Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on whether Farage has done enough to win a pl
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » David Herdson on whether Farage has done enough to win a place in the 2015 debates
In one sense, David Cameron and Ed Miliband missed out on an opportunity by declining the invites to what turned into the Clegg-Farage Eurodebates. Not being there will not have helped either of their parties and Cameron in particular could have occupied the popular sceptical middle ground between Clegg’s uncritical Europhilia and Farage’s withdrawalism.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What would really give UKIP a boost is winning a parliamentary by-election for in their entire history the highest vote share they've ever achieved in a Westminster seat was the 27.8% in Eastleigh. UKIP needs an MP and it is urgent.
Say
Con 47 -22: 25
Lib 34 -9: 25
Lab 10 + 7: 17
UKIP 3 + 24: 27
Appointing Andrew Lansley as the UK's EU Commissioner would most definitely not be a foolish decision.
There is nothing more the EU needs than a large scale bottom up reorganisation.
Besides it is the only way I can see Cameron getting Pork's vote.
I fear we are retreading old ground here. The rules established by Ofcom and the BBC Trust, under statutory powers, have to be transparent, fair, consistent and acceptable to stakeholders.
Ofcom have taken into account the views of the Electoral Commission, as required by statute, and have given all political parties an opportunity to review their proposals in a formal consultation exercise.
It is difficult to see how the established rules, codes of conduct and precedents can be varied to accommodate any Johnny-Come-Lately on a temporary polling frolic. If a single Westminster seat is the qualifier, why not include the Greens and Respect?
As for pursuing an "empty chair policy", this needs defining. Does it mean that the debates would go ahead with just those leaders who agreed to participate? This is the most likely interpretation. If so then my understanding of the impartiality rules on news and current affairs reporting during elections would require the absentee to be given additional coverage to compensate for their absence from the debates. This is, I think, what happened in the Eastleigh by-election when the fragrant Maria was unable to participate in a debate due to a 'prior engagement'. It would then be up to the leaders and party campaign managers to decide whether the trade is worth it.
If "empty chair" is interpreted literally, then surely the absentee leader could demand broadcast silence in equal proportion to the time allocated to those speaking in the debate?
Realistically the debates can only go ahead by agreement with the broadcasters and major party leaders in compliance with established rules. The only change I can forsee is for the debates to be held much earlier than in 2010. This appears to be Cameron's preference, and, as we saw in 2005, the PM's position tends to determine the eventual outcome on format.
Blair's individual interview then questions from the floor format was much better anyway than the gladiatorial format of US Presidency type debates. Did anyone really think the Farage-Clegg debate advanced listeners' views or understanding of EU issues?
Hamilton by-election, 1967, Lab swing to SNP = 37.9%
Winnie Ewing MP transforms Scottish politics forever
Glasgow Govan by-election, 1973, Lab swing to SNP = 26.7%
Margo MacDonald MP sticks rocket-fuel into the campaign for self-government
Glasgow Govan by-election, 1988, Lab swing to SNP = 33.1%
Jim Sillars MP starts the beginning of the end for SLab hegemony
Perth and Kinross by-election, 1995, Con swing to SNP = 11.6%
Roseanna Cunningham MP starts the process leading to fewer Scottish Tory MPs than Scottish pandas
OFCOM computer - It says "No" .... unless Dave, Ed and Nick concede .... So that's back to "No" again.
No by-election win or Ross Perot feel-a-like situation will change the position.
Farage's usually favourite word "OUT" is the simple answer to his general election debate inclusion.
I think that the debates should be earlier in the campaign (much easier to schedule with fixed term parliaments) leaving the final month clear for conventional campaigning.
Single Q and A sessions with an audience do give a different style to the interview, more inquisitorial and less gladitorial. One problem with the Clegg/Farage debate was that they talked over each other a lot, not easy for some of us to follow.
If debates do happen with several candidates together then there is the option of having different numbers for each debate. One with Miliband and Cameron, one with Clegg as well, and one with UKIP would seem reasonable.
I have no problem with Farage being included, I would like to see his party exposed on issues like tax policy, welfare policy, NHS policy, social issues such as gay marriage and the rights of women in the workplace.
Debates are a platform for people who speak well on their feet. I have my concerns that this is not a good way to choose a leader. Personally, I would prefer a leader who more carefully considered the issue with some thoughtful analysis than one who fired from the hip. How would Atlee have come accros in this format?
I agree that Ofcom have established their position but to me it does have a very small-c conservative feel about it. I used the Perot example as it was the best practical fit I could think of; their 'last two equivalent elections' condition introduces a timelag of up to 10 years. To give an British example (though we have to go back a bit), on that basis, Labour would not have been a major party for the 1922 election, even though they were the official opposition at the time. In fact, Ofcom do make reference to polling in their policy and that does offer UKIP a glimmer of light.
Even so, to my mind, the current rules give insufficient scope for breakthrough parties to receive fair coverage. In some ways, that caution is right. It would have been wrong to grant the Referendum Party too much publicity in 1997, and so doing, enable any very rich person to hugely distort media reporting merely because of their own personal intervention.
However, UKIP is not the Referendum Party: they have a track record over at least half the parliament of strong showings in local elections, the PCC elections, parliamentary by-elections (far stronger than the Lib Dems and generally better than the Tories, though most seats contested have been Labour ones), in all probability a very strong showing in the Euros, and have consistently outpolled one of the current the major parties for around a year now.
Mike's said that a Westminster win would transform their prospects for inclusion. I agree. Were they to win the Euro-elections in May, that may have the same effect. Yes, it's a different kind of election and one uniquely favourable to them but Major Party status isn't just about having the ability to win (the Lib Dems don't - they only try in at most a hundred seats); it's about their impact on the election.
To that end, they'd have a strong case to say that even if they were on 'a temporary polling frolic', they should be included. The election only occurs on one day and it's the parties' performance on that day that matters. In any case, if (and it still is an if), UKIP are polling strongly come Jan/Feb 2015, it'll be around two years that they've been serious players. That's not very temporary.
In other words, I think he's not representing his constituents.
But I still think UKIP winning here would be a very big ask. Maybe someone could go on an anti-new housing ticket, but that might not be as popular as many think.
While I agree that Cameron wants the debates earlier - and there is a case for that given that last time, votes had already been cast before the final clash - I don't think he'll get much movement. There is an internal momentum to these things and the broadcasters have their own interests and will want to schedule them during the campaign. Certainly, the Fixed Term Parliaments Act makes life easier (when an election date was a PM's prerogative, they had to be during the campaign as no-one knew when the election would be before it had been called). Even so, that's not the only pressing factor.
You say that "the debates can only go ahead by agreement with the broadcasters and major party leaders in compliance with established rules". I'm not sure that's true any more. What the Farage-Clegg debates have shown is that consensus is *not* required among either leaders or media; once someone picks up the ball and runs, the momentum is sufficient. At a GE, the other leaders and other broadcasters would have to come in because if they're going to happen anyway, the costs of being out are too high.
The Ross Perot analogy is good, but the political stage is more crowded in Britain.
Fat-Steve, when is this years Easter pishfest at DDs? I'd like to book some holidays soon!
:hic:
38 by elections ( defended 20 Con 12 Lab 2 Lib Dem 4 Others )
No Candidate Lib Dem 10 UKIP 8
Less than 10% Lib Dem 14 UKIP 3
10 to 20% Lib Dem 3 UKIP 14
20 to 30% Lib Dem 3 UKIP 12
30 to 40% Lib Dem 6 UKIP 0
Greater than 40% Lib Dem 2 UKIP 1
Seats won Con 15 Lab 12 Lib Dem 5 UKIP 1 Others 5
UKIP are clearly performing better than Lib Dems overall but generally seem to have a ceilling of rather less than 30% insufficient to give them many seats .
To be honest, I'd be very surprised if this doesn't end up in the courts one way or another, but it could well be the Ofcom ruling itself under challenge.
Remember that the SNP's legal challenge in 2010 was based on a different factual position, and was bogged down by a self-defeating litigation strategy.
I'm not convinced Farage deserves a place in the debates. But then, the debates themselves, as especially the worm, ought to be scrapped.
F1: because of the night race in Bahrain the pre-qualifying piece will probably be up around 2.30pm (P3 kicks off at 1pm). Slightly kicking myself I didn't back Hulkenberg each way to be the best of the rest (was 20/1, now 12/1). Each way pays out for top 3 (after Rosberg and Hamilton).
Just watched Inside F1 and it seems like Hamilton has qualifying pace but Rosberg's better on race pace. Allan McNish, who knows his beans, reckons Williams could be a dark horse in the race, but they need to sort out qualifying (sounds like Sauber in 2012).
Con 47 - 17 = 30 (just over 1/3 Con->UKIP)
Lib 34 - 8.5 - 8.5 = 17 (1/4 Lib -> UKIP, 1/4 Lib -> Lab)
Lab 10 - 2 + 8.5 = 16.5 (1/5 Lab->UKIP)
UKIP 3 + 27.5 = 30.5
Sorted ....
Too many politicians are good talkers with little intellect.
Have two levels of debate:
* 1 (or 2 - domestic and economic) between realistic candidates for PM. I would define this as having averaged 25% in GE polls over the last 3 years [I am sure there is a better formal definition, and I know there is a question over which pollster, but this is just a website...]
* 1 debate in each of the regions of the UK between the main parties there. I'd define this as average >10% in that region over the last 3 years. I haven't checked the data, but I'd assume this results in:
- SNP/Lab/Con/LD
- PC/Lab/Con/LD/UKIP?
- Lab/Con/LD/UKIP
If you want to add in 1 debate for the Chancellor candidates as well, that's fine, although I'd probably define it based on 3 years average >10% over the last 3 years in the UK as a whole.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26870598
My ward - Bourn - has two Conservative and one independent councillors.
In addition, the constituency had a relatively high-profile UKIP representative before, Robin Page, who only managed fourth.
http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/top-of-the-flops/
One thing I'd add is that I've heard Ecclestone is deliberately knocking the sport to damage its image so that the price drops and he can lead a consortium of Red Bull, McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari to buy control of it.
There was an article a few years ago looking at how habits move through social networks, UKIP's supporters just need to chat more. :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/magazine/13contagion-t.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukip-not-labour-is-now-britains-most-workingclass-party-9236118.html
Not a party for the likes of you.
"Drew Colbert Station in the work sweepstakes, any chance?"
......................................................................
It's Mike Smithson's pussy selection.
Make of that what you will ....
Rosberg genuinely was quicker in practice in Malaysia, and we all know how that ended.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-26884038
He might want to consider giving England its own Parliament before shoving even more powers towards Wales and Scotland.
I hope Rosberg can win. Otherwise we might be in for a procession of Hamilton victories for the title.
You might find this useful in future -
http://en.mclarenf-1.com/index.php?page=chart&gp=916&s=7320&graf=3&dr1=Lewis Hamilton&dr2=Nico Rosberg
However, UKIP is not the Referendum Party: they have a track record over at least half the parliament of strong showings in local elections, the PCC elections, parliamentary by-elections (far stronger than the Lib Dems and generally better than the Tories, though most seats contested have been Labour ones), in all probability a very strong showing in the Euros, and have consistently outpolled one of the current the major parties for around a year now.
Mike's said that a Westminster win would transform their prospects for inclusion. I agree. Were they to win the Euro-elections in May, that may have the same effect. Yes, it's a different kind of election and one uniquely favourable to them but Major Party status isn't just about having the ability to win (the Lib Dems don't - they only try in at most a hundred seats); it's about their impact on the election.
To that end, they'd have a strong case to say that even if they were on 'a temporary polling frolic', they should be included. The election only occurs on one day and it's the parties' performance on that day that matters. In any case, if (and it still is an if), UKIP are polling strongly come Jan/Feb 2015, it'll be around two years that they've been serious players. That's not very temporary.
David.
Sorry for the late reply. I have been out since early morning.
Some flavour of UKIP's case to Ofcom can be seen in their quoted submission:
In its response, UKIP said that the approach being proposed by Ofcom “has the impact of driving out newcomers” and would have the effect of “dismissing UKIP from the top table as soon as is practical”. UKIP said that it had demonstrated in recent elections, including the 2013 English local elections, Westminster Parliamentary by-elections, local authority by-elections, and “Scottish by-elections” that UKIP “outperform[s] the opinion polls, often by at least 10%”. UKIP set out its view that Ofcom’s proposed methodology “significantly downplays the current political reality” that UKIP's actual results exceed polling predictions. UKIP added that “The breadth of our support across the country puts us at a significant disadvantage against parties whose support is patchy and regionally biased. This should not be a reason to handicap a party which is currently representing the views of between a fifth and a quarter of British voters”. In relation to Scotland, UKIP said that: “in Scottish polls that specifically talk about the European elections UKIP are polling significantly higher than the 3.8% cited in the consultation”.
These arguments were of course not fully accepted by Ofcom. It should also be noted that almost all other parties responding to Ofcom (the big three did not respond) were opposed to UKIP being granted "major party" status and the broadcasters were lukewarm on the proposal at best.
Con 8802
LDem 7819
Lab 4619
UKIP 3719
Green 2060
UKIP did not contest 3 divisions and Greens did not contest 4 Conservatives won 6 and Lib Dems 4
Interesting site. Not come across that before.
Mr. Town, the ratchet effect is a perfect description. Power continually flows to Wales and Scotland, fuelling the desire and belief there for independence (less so in Wales due to the economic reality) and irritating the English who are ignored in devolution terms.
We have argued this before!
Your line last time that EU structural reform is determined by national leaders rather than EU Commissioners was more persuasive!
But my comment was not too serious.
Lansley does have the ability to master a complex brief and develop suitable policy. For all the partisan brouhaha over his NHS commissioning reforms they seem to have bedded in without further controversy and are gaining widespread recognition as having been positive within the profession (see Dr, Sox passim).
Where Lansley was weak was in misreading the adversarial and partisan nature of UK (and Coalition) politics and in being unable to still the storm without assistance from No 10 and the gang of four.
Given that an EU Commissioner's role involves far more of the former skills and far less of the latter, I would expect him to give the job a good run.
Max NET Liability should be £31.18
Walkon 1st
Rocky Creek 2
Burton Port 3
The Package 4
and Balthazar King to finish 5th, Double 7 6th
is my best result.
Bit like buying 30 lottery tickets but with decent odds tbh.
Thanks for those figures.
(ducks head)
BURTON PORT each way
and
ALVARADO each way.
I've also had smaller bets on four long shots, all each way
QUITO DE LA ROQUE, COlBERT STATION, RAZ DE MAREE and ROSE OF THE MOON
Good luck anyone having a bet.
Which Ofcom rule says a strong record at general elections is a requirement? The rules don't say that at all. They just said past general election results should be considered among other things.
The rules are perfectly reasonable. It's how they're being interpreted, which is to stitch up the newer parties to benefit the big ones.
"Progressives" normally like to change the rules to allow minorities a fair shout and dismiss old fashioned bias to the status quo as some kind of "ist or ism"... wonder why they don't see it that way in this case?
Yet Labour types on here love nothing more than discussing the finer points of champers and £40 alcohol free lunches, while Ed Miliband claims the Govt are out of touch with ordinary people, without seeing the irony
"Their frustration is compounded by the disregard shown to them by the metropolitan elite. The Westminster and media establishment care little for their views, and loves to sneer at their lifestyles, mocking their taste, their unhealthy choice of food and drink, even patronising them after the recent Budget by suggesting they would be pleased by cuts in tax on bingo and duty on beer."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2597454/We-Residents-deprived-borough-speak-predicted-Britain-need-Manchester-absorb-immigration.html
I think these debates are a waste of time and skew the election process. These people debate with each other all the time in parliament and we see that on TV. Our process is totally different from the USA where these debates originate.
The 'debates' to me are all about the media wanting to stick its nose in - and we should not forget that the media have an interest in politics; the media do not want to be regulated, they want to stay to be free to be above the law. It has an interest in guiding public perception about politicians.
As is said, Greens and Respect - who have not got a seat - have done far better than UKIP .
A better format is for leaders to be interviewed and accept questions. Given the recent death of Benn we should remember his dictum about politics being about 'issoos' not a beauty pageant.
The system now I believe is to pay a sum towards rent - this seems perfectly fair to me.
I have to say I grow tired of those home I consider to be both small and narrow minded, and probably incapable of any serious achievement themselves, carping about the lives of MPs.
Seats come up rarely and winnable seats even less so the effort needed to become an MP is huge. So an MP and family may live in one area and their seat may be quite somewhere else and then they also have to work in London. There is inevitably going to be an expense to the taxpayer in running a democracy.
I would like to think that we want to encourage good people to be MPs and the notion for instance that they should be local has its downsides. As I recall on of the greatest politicians we ever had was born in Blenheim palace and first became an MP for Oldham.
1) MPs representing London will get free accommodation, which is hardly fair. Unless we make it so that the flat cannot be used in recess, which would mean everyone would need alternative accommodation anyway, and out-of-London MPs would not have the same access to London during recess.
2) Single-bed flats are hardly family-friendly. I want MPs to work hard, but I also don't want their families to suffer.
3) One bomb could wipe out many MPs... (cue obvious joke about this not being a problem)
4) Having MPs - some of whom are in position for many terms - living for long periods in the same place would hardly aid them in representing the country as a whole. We already have a problem with identikit MPs.
My basic proposal (probably equally laughable) is to have small 2- or 3- bedroom flats like this distributed through London that they can choose to use, and a large family home in each constituency. They pay a going, independently-derived rent for each if they choose to use it. If they choose not to, the state rents the property out. If they choose to use both (e.g. because they do not want their families in central London), then they pay the rent on them whenever they are in use on a night-by-night basis.
It's impossible to be fair, but the above would seem to be fairish.
Good to see, as I have been saying for years on here, that it isn't just white British people that are upset by it, as the article points out.
http://www.ruthsmeeth.org.uk/
She stood in Burton in 2010 GE.
MPs in London wouldn't get a housing allowance but they do get a London weighting. Any MP within 40 miles would be expected to commute (like many of their constituents do). They should pay for that out of their own resources (ditto like many of their constituents) although we might pay them an out-of-London weighting.
Rather than MPs claiming for bathplugs etc we might make them a grant of say £3000 for furnishing their second home and £1000 annually for running costs, delapidations, etc.
If we pay towards a mortgage it will be for no more than the mortgage for a 1 bed flat in London (value to be determined independently) and must be on one property, for life. No flipping. The taxpayer should take a share in any added value, either when the property is sold or the MP ceases to be one.
This all seems fair, and seeks to treat MPs like any employee who is required to spend substantial amounts of time based in a second workplace in the UK.
As for new infrastructure, what do they need? The M4 is as good as any motorway in the UK and the train service from Paddington seems to work as well as any other InterCity service. A year or two back I did some work in Swansea and the place has clearly seen massive investment in recent years with new office buildings, roads, housing estates. On each trip down I stayed in a smashing little hotel and found some good restaurants where the food was the equal of anything you'll find elsewhere (and a damn sight cheaper than in a lot of places). Yet South Wales is not prospering despite all the money that has been spent there.
Maybe, like some of our once great Northern cities, its time is past. It developed and grew for a reason, that reason has now gone and it is being kept going only on the life support of subsidies from elsewhere. Pouring more and more money in to "develop infrastructure" ain't going to change that.
Ultimately, though, the barrier to stop voluntary arrangements between consenting adults must be a high one.
If I - as a property owner - want to rent out my house to someone who wears orange clothes and has strange religious beliefs, that's my concern. If said person chooses to purchase a property, and he can afford it, that's his concern.
You have no right to stop consenting adults from coming to mutually acceptable agreements simply because they cause the neighbourhood to change in a way you don't like.
Mr. Socrates, I have no idea what happened to English votes to English laws. If they keep ignoring the West Lothian Question it'll just increase the irritation of the English at the democratic deficit.