Firstly any research on the issue sows that the SNP did not "muck up" their legal challenge in 2011. They were strung along by the BBC until it was too late but also until they could raise the cash. This time round is totally different. They have substantial resources and a much stronger case based on their exisiting position as the third biggest party in the UK and their likely poosition as the third biggest parliamentary group. Indeed it could be said that the fact they were prepared to go to court last time is what has forced the Beeb to accept the inevtiable this time.
Secondly the case aganist the Northern Irish parties is simple. They do not face opponents from Labour or Tory and therefore are under no serious disadvantage from the debates. They would struggle to get any legal traction if offered a Northern Ireland debate with the competing parties..
Thirdly it is not impossible - or even difficult - to draw up an entertaining format from the seven chosen parties.For a start there are three interesting women and four much less interesting men. That should offer lots of scope for providing a measure of tension in the debate.
Finally, as to the last debate the problem is not the format but the cast. Milliband is dreadful but Cameron is at best dull. In the referendum debate on the BBC, at least when Darling was dull Salmond sparkled. Unless Labour can inject Milliband with some of that pure ability they are in for a desultory time and the rest of us will just switch off.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
Sometimes JackW writes a lot of rubbish and this is one of those times. Look to my post of 9.48am for the likely outcome.
The whole thing is based on Cameron not wanting ukip to eat into the tory vote. Long winded arguments about fairness etc are bullshit, no one was mentioning the nationalist parties when they thought it would be just the big three Westminster parties, it was only when ukip got major party status
No different to a child who wants it to be 'my game' or he won't let anyone play, Cameron wants it his way or not at all, and it seems that kind of spin and game playing makes him a genius in some peoples eyes. The kind who think yes, minister is the way govt should be run, rather than a parody.
It's easy enough to work out who should be in the debates, and what proportion of them, look at the opinion polls since GE 2010... Parties that are given a score when the results are published should be in, those that don't, aren't.
I'd have one debate as per 2010', one with Farage as well, and another with the greens and the snp
Good Morning all. 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.
Mike - your dear leader wrote a moaning letter demanding the parties with 1-2 seats are allowed in - you are reaping what you sowed. Farage has messed up here big time.
The whole thing is based on Cameron not wanting ukip to eat into the tory vote. Long winded arguments about fairness etc are bullshit, no one was mentioning the nationalist parties when they thought it would be just the big three Westminster parties, it was only when ukip got major party status
No different to a child who wants it to be 'my game' or he won't let anyone play, Cameron wants it his way or not at all, and it seems that kind of spin and game playing makes him a genius in some peoples eyes. The kind who think yes, minister is the way govt should be run, rather than a parody.
It's easy enough to work out who should be in the debates, and what proportion of them, look at the opinion polls since GE 2010... Parties that are given a score when the results are published should be in, those that don't, aren't.
I'd have one debate as per 2010', one with Farage as well, and another with the greens and the snp
3-4-6
Farage had the high ground then he teamed up with The other spare room subsidy parties to write a whining letter about allowing in tiddler parties - He got what he asked for....
The 7 format is ludicrous. Why have I got any interest in listening to Plaid or SNP? They won't be on my ballot. And too many at the table. And the Irish are right to question why they're not involved. Regional debates are clearly an element of the model though.
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.
Far from killing the debates, this format is designed to withstand any challenge that it is likely to meet.
Every participant bar David Cameron wants the debates to go ahead. They would prefer bad debate formats to no debates at all. So the format that suits David Cameron will be acquiesced to, if grumpily, by everyone else invited.
What about the non-invitees? The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing.
That leaves Respect. Since there were plenty of formats that could have been put forward that they could not have objected to that would have excluded them, they cannot argue that they must now be invited when they suffer no additional unfairness (their main rivals would have appeared in every debate on any format). Given the strong public interest in seeing the debates go ahead, I expect the courts to send George Galloway packing too, if he decides to challenge the format.
Lots of flapping and windy rhetoric from the terrified Tories this morning. Trying to pretend they are important. Would be fun in 2016 if Tories were given their real place in Scotland and as they are a minor minor party , be banned from all discussion on the election and left to accept their handful of consolation list seats for biggest losers.
Lots of flapping and windy rhetoric from the terrified Tories this morning. Trying to pretend they are important. Would be fun in 2016 if Tories were given their real place in Scotland and as they are a minor minor party , be banned from all discussion on the election and left to accept their handful of consolation list seats for biggest losers.
I thought Scotland was already a one party state where disloyalty to the Saltire was forbidden ? You live and learn...
Far from killing the debates, this format is designed to withstand any challenge that it is likely to meet.
Every participant bar David Cameron wants the debates to go ahead. They would prefer bad debate formats to no debates at all. So the format that suits David Cameron will be acquiesced to, if grumpily, by everyone else invited.
What about the non-invitees? The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing.
That leaves Respect. Since there were plenty of formats that could have been put forward that they could not have objected to that would have excluded them, they cannot argue that they must now be invited when they suffer no additional unfairness (their main rivals would have appeared in every debate on any format). Given the strong public interest in seeing the debates go ahead, I expect the courts to send George Galloway packing too, if he decides to challenge the format.
You think the Lib Dems would consider this as better than nothing - or UKIP to a lesser extent.
This format packages them up with the also-rans and sends a clear signal they're basically irrelevant. You may think they are, but it's not remotely unreasonable for them to disagree.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
Sometimes JackW writes a lot of rubbish and this is one of those times. Look to my post of 9.48am for the likely outcome.
Mike, he constantly writes rubbish, typical nasty Tory position.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
Sometimes JackW writes a lot of rubbish and this is one of those times. Look to my post of 9.48am for the likely outcome.
Mike, he constantly writes rubbish, typical nasty Tory position.
dear oh dear 10 am and its the malcolmg hangover lets be nasty to everyone position
Maaarsh, the choice for UKIP and the Lib Dems is between this set-up and no debates. They would both prefer something different. But that's not on offer.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
To prevent this almighty debate mess from recurring I may find it necessary to impose a solution for future events. Namely :
Major UK Wide Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. 15 seats at Westminster. 2. 15% share of the vote at the previous general election. 3. Part of a Coalition Government.
Minor UK Wide or Regional Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. One seat at Westminster 2. 5% of the vote nationally or regionally at the previous general election.
Debates :
1. One regional 90 minute debate for each of Wales, Scotland and Ulster. 2. One UK wide 90 minute Minor party debate. 3. Two 90 minutes Major party status debates.
Maaarsh, the choice for UKIP and the Lib Dems is between this set-up and no debates. They would both prefer something different. But that's not on offer.
Yes, I'm questioning if this is better than nothing for the Lib Dems?
A couple of debates where they're surrounded on all sides with no distinctive offering or space to carve out, followed by a final debate which decisively points out that unlike last time, they are irrelevant and can be treated like a fringe element.
Lots of flapping and windy rhetoric from the terrified Tories this morning. Trying to pretend they are important. Would be fun in 2016 if Tories were given their real place in Scotland and as they are a minor minor party , be banned from all discussion on the election and left to accept their handful of consolation list seats for biggest losers.
I thought Scotland was already a one party state where disloyalty to the Saltire was forbidden ? You live and learn...
Sour grapes from the Tories. Will be nice to see them fighting for the scraps with labour and the other fringe parties.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
Sometimes JackW writes a lot of rubbish and this is one of those times. Look to my post of 9.48am for the likely outcome.
Mike, he constantly writes rubbish, typical nasty Tory position.
dear oh dear 10 am and its the malcolmg hangover lets be nasty to everyone position
Toodlepip
LOL, here come the loonies, square sausage crawls out from under his rock. Unleash the Tory dogs of war............. Ha Ha Ha
Wales will have their own debates, likewise Scotland. English devolution is an active topic for discussion and needs to happen, and there's no reason for English debates not to precede devolution.
It needn't necessarily be either/or with regards to a UK-wide debate or two.
This makes absolutely no sense. Why wouldn't the broadcasters want the debates? Of course they want them - they're better telly than anything else in politics.
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.
I completely agree that they want them. I just don't think they want as many as five people on stage, never mind seven - which is why they've put something forward that lots of people will object to and which the courts may well rule as unfair, not least by placing two lines at places other than where Ofcom have put them i.e. between Con/Lab and the rest, and between 'the seven' and the rest. If the courts do rule against the proposals then the broadcasters will have to come up with something else.
I wouldn't be surprised if the final format is something like:
The previous 5:5:4 ratio serves as a ready precedent for treating the Lib Dems as slightly lesser than the Tories or Labour and given the loss of support since 2010, a 3:3:2 ratio isn't unreasonable. Including the Greens in one debate addresses Cameron's point and including the SNP recognises their level of support in Scotland that's been evident for several years and would return at least two dozen MPs and quite possibly a good deal more. The head-to-head then gives the broadcasters the spotlight event they also want.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo has never wanted TV debates for this GE and has succeeded in all but killing the idea for the present. Instead our dear PM is "deeply saddened" (BBC) by the death of a medieval Arab king from a barbaric land.
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
Your "in a coalition government" criterion could be easily abused. A majority Tory government could just invite the one Respect MP to join them in government in order to get them in the debates.
I also don't see why current numbers of MPs matters. If you've got 15 MPs based on one random election, and then drop below 1 point in the polls after a corruption scandal, why should you be included?
You should just have the last year of poll ratings averaged:
- 20 points for all three debates - 10 points for two debates - 5 points for one debate
I would also add a requirement that you need to be standing in 50% of constituencies. Otherwise you're not relevant to the whole country. Have separate debates for Scotland, Wales and Ulster.
Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP is indulged by too many politicians who should know better – especially the wibbly Ed Miliband
My, but it’s an easy life being Nicola Sturgeon. Nothing can ever go wrong. She’s the new leader of the SNP, in case you haven’t been paying attention; that lady with hair like Barry Manilow. She’s the one who announced last week that her MPs would be prepared to vote in the Commons on English-only laws, picking a fight she couldn’t possibly lose. For this is how it works when you are the SNP.
Now that the SNP have been invited by the broadcasters, any attempt to uninvite them would be disastrous for their opponents-particularly as SLAB have been stating that it is up to the broadcasters who they invite (Douglas Alexander smilingly stating that on Scotland 2015, for example).
SLAB meant that, of course, up to the point at which the SNP were invited, with mutterings now being reported of objections to a mere "regional" party being invited.
The situation for the SNP is now an even bigger win/win than I stated here a couple of weeks ago.
I will not be surprised if the usual unionist chicanery manages to restrict the SNP involvement to one debate rather than the two suggested.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
To prevent this almighty debate mess from recurring I may find it necessary to impose a solution for future events. Namely :
Major UK Wide Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. 15 seats at Westminster. 2. 15% share of the vote at the previous general election. 3. Part of a Coalition Government.
[snip]
The problem with that is that you get into the Ross Perot dilemma, namely that he wouldn't have been entitled to a place in the US debates in 1992, when he was polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton, but would have been entitled to one in 1996 when he was little more than an also-ran.
Or, to put it in a British context, UKIP - polling 20% with some pollsters and generally at least 15% now, having finished first or second in almost all Westminster by-elections in the last few years - would not be entitled to a place at the moment. However, if they make good on that share, they would be entitled to one in 2020, by which time they might have imploded.
While I can understand the preference for the 'hard' figures of election results, I don't think any criteria that exclude entirely current performance in opinion polls and recent non-GE elections would pass the public sniff test.
I don't believe that TV companies want to kill these off. They have huge ratings potential. What TV company would turn down the chance to host something that will get 10+ million viewer and where the cost of the event is peanuts....even the lead actors will turn up for free.
Normally they have to pay mega bucks for some tv rights for a sporting event for that kind of viewership.
You should just have the last year of poll ratings averaged:
- 20 points for all three debates - 10 points for two debates - 5 points for one debate.
That's not entirely unreasonable, but I don't think there's any "system" that is entirely perfect - if we look at other countries, how would Podemos qualify, for example?
I'm also a bit wary about relying too much on opinion polls - suppose a left-aligned thinktank* were as a result to decide to start opinion polling, with some dubious weightings, etc, in order to affect the opinion poll average for eligibility to the debates? It's only until there's an election that you can be sure which methodology is more accurate, so you would leave yourself well open to manipulation.
Furthermore - how do you average the opinion polls? There are as many ways of doing that as there are amateur psephologists.
I'm not really having a go, it's just that it seems obvious to me that there is no obvious way to make this decision, because the situation is unavoidably complicated. There's thus no way to avoid our own biases having an effect - JackW clearly has a bias for the status quo, while you and I do not in our different ways.
* Effectively this is what Ashcroft is doing, except that his methodology appears to be entirely reasonable - but it does produce results that are very friendly to UKIP/Greens, and we can't be sure whether it is more ICM or Angus Reid until the election.
"She’s the one who announced last week that her MPs would be prepared to vote in the Commons on English-only laws,...."
I think you will find that she made no such statement but reaffirmed that the SNP would vote on those matters which she and the SNP believed would have knock on consequences for Scotland.
As for her easy life, she has to put up with mendacious unionists/BBC/MSM day in and day out deliberately distorting what she said
Your "in a coalition government" criterion could be easily abused. A majority Tory government could just invite the one Respect MP to join them in government in order to get them in the debates.
I also don't see why current numbers of MPs matters. If you've got 15 MPs based on one random election, and then drop below 1 point in the polls after a corruption scandal, why should you be included?
You should just have the last year of poll ratings averaged:
- 20 points for all three debates - 10 points for two debates - 5 points for one debate
I would also add a requirement that you need to be standing in 50% of constituencies. Otherwise you're not relevant to the whole country. Have separate debates for Scotland, Wales and Ulster.
At the risk of exclusion to ConHome may I say real votes are far more relevant than the dubious joys of pollsters and their interesting and varied methodologies and results.
If a party falls foul of the voters then they will reap the whirlwind but these MP's were afforded the courtesy by the electorate and it should be the electorate and not YouGov who determine their fate and their party participation in the debates.
Your point about George Galloway joining a Conservative Coalition government was entertaining - Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability on the issue.
Taking together all the evidence, the criteria suggest that UKIP has sufficiently demonstrated evidence of past electoral support and current support to qualify for major party status in England and Wales for the purposes of the General Election and English local (and mayoral) elections in May 2015.
Note "in England and Wales". This would place UKIP at roughly the same level as the, SNP, PC and NI major parties - i.e. a major party only in specific regions, not GB-wide. The Ofcom definition (see Fig 1) would become something like:
3. At present in Great Britain, major parties are defined as: the Conservative Party; the Labour Party; and the Liberal Democrats, 4. In addition, major parties in England include the United Kingdom Independence Party. 5. In addition, major parties in Scotland include the Scottish National Party. 6. In addition, major parties in Wales include Plaid Cymru and for the purposes of the General Election taking place on 7 May 2015 also the United Kingdom Independence Party. 7. The major parties in Northern Ireland are: the Alliance Party; the Democratic Unionist Party; Sinn Fein; the Social Democratic and Labour Party; and the Ulster Unionist Party.
I think it is worth bearing in mind that no PM in history agreed to debates until one of the worst thought at the last election he had nothing to lose. He was probably right. While he looked irrelevant and unelectable the opposition to him split more neatly than it otherwise might have done costing Cameron a majority.
Our current PM is a traditionalist and reluctant to give up the status of being the sitting PM. He also does not want a repeat of 2010 and finds the noise of the UKIP gnat irritating. So he would prefer there to be no debates.
The media rather like the status that they get from the debates so they are very reluctant to allow political bickering stop them as it usually has in the past. So they have tried to impose rules on the politicians and present them and the public with a fait accompli. But in doing so they have overreached themselves and come up with a solution that has more problems than answers.
My guess is that there will not be debates but if there are the current format is as good for Cameron as he was ever going to get. The threats to the left and right from the minor parties are largely neutralised and balanced by far left and Nationalist threats to Labour. And Ed one to one works fine. That is the choice the tories want to give the UK and they are increasingly confident what the answer would be.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
To prevent this almighty debate mess from recurring I may find it necessary to impose a solution for future events. Namely :
Major UK Wide Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. 15 seats at Westminster. 2. 15% share of the vote at the previous general election. 3. Part of a Coalition Government.
[snip]
The problem with that is that you get into the Ross Perot dilemma, namely that he wouldn't have been entitled to a place in the US debates in 1992, when he was polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton, but would have been entitled to one in 1996 when he was little more than an also-ran.
Or, to put it in a British context, UKIP - polling 20% with some pollsters and generally at least 15% now, having finished first or second in almost all Westminster by-elections in the last few years - would not be entitled to a place at the moment. However, if they make good on that share, they would be entitled to one in 2020, by which time they might have imploded.
While I can understand the preference for the 'hard' figures of election results, I don't think any criteria that exclude entirely current performance in opinion polls and recent non-GE elections would pass the public sniff test.
We're not electing an executive President but 650 MPs from which the government and opposition are formed.
The public were not greatly moved by Ukip exclusion from the 2010 debates despite their good Euro election performance. Hard votes in general elections and not opinion polls must form the criteria.
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.
I think that's fair. I would edit (3) though so the first final debate included UKIP, and the last did not - just Con, Lab and LibDems. That'd reflect their appeal fairly, but also the fact they have not yet achieved significant parliamentary status.
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.
To prevent this almighty debate mess from recurring I may find it necessary to impose a solution for future events. Namely :
Major UK Wide Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. 15 seats at Westminster. 2. 15% share of the vote at the previous general election. 3. Part of a Coalition Government.
[snip]
The problem with that is that you get into the Ross Perot dilemma, namely that he wouldn't have been entitled to a place in the US debates in 1992, when he was polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton, but would have been entitled to one in 1996 when he was little more than an also-ran.
Or, to hich time they might have imploded.
While I can understand the preference for the 'hard' figures of election results, I don't think any criteria that exclude entirely current performance in opinion polls and recent non-GE elections would pass the public sniff test.
We're not electing an executive President but 650 MPs from which the government and opposition are formed.
The public were not greatly moved by Ukip exclusion from the 2010 debates despite their good Euro election performance. Hard votes in general elections and not opinion polls must form the criteria.
Westminster by elections count as much as general elections in the relevant seat, and Ukip have more than shown their worth in the last five years in those contests
You're talking flowery nonsense to try and make the status quo sound reasonable, and failing
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Having witnessed what has happened as a result of getting rid of two brutal,despicable regimes in the area perhaps it is a wise move to make sure the current bunch in Saudi stay in place
The problem with that is that you get into the Ross Perot dilemma, namely that he wouldn't have been entitled to a place in the US debates in 1992, when he was polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton, but would have been entitled to one in 1996 when he was little more than an also-ran.
Or, to put it in a British context, UKIP - polling 20% with some pollsters and generally at least 15% now, having finished first or second in almost all Westminster by-elections in the last few years - would not be entitled to a place at the moment. However, if they make good on that share, they would be entitled to one in 2020, by which time they might have imploded.
While I can understand the preference for the 'hard' figures of election results, I don't think any criteria that exclude entirely current performance in opinion polls and recent non-GE elections would pass the public sniff test.
We're not electing an executive President but 650 MPs from which the government and opposition are formed.
The public were not greatly moved by Ukip exclusion from the 2010 debates despite their good Euro election performance. Hard votes in general elections and not opinion polls must form the criteria.
The public were not moved by UKIP's exclusion in 2010 because very few of the public were supporting them at a Westminster level at the time. This is no longer so. Not only opinion polls but Westminster by-elections show a broad and meaningful level of support across the country (as do local election results, never mind the Euros).
There does have to be a balance struck but basing the criteria on what happened five years ago and ignoring what has happened in between seems to introduce a great risk to perceived legitimacy given the time-lag.
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
Really? Seems a bit harsh to not let them in if they've offered to be tagged doesn't it?
I'm increasingly of the view that these debates won't happen. I suspect one of the Irish parties will take legal action and in the end the broadcasters will run out of time to get things sorted out.
Cameron is playing Westminster bubble party political games and trying to filibuster his way out of something the public want... and feels rather clever about it no doubt.. the usual suspects are impressed
On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..
Westminster by elections count as much as general elections in the relevant seat, and Ukip have more than shown their worth in the last five years in those contests
You're talking flowery nonsense to try and make the status quo sound reasonable, and failing
While I agree that ukip deserves full inclusion, by elections pose a problem too: if the elections occur in Richmond upon Thames, Hampstead, and Kensington, then ukip would score poorly and the LibDems highly. On the other hand, if they were to occur in eastern coastal towns, the opposite would be true. With such a small sample size, the degree of randomness is great.
Nice article, David, and I think you are pretty much on the money.
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
Issac @newtz5 54m54 minutes ago "@SussexMark: #Saudi: women receive 90 lashes for being raped. In the UK, flags were at half mast for #KingAbdullah. " Embedded image permalink
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
Really? Seems a bit harsh to not let them in if they've offered to be tagged doesn't it?
Don't we let Zimmers come here on holiday?
I do not work for the Home Office!
Once they are on British soil they can make an asylum claim or resist deportation on the right to family life etc. Prior promises mean nothing.
Of course, if less troubled by risk of absconding/overstaying/asylum then we can be more charitable.
Stricter immigration rules will make for a lot of similar cases.
Cameron is playing Westminster bubble party political games and trying to filibuster his way out of something the public want... and feels rather clever about it no doubt.. the usual suspects are impressed
On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..
Isam that is the most sensible comment I have read on this issue.
Nice article, David, and I think you are pretty much on the money.
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
Ptp = I 100% agree.
Most commenters on PB will not.
OGH's thread saying how bad a move Cammo's rejection of the original format was and the indignant agreement from all the anti-Tories in the comments of how bad a move it was by Cammo (even one or two blues, Mr. Herdson for eg agreed) is the highlight of PB 2015 so far.
"My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station."
It would be a worrying precedent to set that this sort of measure was taken in relation to someone who, a priori, is on a tourist visa. I'm afraid it's easy to see how the authorities have concluded a family of street sellers from Zimbabwe are at risk of staying in the country where they have family, and, indeed, may feel a (understandable) moral need to support a family member.
Nice article, David, and I think you are pretty much on the money.
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
Peter do not be so naive , everyone has a right to complain. It is smart politics but not for the general public.
Dave should have gone to Davos , to give his full backing to Andrew. Which would fit into his main concerns.
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
Really? Seems a bit harsh to not let them in if they've offered to be tagged doesn't it?
Don't we let Zimmers come here on holiday?
I do not work for the Home Office!
Once they are on British soil they can make an asylum claim or resist deportation on the right to family life etc. Prior promises mean nothing.
Of course, if less troubled by risk of absconding/overstaying/asylum then we can be more charitable.
Stricter immigration rules will make for a lot of similar cases.
Oh right, cheers
my bleeding heart lefty side getting me caught out by sob stories again!
Cameron is playing Westminster bubble party political games and trying to filibuster his way out of something the public want... and feels rather clever about it no doubt.. the usual suspects are impressed
On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..
Isam that is the most sensible comment I have read on this issue.
"My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station."
It would be a worrying precedent to set that this sort of measure was taken in relation to someone who, a priori, is on a tourist visa. I'm afraid it's easy to see how the authorities have concluded a family of street sellers from Zimbabwe are at risk of staying in the country where they have family, and, indeed, may feel a (understandable) moral need to support a family member.
Even under the current rules we are getting all sorts of similar idiocies in relation to British Citizens. There are a number of cases where our citizens have been abroad on business for a number of years, got married and started a family while they are abroad and now want to come home. They can come home no problem, but wait, they need to demonstrate an £18,600 salary before they can bring their wife in, and a further £3,800 for their first child, and £2,400 for any subsequent children. They people then find they are unable to command that sort of salary, and are forced to leave their wife, and/or children in another country. Unless of course they or their partners are citizens of another EU country, then they are laughing...
If you offer three of the four major parties all that air time and not the fourth, they would have to make it up to Farage another way or he will be on his lawyers like a shot.
Unlike the European elections Ukip are not a major party for UK wide general elections. That may change after the May election but presently their parliamentary status in national terms remains that of the Greens and Respect.
I might have misunderstood the OFCOM ruling, but I think Ukip is very much a major party when it comes to this General Election.
Only in England and Wales. They do not have the same status as the Tories, Labour and (for now) Liberals.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
Malcolm
A Tory Victory at the next GE would be good for the SNP. As if they hold and in out referendum on Europe, surely this would assist in getting another referendum for Scotland leaving the UK. So for this election the SNP should be asking English voters to vote Conservative to help the SNP.
'On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..'
Matthew Taylor ex Labour spin doctor said the presence of so many minor parties and the prospect of a very unstable government could be a turn off for voters & a boost for the Tories.
Far from killing the debates, this format is designed to withstand any challenge that it is likely to meet.
Every participant bar David Cameron wants the debates to go ahead. They would prefer bad debate formats to no debates at all. So the format that suits David Cameron will be acquiesced to, if grumpily, by everyone else invited.
What about the non-invitees? The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing.
That leaves Respect. Since there were plenty of formats that could have been put forward that they could not have objected to that would have excluded them, they cannot argue that they must now be invited when they suffer no additional unfairness (their main rivals would have appeared in every debate on any format). Given the strong public interest in seeing the debates go ahead, I expect the courts to send George Galloway packing too, if he decides to challenge the format.
The format wouldn't be challengable on the basis that all Major Parties competing against one another are included. With one problem.
Ofcom's ostrich like decision to refuse Major Party status to the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party may allow minor parties outside NI to raise this as an issue. The ball is really in Ofcom's court, just recognise the Greens and then the format is logically sound and free from challenge.
'On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..'
Matthew Taylor ex Labour spin doctor said the presence of so many minor parties and the prospect of a very unstable government could be a turn off for voters & a boost for the Tories.
I don't see why PC, SNP and DUP etc etc can't be placated by tv debates in their own countries. They can't argue they should be in the UK debate, they are not UK parties. This leads one to conclude that David Herdson might be right and this is an Aunt Sally.
Mr. Borough, I don't see why the broadcasters added Plaid and the SNP. Whilst the latter has an arguable (though far from cast-iron) case for inclusion, the former has far less. Including both also made it odd not to have Sinn Fein or the DUP.
I don't see why PC, SNP and DUP etc etc can't be placated by tv debates in their own countries. They can't argue they should be in the UK debate, they are not UK parties. This leads one to conclude that David Herdson might be right and this is an Aunt Sally.
On the other hand the willingness of the SNP and Labour to conspire to promote their interests at the expense of English democracy ought to be given a national airing.
Far from killing the debates, this format is designed to withstand any challenge that it is likely to meet.
Every participant bar David Cameron wants the debates to go ahead. They would prefer bad debate formats to no debates at all. So the format that suits David Cameron will be acquiesced to, if grumpily, by everyone else invited.
What about the non-invitees? The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing.
That leaves Respect. ...
The format wouldn't be challengable on the basis that all Major Parties competing against one another are included. With one problem.
Ofcom's ostrich like decision to refuse Major Party status to the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party may allow minor parties outside NI to raise this as an issue. The ball is really in Ofcom's court, just recognise the Greens and then the format is logically sound and free from challenge.
What qualifications do Ofcom have to judge political parties?
Mr. Borough, I don't see why the broadcasters added Plaid and the SNP. Whilst the latter has an arguable (though far from cast-iron) case for inclusion, the former has far less. Including both also made it odd not to have Sinn Fein or the DUP.
Not only odd, but a wide open invitation to a legal challenge. Maybe BBC have taken legal advice and been told DUP don't have a case - we'll see. At moment it looks to me like LibDems will pull the plug on this proposal, before anyone else needs to.
What qualifications do Ofcom have to judge political parties?
Well they are, nominally, independent and take external advice on their decision. For lack of another body to step in they seem best placed. Perhaps the Electoral Commission would be preferable.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
I don't see why PC, SNP and DUP etc etc can't be placated by tv debates in their own countries. They can't argue they should be in the UK debate, they are not UK parties. This leads one to conclude that David Herdson might be right and this is an Aunt Sally.
Because the SNP compete against Labour who would get two bites at the cherry appearing in a UK wide debate, broadcast in Scotland and supported with extensive news coverage and likely the most heavily covered part of the election campaign on rolling news.
Effectively it gives one Major Part a huge advantage over another Major Party. This doesn't apply to the DUP who are not challenged by any Major Party currently included in the debates.
Good piece, David. IMHO Better than 7-7-2 would be a format of 3-3-3-3-2. The two major parties get to go head to head still. All seven leaders speak in two debates. No debate has more than three speakers (seven is way too unwieldy). No leader faces the same other leader more than once. There's a bit of risk over who faces who but everyone faces the same. See my blog post last night for more details: https://thewillowwilderness.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/party-leaders-debates-3-3-3-3-2-beats-7-7-2/
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
I bet a "white" "farmer" would have been allowed in !
Nice article, David, and I think you are pretty much on the money.
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
But how smart is it? Surely CCHQ is wrong about not wanting debates, and has ballsed up its attempts to kill them off, and in the process made the format worse for its own man.
It is surely not smart politics to be caught with a smoking gun, yet it seems clear who will be blamed if the debates do founder.
There is the "frit" charge, which is doubly curious considering how each week at PMQs David Cameron wins by a knock-out, or so we read on pb.
Then there is the format which you say minimises the danger to the Tories, yet surely the opposite is true because the one thing all the opposition parties will agree on is that the government has messed things up, And now there will be five other parties saying this instead of just one, so even if David Cameron could refute all their charges, he simply won't have time.
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
I bet a "white" "farmer" would have been allowed in !
The problem with that is that you get into the Ross Perot dilemma, namely that he wouldn't have been entitled to a place in the US debates in 1992, when he was polling ahead of both Bush and Clinton, but would have been entitled to one in 1996 when he was little more than an also-ran.
Or, to put it in a British context, UKIP - polling 20% with some pollsters and generally at least 15% now, having finished first or second in almost all Westminster by-elections in the last few years - would not be entitled to a place at the moment. However, if they make good on that share, they would be entitled to one in 2020, by which time they might have imploded.
While I can understand the preference for the 'hard' figures of election results, I don't think any criteria that exclude entirely current performance in opinion polls and recent non-GE elections would pass the public sniff test.
We're not electing an executive President but 650 MPs from which the government and opposition are formed.
The public were not greatly moved by Ukip exclusion from the 2010 debates despite their good Euro election performance. Hard votes in general elections and not opinion polls must form the criteria.
The public were not moved by UKIP's exclusion in 2010 because very few of the public were supporting them at a Westminster level at the time. This is no longer so. Not only opinion polls but Westminster by-elections show a broad and meaningful level of support across the country (as do local election results, never mind the Euros).
There does have to be a balance struck but basing the criteria on what happened five years ago and ignoring what has happened in between seems to introduce a great risk to perceived legitimacy given the time-lag.
Just what is the point of these so called 'debates'? Have the participants been in hiding for the last 10 years? Do we really not have any notion of who they are, or that there will not be other forums where they will be interviewed in depth, that we have to have some staged managed beauty parade. They are a waste of time. As is pointed out we are not electing a President who has emerged out of the unknown from a stitched up caucus in some non-smoke filled room. Despite all these interviews and 'debates' how many people cottoned on that in 2010 Brown and Labour in their printed Manifesto were promising a £20 billion set of cuts, sorry 'efficiencies', to the NHS, plus allowing more private involvement ?
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you, Charity'
If aiming for reducing net immigration then these are the sorts of hard rules required.
I bet a "white" "farmer" would have been allowed in !
Really, I would be more sceptical.
Of course white farmers should have the automatic right to citizenship if their ancestors are from here. Jus sanguinis.
I would be interested why these Zimbabweans were here in the first place. I suggest they could hold the funeral there.
I don't see why PC, SNP and DUP etc etc can't be placated by tv debates in their own countries. They can't argue they should be in the UK debate, they are not UK parties. This leads one to conclude that David Herdson might be right and this is an Aunt Sally.
If you are a voter in Scotland, and you watch the UK-wide broadcast, then you are hearing the arguments of some of the parties in Scotland and not all of them. I personally see why this is the debate format now being proposed.
'The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing. '
You either include all regional parties or none.
As the most likely outcome is a hung parliament I would have thought voters would want to know what concessions the fourth largest party with 8 MP's wants.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
Malcolm
A Tory Victory at the next GE would be good for the SNP. As if they hold and in out referendum on Europe, surely this would assist in getting another referendum for Scotland leaving the UK. So for this election the SNP should be asking English voters to vote Conservative to help the SNP.
York, I know best possible result would be Tory biggest party and SNP with shed load of MP's. I just find it laughable the pathetic childish stances many of the pathetic Tories take on here. Carlotta is just an embittered emigrant Scot who hates the SNP and is so blind to reality , just equates everything to SNP bad. I never fail to remind him/her of their pathetic posturing.
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Being on course to do as well as the Irish Parliamentary Party in 1885 seems like a pretty good consolation prize for the SNP.
'The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing. '
You either include all regional parties or none.
As the most likely outcome is a hung parliament I would have thought voters would want to know what concessions the fourth largest party with 8 MP's wants.
The SNP and Plaid Cymru are National Parties. Just not nations that most British Nationalists want to endlessly and unfairly promote.
Ironically, all the major NI parties would likely be happy with the term "regional".
Mr. Grandiose, if you're a voter in Scotland you get the Scottish debates.
if you're a voter in Scotland you get the Scottish debates and the UK debates, the latter with only one of the two main competing Scottish parties represented (and three others of varying degrees of Scottish irrelevancy also represented).
The sooner the whole notion of the debates is abandoned, the better.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
Bring back John Major's soap box .... if not Mr Grey Underpants himself
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
You sound just like a Nat!
How did that go?
It went very well and as we see is still gathering pace.
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
We all know that you are a typical nasty Nat, though fortunately not a typical Scot. The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had. How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Dear dear , the other cheek of the arse of square root appears , bitter and twisted as ever. Go lie down in a darkened cave , nasty little cockroach that you are.
Mr. Grandiose, if you're a voter in Scotland you get the Scottish debates.
MD , it is a UK election. The UK parties get two bites at cherry with their London lot and then their regional sock puppet minions. That is far from fair, but then we are well used to that.
Nice article, David, and I think you are pretty much on the money.
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
But how smart is it? Surely CCHQ is wrong about not wanting debates, and has ballsed up its attempts to kill them off, and in the process made the format worse for its own man. ...
Then there is the format which you say minimises the danger to the Tories, yet surely the opposite is true because the one thing all the opposition parties will agree on is that the government has messed things up, And now there will be five other parties saying this instead of just one, so even if David Cameron could refute all their charges, he simply won't have time.
It's a shambles.
Why should Cameron allow himself to be stitched up? Why are Labour so frit that they did not want the Greens involved? This is all thats needed - include the Greens - they have an MP. Instead Lab LD and UKIP said no. Now we have all sorts of people saying No.
What a 7 sided debate will do is show a fractured opposition. Any opposition party will complain and all the remaining 5 can agree that Labour's answer is unworkable, as indeed each 'remaining 5' can agree about each of the 6th. All of which might make the electorate favour the devil they know
Two 7-sided debates are of course bonkers. The election campaign will be dreary and tiresome anyway. This will be no fault of the politicians but the self serving TV journalists who will be desperately intent on looking clever in the background.
Comments
Firstly any research on the issue sows that the SNP did not "muck up" their legal challenge in 2011. They were strung along by the BBC until it was too late but also until they could raise the cash. This time round is totally different. They have substantial resources and a much stronger case based on their exisiting position as the third biggest party in the UK and their likely poosition as the third biggest parliamentary group. Indeed it could be said that the fact they were prepared to go to court last time is what has forced the Beeb to accept the inevtiable this time.
Secondly the case aganist the Northern Irish parties is simple. They do not face opponents from Labour or Tory and therefore are under no serious disadvantage from the debates. They would struggle to get any legal traction if offered a Northern Ireland debate with the competing parties..
Thirdly it is not impossible - or even difficult - to draw up an entertaining format from the seven chosen parties.For a start there are three interesting women and four much less interesting men. That should offer lots of scope for providing a measure of tension in the debate.
Finally, as to the last debate the problem is not the format but the cast. Milliband is dreadful but Cameron is at best dull. In the referendum debate on the BBC, at least when Darling was dull Salmond sparkled. Unless Labour can inject Milliband with some of that pure ability they are in for a desultory time and the rest of us will just switch off.
No different to a child who wants it to be 'my game' or he won't let anyone play, Cameron wants it his way or not at all, and it seems that kind of spin and game playing makes him a genius in some peoples eyes. The kind who think yes, minister is the way govt should be run, rather than a parody.
It's easy enough to work out who should be in the debates, and what proportion of them, look at the opinion polls since GE 2010... Parties that are given a score when the results are published should be in, those that don't, aren't.
I'd have one debate as per 2010', one with Farage as well, and another with the greens and the snp
3-4-6
At the 2010 GE, the Ulster Conservatives had 15.2% of the NI vote and the Greens had 0.5%
Every participant bar David Cameron wants the debates to go ahead. They would prefer bad debate formats to no debates at all. So the format that suits David Cameron will be acquiesced to, if grumpily, by everyone else invited.
What about the non-invitees? The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing.
That leaves Respect. Since there were plenty of formats that could have been put forward that they could not have objected to that would have excluded them, they cannot argue that they must now be invited when they suffer no additional unfairness (their main rivals would have appeared in every debate on any format). Given the strong public interest in seeing the debates go ahead, I expect the courts to send George Galloway packing too, if he decides to challenge the format.
Damned black ice on the walk to the local shop today. At least it'll likely be gone by tomorrow.
I think the DUP/Sinn Fein have legitimate cause for complaint. Why are Plaid included? 97% of the country can't vote for them, and 99% don't want to.
Would be fun in 2016 if Tories were given their real place in Scotland and as they are a minor minor party , be banned from all discussion on the election and left to accept their handful of consolation list seats for biggest losers.
Thank you for introducing the word "dunderheid" into this stushie!
This format packages them up with the also-rans and sends a clear signal they're basically irrelevant. You may think they are, but it's not remotely unreasonable for them to disagree.
Toodlepip
Major UK Wide Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. 15 seats at Westminster.
2. 15% share of the vote at the previous general election.
3. Part of a Coalition Government.
Minor UK Wide or Regional Party Status - Any one of the following :
1. One seat at Westminster
2. 5% of the vote nationally or regionally at the previous general election.
Debates :
1. One regional 90 minute debate for each of Wales, Scotland and Ulster.
2. One UK wide 90 minute Minor party debate.
3. Two 90 minutes Major party status debates.
Non Attendance - Results in empty chair status.
Let them campaign traditionally and pitch using their parliamentary broadcasts.
A couple of debates where they're surrounded on all sides with no distinctive offering or space to carve out, followed by a final debate which decisively points out that unlike last time, they are irrelevant and can be treated like a fringe element.
Why not English debates?
Unleash the Tory dogs of war............. Ha Ha Ha
Wales will have their own debates, likewise Scotland. English devolution is an active topic for discussion and needs to happen, and there's no reason for English debates not to precede devolution.
It needn't necessarily be either/or with regards to a UK-wide debate or two.
I wouldn't be surprised if the final format is something like:
1. Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/Grn
2. Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/SNP
3. Con/Lab.
The previous 5:5:4 ratio serves as a ready precedent for treating the Lib Dems as slightly lesser than the Tories or Labour and given the loss of support since 2010, a 3:3:2 ratio isn't unreasonable. Including the Greens in one debate addresses Cameron's point and including the SNP recognises their level of support in Scotland that's been evident for several years and would return at least two dozen MPs and quite possibly a good deal more. The head-to-head then gives the broadcasters the spotlight event they also want.
Cammo is frit and is a lump of ........................
Your "in a coalition government" criterion could be easily abused. A majority Tory government could just invite the one Respect MP to join them in government in order to get them in the debates.
I also don't see why current numbers of MPs matters. If you've got 15 MPs based on one random election, and then drop below 1 point in the polls after a corruption scandal, why should you be included?
You should just have the last year of poll ratings averaged:
- 20 points for all three debates
- 10 points for two debates
- 5 points for one debate
I would also add a requirement that you need to be standing in 50% of constituencies. Otherwise you're not relevant to the whole country. Have separate debates for Scotland, Wales and Ulster.
Nicola Sturgeon’s SNP is indulged by too many politicians who should know better – especially the wibbly Ed Miliband
My, but it’s an easy life being Nicola Sturgeon. Nothing can ever go wrong. She’s the new leader of the SNP, in case you haven’t been paying attention; that lady with hair like Barry Manilow.
She’s the one who announced last week that her MPs would be prepared to vote in the Commons on English-only laws, picking a fight she couldn’t possibly lose. For this is how it works when you are the SNP.
SLAB meant that, of course, up to the point at which the SNP were invited, with mutterings now being reported of objections to a mere "regional" party being invited.
The situation for the SNP is now an even bigger win/win than I stated here a couple of weeks ago.
I will not be surprised if the usual unionist chicanery manages to restrict the SNP involvement to one debate rather than the two suggested.
Or, to put it in a British context, UKIP - polling 20% with some pollsters and generally at least 15% now, having finished first or second in almost all Westminster by-elections in the last few years - would not be entitled to a place at the moment. However, if they make good on that share, they would be entitled to one in 2020, by which time they might have imploded.
While I can understand the preference for the 'hard' figures of election results, I don't think any criteria that exclude entirely current performance in opinion polls and recent non-GE elections would pass the public sniff test.
Normally they have to pay mega bucks for some tv rights for a sporting event for that kind of viewership.
I'm also a bit wary about relying too much on opinion polls - suppose a left-aligned thinktank* were as a result to decide to start opinion polling, with some dubious weightings, etc, in order to affect the opinion poll average for eligibility to the debates? It's only until there's an election that you can be sure which methodology is more accurate, so you would leave yourself well open to manipulation.
Furthermore - how do you average the opinion polls? There are as many ways of doing that as there are amateur psephologists.
I'm not really having a go, it's just that it seems obvious to me that there is no obvious way to make this decision, because the situation is unavoidably complicated. There's thus no way to avoid our own biases having an effect - JackW clearly has a bias for the status quo, while you and I do not in our different ways.
* Effectively this is what Ashcroft is doing, except that his methodology appears to be entirely reasonable - but it does produce results that are very friendly to UKIP/Greens, and we can't be sure whether it is more ICM or Angus Reid until the election.
"She’s the one who announced last week that her MPs would be prepared to vote in the Commons on English-only laws,...."
I think you will find that she made no such statement but reaffirmed that the SNP would vote on those matters which she and the SNP believed would have knock on consequences for Scotland.
As for her easy life, she has to put up with mendacious unionists/BBC/MSM day in and day out deliberately distorting what she said
If a party falls foul of the voters then they will reap the whirlwind but these MP's were afforded the courtesy by the electorate and it should be the electorate and not YouGov who determine their fate and their party participation in the debates.
Your point about George Galloway joining a Conservative Coalition government was entertaining - Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability on the issue.
Our current PM is a traditionalist and reluctant to give up the status of being the sitting PM. He also does not want a repeat of 2010 and finds the noise of the UKIP gnat irritating. So he would prefer there to be no debates.
The media rather like the status that they get from the debates so they are very reluctant to allow political bickering stop them as it usually has in the past. So they have tried to impose rules on the politicians and present them and the public with a fait accompli. But in doing so they have overreached themselves and come up with a solution that has more problems than answers.
My guess is that there will not be debates but if there are the current format is as good for Cameron as he was ever going to get. The threats to the left and right from the minor parties are largely neutralised and balanced by far left and Nationalist threats to Labour. And Ed one to one works fine. That is the choice the tories want to give the UK and they are increasingly confident what the answer would be.
The public were not greatly moved by Ukip exclusion from the 2010 debates despite their good Euro election performance. Hard votes in general elections and not opinion polls must form the criteria.
You're talking flowery nonsense to try and make the status quo sound reasonable, and failing
'My 5 year old daughter died just before Christmas. Her grandparents desperately want to attend her funeral but have been denied visas. Please join my plea to David Cameron give them visas to come.
Sign my petition
Samuel -
My beautiful five year old daughter, Andrea, was killed just before Christmas after being hit by a car. An unbearable time has been made even worse as the Home Office refuses to give my only living relatives visas to attend the funeral.
My parents, along with my sister, have been denied visas to attend the funeral from Zimbabwe simply because they are 'too poor'. The Home Office believes that my family wish to stay here once they arrive. They do not. That's why I've started this petition to plea for my family to be allowed to attend our daughter's funeral. Please sign and support us.
My family are street sellers from Zimbabwe. They pose no risk to the country, they simply want to support us and grieve the loss of our beautiful girl. They have offered to do anything in order to be there, even if that means wearing electronic tags and reporting to the local police station.
The Prime Minister, David Cameron and the Home Secretary, Theresa May, have the power to reverse the decision and allow our family to attend the funeral. Hopefully with enough public support we can convince the Home Office of how tragic and exceptional the circumstances are and get them to grant the visas.
Losing a child is one of the hardest things a person can experience, and myself and my husband are both longing for the support of our family. Having our family together at this time is incredibly important to us, and an important part of our culture.
At the heart of it, all I really wants is to have my mother at my side while I grieve the loss of my child. Please sign and allow our family to be together and finally lay Andrea to rest.
Thank you,
Charity'
Play nicely ....
There does have to be a balance struck but basing the criteria on what happened five years ago and ignoring what has happened in between seems to introduce a great risk to perceived legitimacy given the time-lag.
Don't we let Zimmers come here on holiday?
On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..
DC and Team Blue don't want a debate and for very good reasons. They have done a good job so far of minimising their likelihood, and maximising the probability that if they do go ahead, it will be in a format that minimises the danger to the Tories whilst increasing the danger to their main political opponents.
It's smart politics, and you can't complain about that.
"@SussexMark: #Saudi: women receive 90 lashes for being raped. In the UK, flags were at half mast for #KingAbdullah. "
Embedded image permalink
Once they are on British soil they can make an asylum claim or resist deportation on the right to family life etc. Prior promises mean nothing.
Of course, if less troubled by risk of absconding/overstaying/asylum then we can be more charitable.
Stricter immigration rules will make for a lot of similar cases.
Most commenters on PB will not.
OGH's thread saying how bad a move Cammo's rejection of the original format was and the indignant agreement from all the anti-Tories in the comments of how bad a move it was by Cammo (even one or two blues, Mr. Herdson for eg agreed) is the highlight of PB 2015 so far.
It would be a worrying precedent to set that this sort of measure was taken in relation to someone who, a priori, is on a tourist visa. I'm afraid it's easy to see how the authorities have concluded a family of street sellers from Zimbabwe are at risk of staying in the country where they have family, and, indeed, may feel a (understandable) moral need to support a family member.
How did that go?
It is smart politics but not for the general public.
Dave should have gone to Davos , to give his full backing to Andrew.
Which would fit into his main concerns.
my bleeding heart lefty side getting me caught out by sob stories again!
PS: You sound like a typical nasty Tory , as ever
A Tory Victory at the next GE would be good for the SNP.
As if they hold and in out referendum on Europe, surely this would assist in getting another referendum for Scotland leaving the UK.
So for this election the SNP should be asking English voters to vote Conservative to help the SNP.
'On Newsnight last night Rachel Sylvester mentioned that this might be seen as exactly the kind of thing the public are fed up with, and could backfire. The Fink nodded..'
Matthew Taylor ex Labour spin doctor said the presence of so many minor parties and the prospect of a very unstable government could be a turn off for voters & a boost for the Tories.
Ofcom's ostrich like decision to refuse Major Party status to the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party may allow minor parties outside NI to raise this as an issue. The ball is really in Ofcom's court, just recognise the Greens and then the format is logically sound and free from challenge.
The referendum went appallingly for the nats and most typical Scots now realise what a narrow escape they had.
How are your plans for a currency gathering pace?
Effectively it gives one Major Part a huge advantage over another Major Party. This doesn't apply to the DUP who are not challenged by any Major Party currently included in the debates.
IMHO Better than 7-7-2 would be a format of 3-3-3-3-2. The two major parties get to go head to head still. All seven leaders speak in two debates. No debate has more than three speakers (seven is way too unwieldy). No leader faces the same other leader more than once. There's a bit of risk over who faces who but everyone faces the same. See my blog post last night for more details: https://thewillowwilderness.wordpress.com/2015/01/23/party-leaders-debates-3-3-3-3-2-beats-7-7-2/
Scottish voting intentions for the May 2015 UK general election (Ipsos-Mori, 12th-19th January) :
SNP 52% (n/c)
Labour 24% (+1)
Conservatives 12% (+2)
Greens 4% (-2)
Liberal Democrats 4% (-2)
UKIP 1% (-1)
It is surely not smart politics to be caught with a smoking gun, yet it seems clear who will be blamed if the debates do founder.
There is the "frit" charge, which is doubly curious considering how each week at PMQs David Cameron wins by a knock-out, or so we read on pb.
Then there is the format which you say minimises the danger to the Tories, yet surely the opposite is true because the one thing all the opposition parties will agree on is that the government has messed things up, And now there will be five other parties saying this instead of just one, so even if David Cameron could refute all their charges, he simply won't have time.
It's a shambles.
That said, five debates would be 67% more horrid than the current proposal of three.
Despite all these interviews and 'debates' how many people cottoned on that in 2010 Brown and Labour in their printed Manifesto were promising a £20 billion set of cuts, sorry 'efficiencies', to the NHS, plus allowing more private involvement ?
Of course white farmers should have the automatic right to citizenship if their ancestors are from here. Jus sanguinis.
I would be interested why these Zimbabweans were here in the first place. I suggest they could hold the funeral there.
If you are a voter in Scotland, and you watch the UK-wide broadcast, then you are hearing the arguments of some of the parties in Scotland and not all of them. I personally see why this is the debate format now being proposed.
'The DUP might want to be asked, but they suffer no real detriment from being excluded in the constituencies in which they fight. So the courts should send them packing. '
You either include all regional parties or none.
As the most likely outcome is a hung parliament I would have thought voters would want to know what concessions the fourth largest party with 8 MP's wants.
Ironically, all the major NI parties would likely be happy with the term "regional".
What a 7 sided debate will do is show a fractured opposition. Any opposition party will complain and all the remaining 5 can agree that Labour's answer is unworkable, as indeed each 'remaining 5' can agree about each of the 6th. All of which might make the electorate favour the devil they know
Two 7-sided debates are of course bonkers. The election campaign will be dreary and tiresome anyway. This will be no fault of the politicians but the self serving TV journalists who will be desperately intent on looking clever in the background.