participants, and his apparently saying that "you can`t have one minor party without having another minor party" doesn`t really wash, coming as it does from a Prime Minister whose government will go down in history as one of the most callous and cruel administrations of the modern era. He is, of course, running scared, knowing that having to answer difficult questions in front of millions of viewers, and without the bawling racket he can rely on during PMQs to drown out his inadequate responses, is likely to be embarrassing, and moreover, lose his party votes. A question about whether reducing government spending to levels last seen in the 1930s is the best way to move the country forward would make for an interesting start!
It is difficult to reach another conclusion, as the alternative involves crediting the prime minister with an unusually high level of political astuteness. Having the Greens on the TV debates would, in fact, be a wise move for the Tories, as the Greens` policies are far more radical than those of Labour, and could possibly reveal Labour solutions as being rather too similar to those of the Tories for comfort. Green policies to re-nationalise the railways, to introduce a wealth tax, and end both austerity and Trident may be a little too far to the left for the current Labour leadership, but there would be millions of viewers very happy to hear them promised, regardless of the party making them!