Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It would be playing into UKIP’s hands to bar Farage from th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It would be playing into UKIP’s hands to bar Farage from the debates
Judging by comments coming out of the Miliband camp it appears that Labour has decided that it would not work in their favour if they were seen to be black-balling Nigel Farage from the GE2015 leaders TV debates.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Although I'm against debates in the first place. We have leaders in place for all the parties all the way through parliament, and they get to argue quite happily if they can get the air-time - not something Farage is short of.
Can we have Paisley Jnr in the debates? He's got more seats...
UKIP ain't going to be in the debates. Get over it...
They have just as much or as little chance of becoming PM as he does.
The good thing about I.Q.s is that the people who have a high I.Q. are intelligent enough to understand how arbitrary, meaningless and irrelevant they are to real life, and the people who have a low I.Q. are too thick to know or care anything about it what it is anyway.
The chicken accusation isn't good news either, so Cameron should get out in front of this ahead of the Euros: Announce his position for the general election debate now (no MPs, no debate slot) but challenge Farage to a one-on-one debate ahead of the Euro elections. That limits the damage if Farage comes out ahead, and has a big upside if Con beat UKIP in the Euros, which they may well do.
Lets get some perspective here. George Galloway and his Respect party have managed to do what Nigel Farage and UKIP have so far still failed to achieve after several attempts, and that is to win a Westminster by-election in this Parliament. But nobody is seriously suggesting that Galloway should then get an automatic place in the debates on the back of this single win.
David Cameron is facing embarrassment over Europe as peers warn that his attempt to pass a referendum law faces failure
according to the Daily Telegraph.
Oh, dear !
nail.. head...
and Galloway has x times more chance of being in the next parliament than Farage....
I am sure that both the Conservatives and the Labour party would be quite happy to exclude Nick Clegg and the Libdems from the Leadership debates. But as the third party in UK Westminster politics with nearly 60 MP's despite their poor Euros performances, and still the likely kingpin in any Hung Parliament, I think the electorate might have something to say about that!
i) a national UK party (no separatists or sectionalists); and
ii) ministrable (no nutters, pariahs, single-issues, etc. Assume the worst until proved otherwise.)
SNP (and others, e.g. NI) don't make it on ground i). UKIP (and Respect, Greens, etc) don't make it on ground ii)...
So its hardly a tough call to then exclude Nigel Farage and UKIP from a Westminster Leadership debate before the next GE when UKIP couldn't even win a Westminster by-election over the last three years when another party Leader has managed to achieve this feat.
And lets not forget that UKIP now hold less MEP seats than they did at the last Euro elections as well. There are far more established minor parties who have consistently won Westminster seats and who are not even in contention to be invited to take part in a GE campaign Leadership debate as a result.
The man lacks a degree and doesn't know where to put his apostrophes.
If the BBC needs to give the kippers airtime in the interests of impartiality then it should screen Al Murray as the Pub Landlord before the debates and claim it is a party political broadcast on behalf of the United Kingdom Independence Party.
Whatever next? OGH suggesting Nick Clegg is included?.
You are muddling up between rational grounds for making a decision and the political narrative that may result.
In the Japanese debates they had something like 15 people of varying degrees of crazification, it seemed to work out OK, aside from the fact that it was the second-craziest person on the stage who ended up getting elected.
I don't see why some form of two tier debate solution can't be applied here also.
What does need doing though is a change in the format of the debates so that they are less presidential in style and more cabinet involvement. A series of debates with a half dozen different themes spread over six or more weeks would be a better format. This could start with Education, then Health, then Home Office, then Foreign affairs, then Finance policy then culminating in Leaders, with a good gap of 3-4 weeks before the actual poll would be my preferred format. We would then see the parties manifestos laid out and the strengths and weaknesses of the whole team, rather than the trivia of whether Dave is balding or Ed needs more nasal surgery.
We have the advantage of knowing when the election is so can have a longer campaign than previously.
On the other hand .... titters .... perhaps Farage will be invited to the Leaders Debate on the basis that :
1. Ukip has no MP's.
2. Whacko and fruitloops are under-represented in politics, if not in Ukip
3. Ukip represent the vast majority of the UK resident 29million Bulgarians post 1st Jan.
4. Leader Debates with Farage will reveal the best of British comedy since Morecambe and Wise.
EU referendum bill faces failure:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10547669/David-Camerons-EU-referendum-bill-unlikely-to-become-law.html
Is this what Cammo was banking on all along?
UKIP giving a derisory cheer today.
I would dispute point two. All the evidence that I see demonstrates that swivel eyed loons are already well represented in existing parliamentary parties. Just this week we had policies on all women train sets and a call for a freeze on gym memberships for underpriveliged fatties.
On the "Fat Chance Mate" basis of exclusion from Leader Debates since 1979 then only the following would have taken place :
1979 - Callaghan and Maggie
1992 - Major and Kinnock
2010 - Brown and Cameron
An All Woman HS2 train line with special first class gym carriages for female fatties of East European decent on benefits since 1st January 2014 ?!?
There would also be much more smoke than light.
I mean, what are the purpose of having even the debates we had last time, from a) the politicians' point of view, and b) the publics?
A prolonged GE campaign with UKIP in the debates would expose the paucity of UKIPs policies, and would show the opposition on the left and the right to the sensible centrist policies of the coalition. There is nothing to fear. Politicians should trust the great British public and accept their wisdom.
Jein, in answer to the thread premise. Excluding Farage gives him the opportunity to do a live webcast or similar, putting forward his points and attacking those of others without rebuttal. Including him gives him a greater air of legitimacy, and the stupid (more on this below) nature of the debates will prevent any questioning beyond the most basic level.
However, the reason Farage should be excluded is not party political advantage this way and that, but the fact that he has not a single MP. With a stronger electoral record it would be different.
The most important point is that the debates are themselves harmful to democracy.
1) 90 minutes thrice seems like a long time. But each debate is themed and each leader gets equal airtime. So that's just 30 minutes on each topic, minus the time the moderator spends speaking. It's superficial.
2) They dominated the last electoral campaign. Goodbye grand speeches, farewell clever policies, the dumbing down of politics continues apace as the man most capable of not saying anything stupid for 30 minutes wins the day.
3) The worm is so badly designed as to seriously affect in a negative way the result. For those unaware (pay attention, I've banged on about this for ages) the worm is a little line on the screen at the same time as the debates. A small panel (around 8-12, I think) of 'ordinary members of the public' have hand-held dials which they use to indicate approval or disapproval with a speaker's words at a given instant. This was found last time to have a significant impact on the perspective of viewers, which is very bad news.
The panel are meant to be objective/neutral/representative of the general public view. But such a small panel is wide open to mob effect (someone rates Clegg low because they loathe the Lib Dems, others follow suit and he looks as popular as plague) or someone for or against a given party saying "Oh yes, I am a floating voter. Who shall I vote for?" when really they have a picture of Ed Miliband in their purse.
4) Fairness is impossible. Farage is on 15-20% ish in the polls but has no MPs. Does he get included? No, that's mad. He has no electoral record worthy of inclusion. But his party is regularly outpolling Clegg's. But if we remove Clegg then we don't have a man whose party is actually in government.
The debates were a good idea but a rubbish reality. They should be scrapped. They won't be.
Party leaders will be accused of cowardice if they dare to point out the approach just doesn't work here. Media organisations will stamp their little feet and wet their little panties if they're denied their 90 minutes of electoral limelight.
So, the broken, stupid debates will continue. And whether Farage is there or not, they're bloody daft.
If anyone wants to read the relevant paper:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0018154
Bit sleepy now, but I might check that link later.
Been on the Dan Hodges sauce ?
Debates are going to happen, what we need is a format that provides entertainment and betting opportunities for us political anoraks.
I am not sure that there is much evidence that these debates have much effect on shifting views or votes in any country. There is the potential for gaffes, but short of Farage doing a Jonny Vegas after a good session in the green room, these are more entertaining than significant.
Any rules on this are arbitrary.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2532567/Mars-One-project-selects-1-000-people-hoping-live-Red-Planet.html
Riiiiggghhht.
Scrap them immediately.
I regret to advise you that young Ed will follow in the marvellous heritage of inevitable British LoTo losers that recently has included :
Howard .. IDS .. Hague .. Kinnock and the never to be forgotton Foot.
Just imagine in 2010 if Labour were really serious about the Rainbow Coalition, Nick Clegg could have had the option to either form a coalition with the Conservatives or with the Rainbow alliance.
You can imagine, Labour desperate to hang to power, could have said, Nick, we are prepared to make you Prime Minister of this Rainbow coalition.
I can't see anyone making the same offer to Nigel Farage, for a variety of reasons, mostly due to the lack of UKIP seats.
@JackW
Are you saying YES or NO that the 2010 LD switchers will not stick with Labour on anything like the scale that we are seeing in the polls?
That is the only way that PM EdM can be stopped.
Clearly restricting the franchise must be a well defined and thought out policy. My first inclination is :
The voting franchise shall be restricted to Scottish armigers whose bearings predate 1745 and who have achieved a holding in excess of 500 acres.
We simply shouldn't want to concern those who do not qualify with the hum drum nature of governance of the nation.
Ah ..... Mrs Jack W has put in a nod for ladies who have achieved a holding of 500 pairs of shoes. This appears to be a sensible and modest amendment .... because she tells me it is so .... and I know my constituency !!
At the elections UKIP did better than the Greens
Stephen King, chief economist at HSBC, said independence would be “a disaster for Scotland, a shrug of the shoulders for everybody else”.
The Deputy First Minister claims the economy will win the referendum for the separatists as a series of economists warn of the damage independence would inflict on Scotland
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10547796/Nicola-Sturgeon-Economy-will-decide-independence-referendum.html
Was it all just media noise and fluff?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d073c3ee-7117-11e3-8f92-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2pH02Lh10
a. May not recall correctly how they voted.
b. May have dropped of the register.
c. Will have their influence diluted by (my expected) higher turnout.
d. Have not fully engaged with the prospect of a Miliband government.
e. Still have time to change their mind again.
f. Know the poll that count is in May 2015 not snap shot polls now.
g. May vote differently in the marginals.
Lib Dem ICM share of the vote after the first Debate 30%
Final ICM Lib Dem share of the Vote 26%
Actual Lib Dem share of the vote 23%
If NF were there, how would he perform? I reckon, reasonably. He can temper his tub-thumping style effectively enough, and look polished and sensible. But he would have two disadvantages: lack of practice in the HoC, and he does not do forensic.
I cannot see how they can be changed to become more meaningful. They will continue to be home to sound-bite ephemera.
Will our very own Nick Palmer presage a night of gloom for Ed or will Nick be a ray of sunshine in the dark skies of Ed's failure ??
If UKIP stand more than 300 candidates, it is possible that Farage could command a majority in the HoC. So on that basis he is a potential PM.
Wonder how many gullible Tories fell for all that Parliament Act posturing?
I do seem to remember some ridiculously high anomalies in the LD polling round about this time. On 20 April, a YouGov poll put the Liberal Democrats on 34%, the Conservatives on 33% and Labour on 28%.
They didn't get anywhere near that in the 2010 GE despite getting their best result ever.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0018154#s4
Sums up the problems quite well. The worm is wide open to bias and has a significant impact on voters' opinions. It's got to be axed.
I doubt it will be, for the same reasons cretinous politicians think using polygraphs on paedophiles who are out of prison is a good idea.
Rubbish. The middleman are the achingly tight rules debate rules. Remember the 76-point agreement by which the 2010 debates were run?
The debates were a farce, and will continue to be a farce. Reality-TV politics for the gormless.
And I do think that Parliamentary performance should be the key - since we are talking about elections to that very Parliament.
But you get my drift ....
I also think it's a generational thing - people whose childhood mainly consisted of their parents' (and indeed grandparents') war stories seem to have trouble adjusting to an organisation in which Germany, whom they suppose we defeated in those wars*, is so influential.
~~~
*On the other hand, I was taught that we didn't win either World War - the Americans did. Obviously I'm only mentioning this in the hope that it will derail the thread completely and Our Genial Host will have to write another one to get the discussion back to anywhere within hailing distance of political betting...
Cameron v Miliband
Miliband v Clegg
Cameron v Clegg
Remember Miliband doesn't want to be tag teamed by the PM and his Deputy.
Put simply, I don't think the public will accept arguments based on questionable constitutional niceties (the debates are a recent innovation and anyone asserting constitutional principles is doing so on very thin substance). If they see the Lib Dems in - and they will be in - then they won't accept UKIP out. Mike is right on that: it will look like a cosy status quo protecting their own.
Any rules have to look forward (i.e. how well are they likely to do after the election), as well as back. You could, for example have made a case to exclude Ross Perot from the 1992 US presidential debates; you could have made a case to include him in 1996; you couldn't credibly have advocated both positions.
On the question of impact, it's unclear who would be most damaged by a strong UKIP performance, or where. All three main parliamentary parties draw some support from the coalition UKIP has put together.
For those who want UKIP's exclusion, the other alternative is no debates at all. Expect to see some kite-flying on the subject of how they distort and detract from the 'real' campaign.
Also, whilst Miliband might not want to be tag-teamed, as you put it, that would suit both Clegg and Cameron. Clegg could also use a three-man debate to try and portray himself as the middle option (not an evil baby-eating Tory, and not a weird, Marxist Miliband).
Including UKIP when they have no MPs and not the Greens would seem like an odd decision.
So good for the rest of us, then.
a) the potential tory defectors to UKIP may already be in the UKIP polling and any new converts from the debates will come from Labour.
b) Farage may mess up and shift some voters from UKIP to Tory.
If he was really cunning he could push for the inclusion of the SNP which will affect Labour but not the tories . The greens would take votes of all 3 main parties so no advantage either way to having them in or not
The Markit CIPS PMI for Construction has come in at 62.1 for December only 0.5 below November's reading of 62.6.
Optimism for 2014 has increased (57% forecasting growth, 14% a decline) and all three sub-sectors (Commercial, Residential and Civil Engineering) made strong contributions.
Key paragraph in Survey:
Higher levels of business activity reflected strong rates of expansion in all three broad categories of construction output monitored by the survey. Residential activity remained the fastest growing area of construction, but it was also the only category to post a slower pace of expansion than in November. Meanwhile, work on commercial projects rose at the steepest rate since August 2007 and civil engineering activity increased at the same pace as that reported in the previous month.
All that is needed now is for the Services PMI due on Monday to be within a point or two of its November reading and Q4 GDP looks as though it will come in near the Q2 and Q3 levels.