re debates: more importantly, I don't think Farage wants to be at them.
Being excluded fits much better with the UKIP 'discrimination' message, and makes it clear that the old parties are seeking to exclude them. It also allows them to avoid being grilled on some of their more clueless policies, and stops Farage looking like just another politician.
So, my guess is that Farage will be publicly fuming at being excluded the debates, but privately will be rather please.
I agree with you (on Farage not being too bothered about being included, not the rub down on clueless policies #bigsociety #tuitionfees )
Disagree. The narrative fits, but the oxygen of publicity debate participation brings would be worth a lot more.
re debates: more importantly, I don't think Farage wants to be at them.
Being excluded fits much better with the UKIP 'discrimination' message, and makes it clear that the old parties are seeking to exclude them. It also allows them to avoid being grilled on some of their more clueless policies, and stops Farage looking like just another politician.
So, my guess is that Farage will be publicly fuming at being excluded the debates, but privately will be rather please.
I agree with you (on Farage not being too bothered about being included, not the rub down on clueless policies #bigsociety #tuitionfees )
Disagree. The narrative fits, but the oxygen of publicity debate participation brings would be worth a lot more.
I think he wants to be included but the downside can work in his favour too
Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
Define decent chance? How many seats do you think UKIP could seriously expect to win or come close?
But election coverage has long been done on the past set of results, just as an objective measure.
Could seriously expect to come in the top 2 in 20-25 seats
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
There has long been only 3 parties that poll in double figures
And as there has only ever been one election to feature debates, its hardly wrecking history to include the third/fourth most popular party at the time in one or two of them
Basing election coverage on opinion polls rather than election results would be a big shift. OFCOM currently defines UKIP as a major party for European Elections, but only Lab/Con/LD for GEs. More than that given you're predicting them on the same seat level as PC, SNP, Green, etc.
Approximately 19% of industrialised swine production (by number of animals) is in China, rising to 25% over the next few years (far larger if you include backyard production).
Genus Plc, which includes PIC (the "pig improvement company" - I tried to persuade them to call it "group" instead of company") is an industry in which the UK is a genuine world leader (albeit strong in the bovine semen market). It's an important market position in a growing sector and a significant source of foreign earnings.
Sounds good, BUT isn't it the same problem as selling/giving your IP...
What is to stop the Chinese taking the semen, creating vast numbers of new pigs from it, then selling semen to everyone cheaper than us?
Genus does the insemination themselves, and the descendant pigs are crossi!reeds so the semen strain isn't as pure & predictable. I forget the very silly name that Genus's precusor bull has (it has ssired millions of calves) but it is kept in a secret location somewhere in the north of England).
The company have refused to comment on rumours that it posts on the internet using the name 'tim'
They went the day we introduced the minimum wage, which is why there is so much reticence in Germany to follow suit despite massive political pressure from the EU and their labour unions to do so.
MaxPB, that's not strictly true. In certain sectors in Germany there are minimum wages - in construction for example. And in Germany it is illegal to pay an 'immoral' wage, which the German courts have interpreted as being about €5.50/hour (although, this varies on a state-by-state, and industry-by-industry basis).
The SPD have been very vocal in attempting to get a minimum wage implemented, and have made it a cornerstone of their coalition negotiations - and IIRC have been successful in getting one.
That is my understanding also. It was announced the same day as the grand Coalition was.
I think increasing the minimum wage is something we should do in the same way as the copulating porcupine behaves, very carefully.
I would like to see above inflation increases in each year that the forecast is that employment will increase and below inflation increases in years where it is forecast that employment will fall. There is no doubt we are going to see another big increase in employment in 2014 so we should have an above inflation increase.
Looks as if she can't make up what's left of her mind.
Most Popular
Nigella Lawson admits taking cocaine Launch of world’s biggest ‘ship’ Nigella Lawson denies drug claims Rapist attacked six women in a night What would the union jack look like if the Scottish bit was removed?
That's over five times the weight of the latest American aircraft carriers.
I've just soiled my pants.
Probably not - not all tonnes are alike. Specifically, in shipping, warships are indeed measured by displacement (i.e. how much they weigh), but for cargo ships, liners and the like, a tonne is more a measure of internal capacity. It's different again for oil tankers. That said, it's still a big sod.
Seems to be marooned in the shrinking middle ground - not as cheap as Aldi, not as yummy as Waitrose/Sainsbury.
That and they seem to have lost their drive to open up in new markets and break new ground. Tesco used to be absolutely ruthless at snuffing out local competition under Leahy, that doesn't exist today.
On a Tesco related note, if you've seen the Tesco advert of a husband buying a wife perfume for Christmas, there have been complaints made to Tesco on the grounds that the family is asian and muslims don't celebrate Christmas.
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
They went the day we introduced the minimum wage, which is why there is so much reticence in Germany to follow suit despite massive political pressure from the EU and their labour unions to do so.
MaxPB, that's not strictly true. In certain sectors in Germany there are minimum wages - in construction for example. And in Germany it is illegal to pay an 'immoral' wage, which the German courts have interpreted as being about €5.50/hour (although, this varies on a state-by-state, and industry-by-industry basis).
The SPD have been very vocal in attempting to get a minimum wage implemented, and have made it a cornerstone of their coalition negotiations - and IIRC have been successful in getting one.
Did they really? What level did they set it at? It could stop German wage dumping if they set it at €7-8/h. Interesting information, I hadn't kept up with the German political situation for a while, thanks.
Just read, €8.50/h. That's a nice figure, it will definitely help the rest of Europe with Germany no longer actively wage dumping.
re debates: more importantly, I don't think Farage wants to be at them.
Being excluded fits much better with the UKIP 'discrimination' message, and makes it clear that the old parties are seeking to exclude them. It also allows them to avoid being grilled on some of their more clueless policies, and stops Farage looking like just another politician.
So, my guess is that Farage will be publicly fuming at being excluded the debates, but privately will be rather please.
I agree with you (on Farage not being too bothered about being included, not the rub down on clueless policies #bigsociety #tuitionfees )
Disagree. The narrative fits, but the oxygen of publicity debate participation brings would be worth a lot more.
I agree with corporeal. All the other parties will be somewhere between keen and desperate to exclude UKIP, for different reasons (so will the broadcasters, probably, for different reasons again).
If he's there, Farage will be in the Clegg-2010 position of being new to many, having little to lose and a great deal to gain by speaking his mind and not being the others. Sure, he won't appeal to many, and lots more he does appeal to still won't vote UKIP, but there are still plenty of other voters to go at.
Seems to be marooned in the shrinking middle ground - not as cheap as Aldi, not as yummy as Waitrose/Sainsbury.
That and they seem to have lost their drive to open up in new markets and break new ground. Tesco used to be absolutely ruthless at snuffing out local competition under Leahy, that doesn't exist today.
On a Tesco related note, if you've seen the Tesco advert of a husband buying a wife perfume for Christmas, there have been complaints made to Tesco on the grounds that the family is asian and muslims don't celebrate Christmas.
Because you clearly never get any asian Christians?
Looks as if she can't make up what's left of her mind.
Most Popular
Nigella Lawson admits taking cocaine Launch of world’s biggest ‘ship’ Nigella Lawson denies drug claims Rapist attacked six women in a night What would the union jack look like if the Scottish bit was removed?
That's over five times the weight of the latest American aircraft carriers.
I've just soiled my pants.
Probably not - not all tonnes are alike. Specifically, in shipping, warships are indeed measured by displacement (i.e. how much they weigh), but for cargo ships, liners and the like, a tonne is more a measure of internal capacity. It's different again for oil tankers. That said, it's still a big sod.
Wiki says 260,000 tonnes of steel went into building it. That's enough to excite me ... ;-)
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
Seems to be marooned in the shrinking middle ground - not as cheap as Aldi, not as yummy as Waitrose/Sainsbury.
That and they seem to have lost their drive to open up in new markets and break new ground. Tesco used to be absolutely ruthless at snuffing out local competition under Leahy, that doesn't exist today.
On a Tesco related note, if you've seen the Tesco advert of a husband buying a wife perfume for Christmas, there have been complaints made to Tesco on the grounds that the family is asian and muslims don't celebrate Christmas.
Oh really?
That said, I'm not sure if I qualify as a Muslim these days.
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
I can't fault your logic but it does rather make me wonder what Nick Clegg is doing there.
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
Try and forget your own view for one moment
There is an election about to take place. There is a party who is likely to eat in to a huge chunk of the current biggest party's vote. A party whose percentage of the national vote will in all likelihood decide who is Prime Minister.
And you think they should have no voice in a debate about the forthcoming vote?
Madness.
(the points analogy is about VI% points not seats)
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
If the next GE was the Prem, Labour would start each game with a 0.5 goal advantage and UKIP would have been deducted 30 points at the start.
I'm invovled with the FLNG vessel professionally. The 260,000 tonnes does not include yet the topsides / pipework. Also the displacement will include, of course, the LNG when it gets produced and before an offtake LNG vessel comes along to empty it. It's a monster!
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
Try and forget your own view for one moment
There is an election about to take place. There is a party who is likely to eat in to a huge chunk of the current biggest party's vote. A party whose percentage of the national vote will in all likelihood decide who is Prime Minister.
And you think they should have no voice in a debate about the forthcoming vote?
Madness.
(the points analogy is about VI% points not seats)
Less madness, more objectivity. They don't want to be in the position of making subjective judgments about 'likely' to do well, how that might effect things. Which pollsters they prefer to look at, etc.
Just the hard, fast, and objective question of how many seats did you win last time round.
Seems to be marooned in the shrinking middle ground - not as cheap as Aldi, not as yummy as Waitrose/Sainsbury.
That and they seem to have lost their drive to open up in new markets and break new ground. Tesco used to be absolutely ruthless at snuffing out local competition under Leahy, that doesn't exist today.
On a Tesco related note, if you've seen the Tesco advert of a husband buying a wife perfume for Christmas, there have been complaints made to Tesco on the grounds that the family is asian and muslims don't celebrate Christmas.
Because you clearly never get any asian Christians?
I believe the response to the complaints was to tactfully suggest that there were in fact some Asian Christians.
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
Try and forget your own view for one moment
There is an election about to take place. There is a party who is likely to eat in to a huge chunk of the current biggest party's vote. A party whose percentage of the national vote will in all likelihood decide who is Prime Minister.
And you think they should have no voice in a debate about the forthcoming vote?
Madness.
(the points analogy is about VI% points not seats)
Less madness, more objectivity. They don't want to be in the position of making subjective judgments about 'likely' to do well, how that might effect things. Which pollsters they prefer to look at, etc.
Just the hard, fast, and objective question of how many seats did you win last time round.
I know this isn't going to happen, but if AV had been passed and UKIP were doing even better than they are now and were likely to win 25-30 seats, would you still really think they shouldn't be included just because they won none last time?
Wouldn't everyone watching think "this is stupid?"
LD candidate selections in top 10 targets from Conservatives:
1. Camborne & Redruth: no selection 2. Oxford West & Abingdon: Layla Moran 3. Truro & Falmouth: Simon Rix 4. Newton Abbot: Richard Younger-Ross** 5. Harrogate & Knaresborough: Helen Flynn 6. Watford: no selection 7. Montgomeryshire: Jane Dodds 8. St Albans: Sandy Walkington* 9. Weston-super-Mare: Mike Bell* 10.Hereford & South Herefordshire: Lucy Hurds
*: stood last time **: former MP
Do the lists show how many of these LD candidates are, you know, non-white?
To answer the question, the only one in the list is Layla Moran whose mother is Palestinian.
Caroline Lucas has a stronger argument to be included in the debates than Farage.
Absolute rubbish.
How many people are estimated to vote Green vs UKIP in GE2015?
UKIP would walk it.. the Greens are an irrelevance in a General Election debate
UKIP will influence who will be in Downing St in 2015 and therefore should be included in the debate. Its just common sense.
In a debate on who to vote for why would you include someone who is going to get 2% of the vote over someone who is likely to get 8-10%?
Even if UKIP get 10% one could make a reasonable argument for the Greens being likely to win more seats than UKIP.
Since it is seats that count in the House of Commons, and not vote share (see 1983), then I am afraid you are mistaken, much though I would like to see the end of FPTP.
I'm not the one whose party has any interest whatsoever in this question, I daresay I am being more objective about it than you. I think the principle that coverage is largely based on known results rather than potentially dodgy polls is a fairly sound one that has served us pretty well to date.
I'm not the one whose party has any interest whatsoever in this question, I daresay I am being more objective about it than you. I think the principle that coverage is largely based on known results rather than potentially dodgy polls is a fairly sound one that has served us pretty well to date.
A sensible basis for deciding who to include in debates would be something like:
The leaders of any parties[1] which: - Are contesting at least 500 seats, and - Have an average polling of at least 10%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and - Had at least 20 MPs prior to the dissolution
Or
- Are contesting at least 500 seats, and - Have an average polling of at least 15%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and
Or
Either - had at least 40 MPs prior to the dissolution, or - had more MPs than all those not in their own party or the two largest parties
[1] parties includes electoral alliances between parties providing that in no seat are any of the parties in that alliance competing against each other [2] The precise basis to be determined but would clearly have to define a methodology of which firms / polls to include / exclude.
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
Try and forget your own view for one moment
There is an election about to take place. There is a party who is likely to eat in to a huge chunk of the current biggest party's vote. A party whose percentage of the national vote will in all likelihood decide who is Prime Minister.
And you think they should have no voice in a debate about the forthcoming vote?
Madness.
(the points analogy is about VI% points not seats)
Less madness, more objectivity. They don't want to be in the position of making subjective judgments about 'likely' to do well, how that might effect things. Which pollsters they prefer to look at, etc.
Just the hard, fast, and objective question of how many seats did you win last time round.
I know this isn't going to happen, but if AV had been passed and UKIP were doing even better than they are now and were likely to win 25-30 seats, would you still really think they shouldn't be included just because they won none last time?
Wouldn't everyone watching think "this is stupid?"
Are you asking should or would?
In terms of would, I don't think they would've shifted the rules away from number of MPs.
Compare the Alliance in the 1980s, the votes they won (barely fewer than Labour at one point) and the seats/influence/etc they were thought 'likely' to win..
She is lovely. I feel desperately sorry for her, having her private lives dragged through the courts. I dream of a day when sex and drugs are no longer stories.
Caroline Lucas has a stronger argument to be included in the debates than Farage.
Absolute rubbish.
How many people are estimated to vote Green vs UKIP in GE2015?
UKIP would walk it.. the Greens are an irrelevance in a General Election debate
UKIP will influence who will be in Downing St in 2015 and therefore should be included in the debate. Its just common sense.
In a debate on who to vote for why would you include someone who is going to get 2% of the vote over someone who is likely to get 8-10%?
Even if UKIP get 10% one could make a reasonable argument for the Greens being likely to win more seats than UKIP.
Since it is seats that count in the House of Commons, and not vote share (see 1983), then I am afraid you are mistaken, much though I would like to see the end of FPTP.
What would be more likely to alter the result of the next GE...
Greens holding Brighton and getting 1% of national vote
or
UKIP winning no seats and getting 10% of the vote?
The answer is the answer to who should be included in the debates
I reckon they will win 1 or 2 and get about 12-13% of the vote
And if they do they will have a strong case for inclusion in the next debates for the next GE.
haha
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
Can we include West Ham United because I know some fans of theirs who have an over-optimistic view of how they might finish the season?
If they are on the same amount of points as the others in contention in the last six weeks of the season I am sure they would have to be included in a discussion on who might win the league, despite never having challenged before
You've admitted yourself that they are only likely to get 1 or 2 points out of 650 at best.
Try and forget your own view for one moment
There is an election about to take place. There is a party who is likely to eat in to a huge chunk of the current biggest party's vote. A party whose percentage of the national vote will in all likelihood decide who is Prime Minister.
And you think they should have no voice in a debate about the forthcoming vote?
Madness.
(the points analogy is about VI% points not seats)
Less madness, more objectivity. They don't want to be in the position of making subjective judgments about 'likely' to do well, how that might effect things. Which pollsters they prefer to look at, etc.
Just the hard, fast, and objective question of how many seats did you win last time round.
I know this isn't going to happen, but if AV had been passed and UKIP were doing even better than they are now and were likely to win 25-30 seats, would you still really think they shouldn't be included just because they won none last time?
Wouldn't everyone watching think "this is stupid?"
Are you asking should or would?
In terms of would, I don't think they would've shifted the rules away from number of MPs.
Compare the Alliance in the 1980s, the votes they won (barely fewer than Labour at one point) and the seats/influence/etc they were thought 'likely' to win..
Caroline Lucas has a stronger argument to be included in the debates than Farage.
On that basis we will need Gorgeous Georgey G in them too.
Nah. His party doesn't have any MPs or run a council.
And running a council has sweet FA to do with GE2015. On that basis we'd have to get Alex Salmond (Or is it Sturgeon) and the Plaid Cyrmu leader in.
The debates - if they happen should either include UKIP and the Lib Dems, or neither.
Nah they don't meet the criteria of GB wide parties with MPs.
Although I'd lose a couple of (smallish) bets I'd laugh my socks off if the Lib Dems were totally destroyed come GE2015, but I might still yet vote for them as a thankyou for keeping the GE board tilted so far towards Labour that has made for some great value.
Looks as if she can't make up what's left of her mind.
Most Popular
Nigella Lawson admits taking cocaine Launch of world’s biggest ‘ship’ Nigella Lawson denies drug claims Rapist attacked six women in a night What would the union jack look like if the Scottish bit was removed?
Unworldly PB Tories fill your boots. In other news, a lady from Belgravia exclusively revealed she has never taken coke.
She is lovely. I feel desperately sorry for her, having her private lives dragged through the courts. I dream of a day when sex and drugs are no longer stories.
If antibiotics are becoming less and less effective then sex and drugs will become more and more relevant.
A sensible basis for deciding who to include in debates would be something like:
The leaders of any parties[1] which: - Are contesting at least 500 seats, and - Have an average polling of at least 10%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and - Had at least 20 MPs prior to the dissolution
Or
- Are contesting at least 500 seats, and - Have an average polling of at least 15%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and
Or
Either - had at least 40 MPs prior to the dissolution, or - had more MPs than all those not in their own party or the two largest parties
[1] parties includes electoral alliances between parties providing that in no seat are any of the parties in that alliance competing against each other [2] The precise basis to be determined but would clearly have to define a methodology of which firms / polls to include / exclude.
Unfortunately concepts of fairness and objectivity will not form any part of this decision.
It will be entirely political. Farage will be excluded. And its likely that Labour and the Lib Dems will try to manoevure Cameron into a position in which he gets the blame for excluding them.
Looks as if she can't make up what's left of her mind.
Most Popular
Nigella Lawson admits taking cocaine Launch of world’s biggest ‘ship’ Nigella Lawson denies drug claims Rapist attacked six women in a night What would the union jack look like if the Scottish bit was removed?
Unworldly PB Tories fill your boots. In other news, a lady from Belgravia exclusively revealed she has never taken coke.
Nigella's drug taking is lead article on The Mirror front page too.
Whilst there, unworldy PBLefties can get their fill of tittle tattle about Tom Daley's love life.
I'm not the one whose party has any interest whatsoever in this question, I daresay I am being more objective about it than you. I think the principle that coverage is largely based on known results rather than potentially dodgy polls is a fairly sound one that has served us pretty well to date.
"Served us pretty well to date"?
Theres only been one election that had debates!
Yes but there has been tv coverage of far more than one GE campaign.
They should have a division 2 debate - Farage, Greens, Galloway, Eck, - would probably be better than the top tier one.
That's the solution that they used in Germany, and it worked quite well. It has the advantage that the big parties can't veto it, and all the small parties have an interest so can't really refuse to take part. It's awkward, though, that the SNP and to a lesser extent Plaid are in reality major parties in their areas but irrelevant outside - a bit silly to have Salmond debating Euriostar with the Greens and Galloway, or conversely Galloway opining on the problems of the Western Isles.
A sensible basis for deciding who to include in debates would be something like..
At a rough guess I would imagine that the rule the broadcasters follow would be something like, whether the party has enough MPs to put together a shadow Cabinet.
Incidentally, does anyone know on what basis the Lib Dem leader was given a regular set of questions at PMQs when they were the smaller of the two main opposition parties? Is there some sort of rule laid down, or is it just down to political pressure?
If the party is big enough in Parliament for its leader to ask regular questions at PMQs then that would be enough for the broadcasters.
The interesting scenario would be where a new opposition party was polling very well, and had won a few by-elections. There are unlikely to be enough by-elections for them to build a big enough group of MPs before the election to qualify under the rules of thumb I have discussed, but at some level it would be evidence that they were a significantly important new party that they should be included in the debates.
Suppose that UKIP had won the by-elections in Eastleigh, Rotherham, Corby and South Shields. It would be hard to leave Farage out of the leader's debates then, though in Parliamentary terms 4 MPs leaves them behind the SNP and the DUP. As it is they fell more than 4% short in Eastleigh, and more than 20% away in the others.
And still, given that we have a representative democracy the leader's debates are a ridiculous affectation.
I'm not the one whose party has any interest whatsoever in this question, I daresay I am being more objective about it than you. I think the principle that coverage is largely based on known results rather than potentially dodgy polls is a fairly sound one that has served us pretty well to date.
"Served us pretty well to date"?
Theres only been one election that had debates!
Yes but there has been tv coverage of far more than one GE campaign.
Of course, and tv companies can decide who to focus on. Ive no doubt UKIP will get more coverage than the rest of the parties outside the big 2 and the LDs put together.
But if we are talking about the debates, it seems silly to ignore them
Of course, and tv companies can decide who to focus on. Ive no doubt UKIP will get more coverage than the rest of the parties outside the big 2 and the LDs put together.
I dont think you are fully up on the rules that tv companies have to follow in reporting GE campaigns.
A sensible basis for deciding who to include in debates would be something like:
The leaders of any parties[1] which: - Are contesting at least 500 seats, and - Have an average polling of at least 10%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and - Had at least 20 MPs prior to the dissolution
Or
- Are contesting at least 500 seats, and - Have an average polling of at least 15%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and
Or
Either - had at least 40 MPs prior to the dissolution, or - had more MPs than all those not in their own party or the two largest parties
[1] parties includes electoral alliances between parties providing that in no seat are any of the parties in that alliance competing against each other [2] The precise basis to be determined but would clearly have to define a methodology of which firms / polls to include / exclude.
Unfortunately concepts of fairness and objectivity will not form any part of this decision.
It will be entirely political. Farage will be excluded. And its likely that Labour and the Lib Dems will try to manoevure Cameron into a position in which he gets the blame for excluding them.
That is possible however none of the parties will want him there and none will want to be seen as the ones excluding him (unless UKIP have imploded between now and then), so he could end up there anyway.
You're right that it's political but as with most political decisions, there still needs to be a sustainable argument put forward for public consumption and "we don't want him" isn't good enough.
As an aside, while it's probable that it's the Tories and Lib Dems doing worst from UKIP's advance, it's by no means obvious that that would remain if Farage were included in the debates in 2015. After all, it was the soft, swing votes that Clegg took from Cameron in 2010, when the Tories were topping the poll. There are a lot of WWC Labour voters who have a marginal interest in politics but could be persuaded by Farage on a good day. Likewise, the protest voters who've been Yellow and are now Red could end up Purple. All three main parties have something to fear from UKIP representation.
Caroline Lucas has a stronger argument to be included in the debates than Farage.
Absolute rubbish.
How many people are estimated to vote Green vs UKIP in GE2015?
UKIP would walk it.. the Greens are an irrelevance in a General Election debate
UKIP will influence who will be in Downing St in 2015 and therefore should be included in the debate. Its just common sense.
In a debate on who to vote for why would you include someone who is going to get 2% of the vote over someone who is likely to get 8-10%?
Even if UKIP get 10% one could make a reasonable argument for the Greens being likely to win more seats than UKIP.
Since it is seats that count in the House of Commons, and not vote share (see 1983), then I am afraid you are mistaken, much though I would like to see the end of FPTP.
What would be more likely to alter the result of the next GE...
Greens holding Brighton and getting 1% of national vote
or
UKIP winning no seats and getting 10% of the vote?
The answer is the answer to who should be included in the debates
Well, yes, if you want my view, one of the reasons that the leader's debates are probably here to stay is that they are a way for the established parties to shut out other parties from debate. So fairness does not come into it.
It will be down to realpolitik, and in the end that comes down to bums on seats in Parliament - and that's the only way to change things (excepting revolution), not making appeals to abstract notions of fairness.
Admittedly the sub-set of 2010 LDs, at just 11 responses, was very small but you’d expect one or two to still be loyal to the yellows. In fact the data records zero.
Mike's expectation was that upto two of the 11 2010 LDs would still be loyal to the Lib Dems, a rate of 2/11.
Thus the probability of none being found in the sample of 11, assuming that this rate is true, is (9/11)^11 = 0.11. Thus there is not enough evidence to overturn the null hypothesis (of Mike's expectation) that 1 or 2 out of 11 2010 Lib Dems tell the pollsters they will stay loyal.
However, in the November ICM, the rate of Lib Dem loyalty was 30%*. So, the probability of no loyal Lib Dems being found in a sample of 11, assuming a loyalty rate of 3/10, is (7/10)^11 = 0.020. This is significant at the 5% level, so this opinion poll does provide evidence that:
there’s been a disproportionate switch from LD>LAB in the marginals.
* Incidentally, I've just checked this rate in the latest national Survation poll, and it is also 30%. Thank you. You have just illustrated that subsamples are useful for punters. My point all along.
Of course, and tv companies can decide who to focus on. Ive no doubt UKIP will get more coverage than the rest of the parties outside the big 2 and the LDs put together.
I dont think you are fully up on the rules that tv companies have to follow in reporting GE campaigns.
Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.
So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.
The prospect of a debate between Miliband Clegg and Farage with an empty panel for Cameron is delicious. Would the other three do a deal?
I wonder whether that opinion is really as damaging for UKIP as it appears at first glance. Although Lady Smith did express a view as to the likelihood of success of the petitioners' arguments at trial (at [38]), that was by no means the only reason for refusal of the petitioners' motion for interdict ad interim. Indeed, it is clear that the petitioners' lacklustre litigation strategy, tainted by unacceptable delay ([38]-[40]), seeking unclear relief ([43]), and ambushing the respondent the day before the third debate, was an important reason why the balance of convenience lay in favour of refusing the motion.
On the merits, UKIP has the advantage, unlike the SNP, of standing throughout the country (cf. [3] & [17]). In addition, if it has any sense, it will challenge any decision of the BBC and OfCom ahead of time, seeking clear relief. The matter would be decided at trial by the Administrative Court, according to English law. Accordingly, the balance of convenience arguments, which relate to matters of interim relief, and weighed very heavily against the petitioners' before Lady Smith, would not arise. In addition, the barbarous discretion over the reduction of administrative decisions, afforded in Scots law to the Court of Session when exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, has no counterpart in English law.
That isn't, of course, to say that any challenge by UKIP will succeed.
Looking ahead to the 2015 GE campaign, which presumably will begin with the 2014 Party Conferences, the question for all parties is whether internal self-discipline will be sustained in the heat of a protracted 24-hour media news cycle campaign.
The ill-considered comment, the off-message tweet, the controversial leaflet - all have the power to derail or at best disrupt the message a Party is trying to put across.
Re Nigella. I was commissioned to shoot an ad of her for the Daily Mail last year but because of dates etc it was shot by my production company but not by me. Nontheless I know a little about the story and if as suggested posters really do feel sorry for her the kindest thing would be not to talk about it at all.
The irony is that had the ad still been running it would have been withdrawn immediately. It's happened many times and is one of the hazards of using a celeb who all too often doesn't turn out to be as pure as the advertiser would like them to be.
Looking ahead to the 2015 GE campaign, which presumably will begin with the 2014 Party Conferences, the question for all parties is whether internal self-discipline will be sustained in the heat of a protracted 24-hour media news cycle campaign.
The ill-considered comment, the off-message tweet, the controversial leaflet - all have the power to derail or at best disrupt the message a Party is trying to put across.
UKIP don't deserve a seat on the debates. Then again, the debates are atrocious and should be axed, and, if they must be kept, the worm must absolutely be got rid of.
The only way Miliband would agree (beyond gross stupidity) would be if Labour were lagging. Ahead, giving airtime to another opposition party would be foolish. UKIP isn't just a purple shade of Conservative, lots of WWC voters who might otherwise back Labour vote purple.
Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.
So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.
The prospect of a debate between Miliband Clegg and Farage with an empty panel for Cameron is delicious. Would the other three do a deal?
That could not happen during an election campaign as it would breach the broadcasters' duty to provide balanced coverage.
Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.
So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.
The prospect of a debate between Miliband Clegg and Farage with an empty panel for Cameron is delicious. Would the other three do a deal?
That could not happen during an election campaign as it would breach the broadcasters' duty to provide balanced coverage.
I thought the only reason we had debates in 2010 was because Sky threatened to empty chair Brown if he didn't want to do it?
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.
So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.
The prospect of a debate between Miliband Clegg and Farage with an empty panel for Cameron is delicious. Would the other three do a deal?
That could not happen during an election campaign as it would breach the broadcasters' duty to provide balanced coverage.
I thought the only reason we had debates in 2010 was because Sky threatened to empty chair Brown if he didn't want to do it?
Doubt that story. Broadcasters have attempted to organise election debates many times going way back to the 70s - they have always been stymied by one leader or other refusing to take part in the knowledge that debates could not go ahead unless they were "balanced".
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
I think we should give them both knives, and a rolled up copy of the Guardian. Only one of them should be allowed to leave the debate (or as I call it, duel) alive.
To be honest, having given it a bit more thought, I think the debates should be a duel between Cameron & Miliband... they are the only two runners for next PM.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
couldn't we put them in a cage and watch them bash the bejasus out of each other. It would be much more interesting TV.
woger.. most of us who work in the entertainment business have stories about celebs..most of us keep quiet ..How gallant of you to give your ego another boost at the expense of someone else... why not take your own advice and keep schtum..
Your answer on the previous thread, that its easy to exclude UKIP on the basis that they have no MPs, would be fair enough if the debates were solely an analysis of what has happened in the past five years.
But they are not.
They are a chance for parties to show what they are offering for the the future, and to exclude a party that is averaging over 10% in opinion polls, getting 23% of the vote in local elections and have a decent chance of winning in many of the constituencies they are standing would only seem right and proper to people who favour a closed shop.
The interesting question regarding the debates is whether Ed and Nick decide that it is in their interests for UKIP to be represented. Cameron, of course, will want to be seen as the only Eurosceptic option. The Libs in particular, though, will want the Right wing vote split. For Labour it's more of a toss-up - they lose a few WWC voters who are angry about immigration - but there are relatively few Labour seats that are UKIP targets.
So, my guess is that UKIP won't be there, as it will take the agreement of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband for them to be invited. And Cameron, in all likelihood, will refuse to be there if Farage is.
The prospect of a debate between Miliband Clegg and Farage with an empty panel for Cameron is delicious. Would the other three do a deal?
That could not happen during an election campaign as it would breach the broadcasters' duty to provide balanced coverage.
I thought the only reason we had debates in 2010 was because Sky threatened to empty chair Brown if he didn't want to do it?
Doubt that story. Broadcasters have attempted to organise election debates many times going way back to the 70s - they have always been stymied by one leader or other refusing to take part in the knowledge that debates could not go ahead unless they were "balanced".
According to the election coverage rules the broadcasters need only offer the opportunity for a party to appear, if the party turns down that opportunity then that's on them and wouldn't run into any balance problems.
Of course whether the broadcasters would want something with one of the major leaders missing is another matter.
I think we should get rid of our existing system of general elections and replace it with a system where every week we have two by-elections. The next week's by-election should be decided completely randomly, with two names being drawn out of a hat.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
I think we should get rid of our existing system of general elections and replace it with a system where every week we have two by-elections. The next week's by-election should be decided completely randomly, with two names being drawn out of a hat.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
Why not go across country, make it a roadshow.
Of course traditionally elections were held over a couple of weeks, with people following the running results in the daily newspapers.
This gender gap might reach further than even tim suspects - scroll down the link to see a pic of Theresa VIllier's reaction to Cameron's answer to a question about page 3 in the Sun:
Comments
French MPs approve prostitution bill
Breaking news
French parliament approves bill penalising anyone paying for sex.
Waits for story on French politicians found in brothel.
Lets discuss who might win the the league...
(Only including Man City, Man Utd & Chelsea as Arsenal & Liverpool haven't won it for 8 & 24 seasons)
How, without a new bunch of subsidies does UKIP propose increasing the income of farmers?
The company have refused to comment on rumours that it posts on the internet using the name 'tim'
I think increasing the minimum wage is something we should do in the same way as the copulating porcupine behaves, very carefully.
I would like to see above inflation increases in each year that the forecast is that employment will increase and below inflation increases in years where it is forecast that employment will fall. There is no doubt we are going to see another big increase in employment in 2014 so we should have an above inflation increase.
Proud to say I don't know
I support UKIP but Im not running for office
If you want to bet at the best price in the world on LD beating them Im still here though
Just read, €8.50/h. That's a nice figure, it will definitely help the rest of Europe with Germany no longer actively wage dumping.
If he's there, Farage will be in the Clegg-2010 position of being new to many, having little to lose and a great deal to gain by speaking his mind and not being the others. Sure, he won't appeal to many, and lots more he does appeal to still won't vote UKIP, but there are still plenty of other voters to go at.
(Actually, according to http://www.shell.com/global/aboutshell/major-projects-2/prelude-flng/overview.html , it is 600,000 tonnes displacement. It was also built in a year).
Wow. And they're building a bigger one.
That said, I'm not sure if I qualify as a Muslim these days.
There is an election about to take place. There is a party who is likely to eat in to a huge chunk of the current biggest party's vote. A party whose percentage of the national vote will in all likelihood decide who is Prime Minister.
And you think they should have no voice in a debate about the forthcoming vote?
Madness.
(the points analogy is about VI% points not seats)
Nigella Lawson looks amazing for a 53 year old.
I would.
I'm invovled with the FLNG vessel professionally. The 260,000 tonnes does not include yet the topsides / pipework. Also the displacement will include, of course, the LNG when it gets produced and before an offtake LNG vessel comes along to empty it. It's a monster!
Just the hard, fast, and objective question of how many seats did you win last time round.
How many people are estimated to vote Green vs UKIP in GE2015?
UKIP would walk it.. the Greens are an irrelevance in a General Election debate
UKIP will influence who will be in Downing St in 2015 and therefore should be included in the debate. Its just common sense.
In a debate on who to vote for why would you include someone who is going to get 2% of the vote over someone who is likely to get 8-10%?
***EDIT*** hahaha we both forgot Lucas isn't even the leader of the Greens !!!
Yeah go on get her in instead of Farage!
Wouldn't everyone watching think "this is stupid?"
The debates - if they happen should either include UKIP and the Lib Dems, or neither.
Looks, amazing cook, wealth, wit - what's not to like?
Since it is seats that count in the House of Commons, and not vote share (see 1983), then I am afraid you are mistaken, much though I would like to see the end of FPTP.
The real thing will be a visual nightmare.
Theres only been one election that had debates!
The leaders of any parties[1] which:
- Are contesting at least 500 seats, and
- Have an average polling of at least 10%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and
- Had at least 20 MPs prior to the dissolution
Or
- Are contesting at least 500 seats, and
- Have an average polling of at least 15%[2] in the three months prior to the dissolution, and
Or
Either
- had at least 40 MPs prior to the dissolution, or
- had more MPs than all those not in their own party or the two largest parties
[1] parties includes electoral alliances between parties providing that in no seat are any of the parties in that alliance competing against each other
[2] The precise basis to be determined but would clearly have to define a methodology of which firms / polls to include / exclude.
In terms of would, I don't think they would've shifted the rules away from number of MPs.
Compare the Alliance in the 1980s, the votes they won (barely fewer than Labour at one point) and the seats/influence/etc they were thought 'likely' to win..
She is lovely. I feel desperately sorry for her, having her private lives dragged through the courts. I dream of a day when sex and drugs are no longer stories.
Greens holding Brighton and getting 1% of national vote
or
UKIP winning no seats and getting 10% of the vote?
The answer is the answer to who should be included in the debates
There weren't TV debates then!
Then why press charges? Why not just write off?
It will be entirely political. Farage will be excluded. And its likely that Labour and the Lib Dems will try to manoevure Cameron into a position in which he gets the blame for excluding them.
(b) Small sample size perhaps?
Whilst there, unworldy PBLefties can get their fill of tittle tattle about Tom Daley's love life.
Incidentally, does anyone know on what basis the Lib Dem leader was given a regular set of questions at PMQs when they were the smaller of the two main opposition parties? Is there some sort of rule laid down, or is it just down to political pressure?
If the party is big enough in Parliament for its leader to ask regular questions at PMQs then that would be enough for the broadcasters.
The interesting scenario would be where a new opposition party was polling very well, and had won a few by-elections. There are unlikely to be enough by-elections for them to build a big enough group of MPs before the election to qualify under the rules of thumb I have discussed, but at some level it would be evidence that they were a significantly important new party that they should be included in the debates.
Suppose that UKIP had won the by-elections in Eastleigh, Rotherham, Corby and South Shields. It would be hard to leave Farage out of the leader's debates then, though in Parliamentary terms 4 MPs leaves them behind the SNP and the DUP. As it is they fell more than 4% short in Eastleigh, and more than 20% away in the others.
And still, given that we have a representative democracy the leader's debates are a ridiculous affectation.
But if we are talking about the debates, it seems silly to ignore them
We disagree, fair enough.
Breathtaking.
You're right that it's political but as with most political decisions, there still needs to be a sustainable argument put forward for public consumption and "we don't want him" isn't good enough.
As an aside, while it's probable that it's the Tories and Lib Dems doing worst from UKIP's advance, it's by no means obvious that that would remain if Farage were included in the debates in 2015. After all, it was the soft, swing votes that Clegg took from Cameron in 2010, when the Tories were topping the poll. There are a lot of WWC Labour voters who have a marginal interest in politics but could be persuaded by Farage on a good day. Likewise, the protest voters who've been Yellow and are now Red could end up Purple. All three main parties have something to fear from UKIP representation.
It will be down to realpolitik, and in the end that comes down to bums on seats in Parliament - and that's the only way to change things (excepting revolution), not making appeals to abstract notions of fairness.
Thus the probability of none being found in the sample of 11, assuming that this rate is true, is (9/11)^11 = 0.11. Thus there is not enough evidence to overturn the null hypothesis (of Mike's expectation) that 1 or 2 out of 11 2010 Lib Dems tell the pollsters they will stay loyal.
However, in the November ICM, the rate of Lib Dem loyalty was 30%*. So, the probability of no loyal Lib Dems being found in a sample of 11, assuming a loyalty rate of 3/10, is (7/10)^11 = 0.020. This is significant at the 5% level, so this opinion poll does provide evidence that: * Incidentally, I've just checked this rate in the latest national Survation poll, and it is also 30%.
Thank you. You have just illustrated that subsamples are useful for punters. My point all along.
On the merits, UKIP has the advantage, unlike the SNP, of standing throughout the country (cf. [3] & [17]). In addition, if it has any sense, it will challenge any decision of the BBC and OfCom ahead of time, seeking clear relief. The matter would be decided at trial by the Administrative Court, according to English law. Accordingly, the balance of convenience arguments, which relate to matters of interim relief, and weighed very heavily against the petitioners' before Lady Smith, would not arise. In addition, the barbarous discretion over the reduction of administrative decisions, afforded in Scots law to the Court of Session when exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, has no counterpart in English law.
That isn't, of course, to say that any challenge by UKIP will succeed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/21/nigel-farage-tv-election-debates_n_4318173.html
Would be quite funny and prob get almost as much publicity
The poll in the huff post is 76/24 Yes/No
Looking ahead to the 2015 GE campaign, which presumably will begin with the 2014 Party Conferences, the question for all parties is whether internal self-discipline will be sustained in the heat of a protracted 24-hour media news cycle campaign.
The ill-considered comment, the off-message tweet, the controversial leaflet - all have the power to derail or at best disrupt the message a Party is trying to put across.
The irony is that had the ad still been running it would have been withdrawn immediately. It's happened many times and is one of the hazards of using a celeb who all too often doesn't turn out to be as pure as the advertiser would like them to be.
UKIP don't deserve a seat on the debates. Then again, the debates are atrocious and should be axed, and, if they must be kept, the worm must absolutely be got rid of.
The only way Miliband would agree (beyond gross stupidity) would be if Labour were lagging. Ahead, giving airtime to another opposition party would be foolish. UKIP isn't just a purple shade of Conservative, lots of WWC voters who might otherwise back Labour vote purple.
If Clegg and Farage are going to be involved, maybe let them take part in the first 15-20 mins, then the make the rest of the show just the big two against each other
Of course whether the broadcasters would want something with one of the major leaders missing is another matter.
This would have a number of advantages: Firstly, it would enable real-time feedback on how well a government is doing. Secondly, it would dramatically increase the number of betting opportunities.
Of course traditionally elections were held over a couple of weeks, with people following the running results in the daily newspapers.
http://weareunfinished.com/2013/06/20/respect-for-women-and-girls-and-caroline-lucas/