Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 7-7-2 debate format is just inviting a court challenge
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 7-7-2 debate format is just inviting a court challenge
It was so easy last time: three major GB parties and no other vaguely serious contender. With the SNP messing up their legal challenge, the invites to send more-or-less wrote themselves. As is already clear from the saga so far, it’s a very different situation this year.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I hope these debates go forward not because the seven sided debate is going to be serious but because the one on one had the potential to be just what this nation needs.
There are plenty or countries that have second tier parties like the Lib Dems who have a head to head debate without them. I grew up in Australia and watched their debates between the Liberal (conservative) and Labour leaders. I hope two party debates are a feature going forward as they provide a real opportunity for serious debate and not just a peacock parade.
I can't speak to whether there's a basis for the LibDems to make a legal challenge, but politically it makes no sense. They'd look terrible doing it, and in any case they won't want to pass up one last chance to turn things around.
NI parties are sufficiently different to have their own debate.
Can the man in the Chicken suit be cloned? It seems one is now needed for Mr Farage.
Should we not place the LibDems in the centre (or even on the right since they are in coalition with the Conservatives and led by the Orange Bookers)? And nationalism is not normally associated with the left. Alex Salmond would not be singing the red flag, and Plaid Cymru's appeal is probably cultural rather than economic, with its mixed bag of rural centrism: they may want low rents but they want low business rates as well. And the Green Party's position just seems to be, "we wouldn't start from here".
So that's one on the left, three in the centre or centre-right, two on the right and one all over the shop.
The more likely motivation for having more people is that it makes it easier for the broadcasters to set the terms and make a viable empty-chair threat. If there are only two or three participants invited it looks like a matter of negotiation between the participants, but it's seven it's much easier to say, "This is the debate we're having, if you don't want to show up that's up to you".
Small wonder that we hear so little by way of support for them these days from OGH, who appears instead to favour the red team.
The leaders of Lib, Lab & Kip wote a whiny letter to request more parties in the debates - well they got their wish...
Mike's thread yesterday crossed a border from mildly biased, which most of us tolerate, to mendacious. The tv companies did not threaten to empty chair Cameron, as he headed it. They said they would go ahead without a leader who chose not to participate. They didn't mention Cameron (and they didn't threaten to empty chair anyone).
That's important because, as you state in your article, it's actually other parties who now stand to lose more from the current proposal. I understand that Labour insiders are far from happy. It's far from certain that Miliband will now accept. And, as you point out, the Lib Dems are also none too pleased; Farage and UKIP, likewise.
I'm not really sure why there is such a fad for the tv debates from OGH & co. on here anyway. It may seem with it to have leaders standing on a platform debating, but it really isn't. There's nothing pizzazzy about the set up: it's terribly stifling, turgid and 1950's.*
(*Yep I know the first one was actually 1960: the format feels so 1950's.)
An empty chair means an empty chair. You leave a, well, empty chair. In fact what this would mean in practice would be an empty podium. That is considerably more embarrassing to the one being 'empty chaired' than if you don't have the empty chair / podium and, as I hope I don't need to elaborate, there is a big difference between the two.
Empty chair = an empty chair / podium where the participant would have been
Going ahead without = no empty chair / podium where the participant would have been
The most embarrassing part of the empty chairing would be if the podium still contained the name of the absent participant e.g. Cameron or Miliband. The psephological effect would most likely be devastating.
Everyone else on here will remember the most famous empty chairing where the chair was left empty, but the table in front contained a tub of lard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmys4LH9jTE
Empty chairing is designed to draw attention to the absence of the person:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/apr/12/politicsandthemedia.comment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/legacy/theeditors/2007/04/empty_chairs.html
And I'm afraid I didn't do media studies lessons. I did study politics though.
But anyone can try a challenge and maybe get an improved formula if they win, participate anyway if they don't.
I still remain firmly of the view that the lawyers would also be advising that a debate without one of the major parties in attendance would require that party to be given equal time to comply with the legal requirements. So another one-on-one interview at an equally prominent time.
"Mike's thread yesterday crossed a border from mildly biased, which most of us tolerate, to mendacious. The tv companies did not threaten to empty chair Cameron, as he headed it. They said they would go ahead without a leader who chose not to participate. They didn't mention Cameron (and they didn't threaten to empty chair anyone)."
That's precisely what they did and in as many words. Time to end your childish vendetta against Mike. You make yourself sound ridiculous.
It's simply the protocol relating to monarchs and the head of state of our allies, regardless of any previous "difficulties".
However, a 1-1 interview with Cameron would be fun too - lots of questions about "Why weren't you willing to have the other leaders question this?" There is undoubtedly a tactical case for refusing, but the downsides are clearly there too.
It comes to something when only the President of Iran seems to get the tone right
There is no case for excluding the DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP, the Alliance party and Respect on the basis of the inclusion of the other minor parties in the two seven way debates. Legally it's a nightmare.
There is the further problem of the exclusion of the LibDems from the final debate given the precedent set in 2010, their involvement in government and the 5:5:4 format required during the election period for the three main parties.
My patent "JackW Debates Solution" remains available at no cost, namely :
1. Regional debates in Wales, Scotland and Ulster.
2. One national debate with Ukip, Green and Respect parties.
3. Two final debates with Con, Lab and LibDems.
On terminology, a quick sweep of the newspaper sites shows everyone is using "empty chair" in this context.
I wonder what would happen if Cameron, Clegg and Miliband pulled out? Would the debates go ahead with the other four? It would be a bit out of order for the broadcasters to pull out because those three won't do it.
Personally I think the debates should simply be between those in with a chance of being PM and that's where they went wrong last time. I hope the debates do go ahead simply to get the Cameron v Miliband head to head which would be good to see.
The speeches and messages, along with the flag lowering, are simply the form for these occasions and there is nothing out of the ordinary in what has happened.
The conflation of the death of the king and the flogging story has simply heightened the awareness of the these protocols.
The English regional debate should be limited to parties that stand in at least 90% of seats. We know who that will be. If necessary there could be two of these.
The last debate should be straight Lab vs Con, as the only two leaders with any prospect of becoming PM.
And the consensus was equally wrong on an invite being good enough to get around the legal requirement to equal time. There has to be an agreed basis for the debates. Agreement has nudged nearer with inclusion of The Seven. Certainly from a Tory point of view. But who attends is only part of what needs to agreed. All other aspects of the form of the debate need to be settled too. I imagine these are still being haggled over - which would explain the statement put out by the Tories yesterday which some took as them still wriggling.
"It's simply the protocol relating to monarchs and the head of state of our allies, regardless of any previous "difficulties".
I don't think it's the flags that are the problem but Cameron's eulogizing and his unnecessary visit to the kingdom. Fortunately the funeral is over so we've been spared watching him drape himself over the coffin.
Louise Mench oddly was excellent in her expression of revulsion at the behaviour of Cameron and Blair
Personally I would prefer a straight head to head between the two likely PMs on a UK wide level and separate 4 to 6 party debates in Eng, Wales, Scotland and NI featuring those local 'major' parties only.
Galloway is an independent, but he has a party label to dress that up - there's no case for dignifying that with a place in TV debates. Also, it's only FPTP that allows any distinction to be drawn between UKIP and the Lib Dems.
As I've said before it's a mess, because one is trying to shoehorn a Parliamentary system into a Presidential format.
"Who's got the remote?"
"There is no case for excluding the DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP, the Alliance party and Respect on the basis of the inclusion of the other minor parties in the two seven way debates. Legally it's a nightmare."
Surely the case is that those parties (excluding Respect) only compete against other NI parties so there is no point in having them at a debate outside Northern Ireland.
Sorry people, I'm going to be doing something else whenever one of the over hyped media extravagansas takes place.
I would also like to confirm that I do not watch soaps (badly acted and formulaic), x factor/voice/strictly or other "competitions" (too many suspicious results), cooking and auction progs, finally, the excreable Big Brother/I'm a Celeb. Which leaves, too little else to have escaped the accountants pencils to be worth watching.
The OFCOM statement is an initial assessment and indicates Ukip may be eligible for major party status but that the Green party was not :
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/tv-debates-ofcom-rules-ukip-major-party-greens-are-not
Includes link to full report.
It's all worked out rather well for Cameron. No doubt people will be calling him lucky again.
It's the governing pragmatism of having a dubious ally much like a rather unpleasing close relative that is necessarily present at family events.
As for the Greens I doubt a few decent polls off the back of publicity concerning their inclusion in the debates will make any difference.
Anyway, I don't think you can have Clegg in a debate without Farage.
But, they are great indoor game, like a rowdy version of Monopoly.
The Government parties fulminate against the treacherous behaviour of the Opposition, the Opposition parties lambast the idiocies of the Government.
There are of course ugly questions to answer about the future direction of the country, so it is nice to have our attention diverted by seven knockabout entertainers.
Broadly my view is that major status should be determined by a combination of holding a bloc of seats at Westminster, in the 15+ range or 15% share of the vote or being in government from the previous election.
Tory 1.94/1.95
Eds 2.08/2.10
Just mentioning it.
For all the bluster among Kippers on here, there is nothing to suggest UKIP will be anything more than a short term irritation on the centre right vote and once Douglas Carswell is the last man standing we will see how long Farage and chums last.
This is why I agree with JackW. As things stand in this Parliament there are 3 major parties. A debate between Osborne. Balls and Alexander would have been genuinely interesting and informative, uncomfortable for each of the participants in different ways. I really don't see what the rest bring to the party at all.
The criteria for participation should be set at something like 25 MPs in the current Parliament. Whether that would mean that the Lib Dems did not take part in 2020 (or for that matter that UKIP did) would be a question for the electorate.
Excluding UKIP and the others last time seemed reasonable. Including UKIP but not the others this time was still pretty reasonable given the regional ambitions of the others and far less advanced reach of the Greens. But permitting the SNP, while not unreasonable from certain views, does sort of let PC in by default. Which is also fine in itself, but makes excluding the NI parties close to being unreasonable.
Too late to change now I guess, though with the admittance of regionally focused parties which nevertheless have significant votes and potentially high UK electoral impact (moreso the SNP than the others), Socrates' view of a debate for all, a major parties debate, then a prospective PM debate, seems the most sensible option. 7, 4/5, 2 seems fairer than 7,7,2 to me.
Whether Respect is a fig leaf for Galloway or not is immaterial. The voters have previously determined his election and he/they are entitled to such a status.
Personally I found the 2010 debates cheap distractions, good telly bad politics. We saw Nick Clegg get lauded in the media and then his party rogered at the polls.
I suppose the justification for including outside the big two is that 'major' parties do exist beyond them in this country, and even in FPTP in extremely rare cases one of the big parties falls to be supplanted by a newer one, so your minor party today could potentially be major tomorrow. It seems reasonable enough. If anything, the broadcaster's are striving to be reasonable too much, in that they are accommodating the 'include practically everyone' crowd, while at the same time acknowledging those like yourself who think, if they must happen, only Ed and Dave should be there for at least one debate as only they can be PM.
I feel sorry for the broadcasters, unless it is true they are trying to get the debates cancelled just not by their own hand. They've attempted to please everyone and now the only people truly content are PC and the Greens.
Was anyone serious when they suggested he might be moved to the Foreign Office? George is many things but I am not sure that diplomatic is one of them.
I don't think we'll agree on this, but IMHO out of the seven parties playing politics, the biggest sh1ts are the people who thought up the policy in the first place, since their attempt to create a populist wedge issue has come at the expense of some very vulnerable people.
I'd be happy to learn that by watching a NI debate (or reading about it at least), but opening the doors to the other regionalist parties makes it not unreasonable for them to demand more than that.
"Quite. That is the way things are done, of course, but there has to be a way to send an appropriately official honouring message of condolence which the saudi's would be happy with without descending to the level of bootlicking."
The way would be to send Tony Blair. Those outside the UK don't realize his status is now somewhere between Pol Pot and Gadaffi
The only thing that might change is the date of the debates, because the parties may not want them too close to election day.
He should probably go for a more moderate and courteous formulation like "You can stick that flag pole up your arse, Your Majesty".
The purpose of the TV debates is so the media can tell us who won (the audience don't need to do their own thinking) and advise us to back their man (apologies to Natalie Bennett) .
It would be pretty funny though if after all this excitement UKIP ended up getting 6% or something, well up on last time but so far below current expectations. I do want UKIP to do well, I think their rise has been a good thing but, oh, the consternation, the accusations - it would be amazing to watch.
The mega debate, due to the format will probably be a measured affair.
If Cameron and Milliband go at each other aggressively in their 1:1, as they surely will, they will put people off and be seen as "the problem". The other parties will be able to present themselves as the alternative.
This is UKIP's and the LD's bread and butter. And because of their major party status, The LDs and UKIP will have to be given substantial air time to reply.
What, and risk alienating labour's key islamic vote?
Not a chance
There is potential for amazing political theatre this year. Ed wins the election with a minority and scrapes together a threadbare shaky coalition with SNP, LDs blame Clegg and ditch him, Tories implode in acrimony and knife Cameron, UKIP blame Tories for being wishy washy, Tories blame UKIP for splitting the right. Labour coalition implodes over austerity or failure to pass SNP demands, Labour loses a vote of confidence, Labour Party knifes Miliband, second election in a year with both major parties in the middle of blood-letting. Fun for all the family
O/T - If the seven-way does go-ahead, I'm not sure it's bad for Cameron. He'll be the only one on the podium (unless Nigel pitches his economic policies well) expressing practical centre-right views. That's exactly where the average English swing-voter is, so, if he plays his cards right, he could sound very reasonable and moderate. That could rally a lot of viewers support around him.
Meanwhile the left-wing vote could be splintered several ways as they struggle to decide which version they want to pick most.
The 7 coconuts in row formula for TV debates is a dead parrot walking to it's own dissolution.
I also cannot see why Cammo and Little ED should have a head to head debate by themselves. It would be putrid television, a boring PMQ going on and on for an hour to make people weep. Mind you, they would probably lose loads of votes if they did go ahead with it.
The broadcasters of this would be laughed at for ages. No, they need a debate with spice and we know what gives spice to any debate; Nigel Farage. The Networks just can't do without him.
In the end Cammo will get what he wants: no debates; unless the courts decide otherwise.
He certainly isn't getting the plaudits he deserves - well apart from Obama's compliments. About time he blew his own trumpet.
Surely, the debates should be open to any party who has candidates in at least 90% of the UK seats. As has been said previously, if a candidate and their party are not on the ballot sheet in front of you on polling day, then you are not legally able to vote for them.