Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Ofcom have today announced a draft decision that the Greens are not a major party and as such do not necessarily need to be included in the televised leader debates during the upcoming general election campaign, while simultaneously deciding that UKIP ARE a major party and should be included.

Ofcom have justified their decision on the basis that UKIP have performed well in recent elections (‘winning’ the recent European elections and two by-elections) and are polling well at the moment, while the Greens have not performed as well and are polling between half and one third as well as UKIP.

This completely disregards the fact that UKIP have achieved this success on the back of massive media support from publications and broadcasters with centre-right, neoliberal editorial slants (including the BBC) while the Greens have shown an unprecedented rise in support despite an effective media blackout, as well as having representation in the European and Scottish parliaments since 1999 and Westminster since 2010 without media support or recourse to inflammatory, populist politics.

Surely it is Ofcom’s responsibility to try and redress this balance, rather than reinforce it?

The regulator must acknowledge the effect of media bias on by-election and polling performance, rather than choosing to use it as an excuse to cement the exclusion of the Greens.

You would expect a media regulator to understand the role of the media in creating such trends, unless they are being willfully blind in order to preserve a status quo that they are quite happy with.

Of course, when the industry watchmen are clearly complicit in the iniquities of the mainstream media, who can we appeal to, how can we push for change, inclusion and equality when their ears are stoppered shut?

First, complain to Ofcom here and rather than relying on the conventional media to spread the word, become the media yourself and discuss the issues on social media making liberal use of the #invitethegreens and #greensurge hashtags.

You can’t stop the signal.


9 responses to “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

  1. I’d like to hear any representatives of the Green Party try to explain how unrestricted immigration is environmentally sustainable; and why they oppose a sensible points-based system for immigration such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have.


    • I’m not an official representative of the Green party, but I’d suggest that some answers to your question can be found hereabouts http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mg.html and if you’re not satisfied with those answers, why not ask @natalieben or @CarolineLucas (for the Green Party of England & Wales) or @patrickharvie or @maggie4scotland (for the Scottish Greens) on Twitter.


      • I’ve looked on the Green Party website already, hence my comment. Immigration is a taboo subject for the Green Party; they refuse to deal with the environmental issues of an already high population density becoming even more so, let alone deal with the economic and cultural issues caused by unrestricted immigration. In that they are no different from the rest of the political hard left.


      • I’d contend that the Greens are far from ‘hard left’… I’d never have joined if I believed that to be the case.

        It’s also true that that given the native UK population is falling and ageing, it is unlikely that population density is going to increase exponentially due to more reasonable immigration controls.

        It’s also pretty much a fact that immigration is a boost to the UK economy (considering our vast skills shortage in terms of builders, doctors etc.) and any cultural issues are basically ones which can be dealt with by reasonable adults who accept that people of a different race/culture/religion can be perfectly nice, hardworking people who don’t deserve to be persecuted because they aren’t ‘British’ (and what does being ‘British’ mean anyway?)

        Lastly, the Greens do not advocate ‘unrestricted’ immigration, rather a more humane, internationalist approach than is currently favoured by the established and distinctly right wing Westminster parties.


      • Unfortunately the Greens are hard left, they never used to be but they are now. The native British population has a sustainable level of growth with birth rates having fallen in line with longevity. With stringent immigration restrictions based on a Canadian-style points system we could ensure a sustainable level of population.

        It pretty much *isn’t* a fact that immigration boosts the British economy when the amount paid out in state benefits is taken into account. Also immigration increases the demand for housing and increases the strain on every aspect of our national infrastructure, transport, demands on the NHS, even the amount of food this country has to import, but the Green Party, like the rest of the hard left, are in denial.

        Being British means assimilating into our secular culture. That shouldn’t need explaining. That large numbers of immigrants refuse to is what is leading to ‘white flight’ but again the Green Party is in denial about that.




      • In any case, I’m not an official representative so I’m shooting in the breeze a little.

        If nothing else, you’re desire to see these questions put to an official spokesperson of the Greens should be a good enough reason for them to be included in the debates.


      • Indeed, I’d love to hear Caroline Lucas explain on television why increasing the population by a few hundred thousand people every year is environmentally sustainable; and how we deal with the resultant demand for housing.


  2. Pingback: Opening the Debate | Glas-alt·

    • Who will guard us from the vested interests of the immigration industry, the landlords, lawyers and unscrupulous employers who want to continually increase the population year-on-year through unrestricted immigration? The Green Party certainly won’t. The Green Party are their unwitting collaborators. So if you want England to become as overcrowded as Bangladesh, with living standards for the plebs to match, vote Green.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s