Some trenchant views on this one this morning. I think you have to define what the debate is - is it a Party Leaders' debate or a Prime Ministerial debate ? As others have said, if it's the latter, there can only be two participants. If you go for the former, then you have to draw lines somewhere - the current line is presence in the House of Commons.
Alternative guidelines could be number of candidates such as govern the allocation of PEBs. In that case, where do you draw the line - 100 candidates, 300, 500 ? UKIP might be included but then so mght the Greens, BNP, Natural Law Party or anyone wealthy enough to stump for the deposits and who wants a platform but then you could call that democracy I suppose ?
The view from here seems to be to use the nebulous criterion of polling. OK, but UKIP have only polled noticeably for the past 24 months or so - in 2011 I don't recall high UKIP figures so we're going to use transitory polling popularity as a rationale for inclusion as well.
The answer is that there's no fair answer - short of having no debate at all which I think is entirely possible - whatever format will leave someone disappointed/angry. I'm not quite sure what a "second tier" Leaders' debate achieves (in its defence, the debate of the US third party candidates in 2012 was excellent).
OGH does have a very valid point - we have yet to see any meat on the UKIP policy skeleton and it will be fascinating to see how that manifesto stands up to intensive scrutiny.
Rather than scrap the debates, why not change them?
Fair enough. But any change would have to be aimed at giving them a meaningful purpose beyond just giving media types hard-ons.
I cannot see how they can be changed to become more meaningful. They will continue to be home to sound-bite ephemera.
The entire GE campaign is about sound bites. How many voters get to hear any politician make an entire speech or read party manifestos? An achingly low number. Instead, they get their information from the newspapers and the TV - both of which pick and choose what they decide to cover. Moderated debates take out the middleman.
"Moderated debates take out the middleman."
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.
There is no law stating the debates must remain the same. Unfortunately, Josias, not everyone has your profound wisdom and intelligence. Some of us are just "gormless" and would prefer to see our political leaders present their cases without their views being edited by journalists.
We have party political broadcasts, which allow our political leaders to present their cases without their views being edited by journalists. Likewise, manifestos.
I fail to see any way in which the 2010 debates had any effect on the final outcome, and any way in which meaningful debates can beheld in the future.
Do you really think that politicians can present their true 'views' in these debates, given they are also responding to points made by the other participants ("I agree with Nick") etc?
They're absolutely pointless IMHO. In fact, I'd go further than that: they're bad for the country's politics.
The SNP are Scottish-only. It'd be indefensible to include them (and silly, if Yes wins).
And yet some on here repeatedly make the point that UKIP is effectively English only based on the results and polling. No effective difference between the two on that basis.
Wonder how many gullible Tories fell for all that Parliament Act posturing?
Ben
I don't think any Tories believed it would pass: that was not the purpose of introducing the Bill.
The bill is a tactical defence against Labour committing to an EU Referendum in their 2015 Manifesto.
It enables Cameron to say: "Can you believe Ed Miliband and Labour are serious in their commitment when they voted against a private members bill to set up a referendum only last year?".
It appears you are the gullible one not the Tories.
I wonder if we'll get any by-elections this year that UKIP can win? Somewhere in East Anglia or Kent after the Euro elections? UKIP gaining an MP would be politically significant.
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
Wonder how many gullible Tories fell for all that Parliament Act posturing?
Ben
I don't think any Tories believed it would pass: that was not the purpose of introducing the Bill.
The bill is a tactical defence against Labour committing to an EU Referendum in their 2015 Manifesto.
It enables Cameron to say: "Can you believe Ed Miliband and Labour are serious in their commitment when they voted against a private members bill to set up a referendum only last year?".
It appears you are the gullible one not the Tories.
Rather than scrap the debates, why not change them?
Fair enough. But any change would have to be aimed at giving them a meaningful purpose beyond just giving media types hard-ons.
I cannot see how they can be changed to become more meaningful. They will continue to be home to sound-bite ephemera.
The entire GE campaign is about sound bites. How many voters get to hear any politician make an entire speech or read party manifestos? An achingly low number. Instead, they get their information from the newspapers and the TV - both of which pick and choose what they decide to cover. Moderated debates take out the middleman.
"Moderated debates take out the middleman."
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.
There is no law stating the debates must remain the same. Unfortunately, Josias, not everyone has your profound wisdom and intelligence. Some of us are just "gormless" and would prefer to see our political leaders present their cases without their views being edited by journalists.
We have party political broadcasts, which allow our political leaders to present their cases without their views being edited by journalists. Likewise, manifestos.
I fail to see any way in which the 2010 debates had any effect on the final outcome, and any way in which meaningful debates can beheld in the future.
Do you really think that politicians can present their true 'views' in these debates, given they are also responding to points made by the other participants ("I agree with Nick") etc?
They're absolutely pointless IMHO. In fact, I'd go further than that: they're bad for the country's politics.
We will have to disagree. Seeing political leaders debating with each other - questioning, responding, agreeing and disagreeing - is a good thing in my view, whether they affect the final outcome of an election or not. As I keep saying, there is no law which states the debates have to be conducted in the way they were in 2010. But if they are and nobody watches, so be it. It will be the politicians who will lose out, not the political process.
The SNP are Scottish-only. It'd be indefensible to include them (and silly, if Yes wins).
And yet some on here repeatedly make the point that UKIP is effectively English only based on the results and polling. No effective difference between the two on that basis.
UKIP do reasonably well in Wales too. Besides, England with 500+ constituencies isn't the same as Scotland with 60 or so - one can deliver a parliamentary majority; the other can't.
Farage in the debates will be a disaster for the Tories but leaving him out will harden the opinions of UKIP/Tory swing-voters, so it is potentially lose-lose for Cameron.
Best scenario for Cameron is no debates. So if I were him I'd say yes to UKIP being part of it and open it up so that Salmond and Galloway can be involved too. That way there'd likely be no agreement on who should feature and no debate.
Cameron would be on solid ground arguing that Galloway and Salmond have more right to feature than Farage.
Incidentally, can anyone spin this EU referendum/No Bill passing into law problem as a good thing? Or is it the seriously brain-ache it appears to be for the Tories?
The SNP are Scottish-only. It'd be indefensible to include them (and silly, if Yes wins).
And yet some on here repeatedly make the point that UKIP is effectively English only based on the results and polling. No effective difference between the two on that basis.
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
No, but he can make it clear who voted it down.
And that will help the LDs as they try to mop up the pro-EU vote. The more Dave complains about being constrained by the yellows the better it is for Clegg & co.
Mr. Smithson, I half-agree. It could be win-win for the Coalition parties (blues look sceptical, yellows look like they love the EU). However, denying the people a say on the EU after demanding their opinion on AV and refusing to ask them about the deranged plans to bugger up the Lords (as it were...) would not look very Democrat.
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
No, but he can make it clear who voted it down.
And that will help the LDs as they try to mop up the pro-EU vote. The more Dave complains about being constrained by the yellows the better it is for Clegg & co.
Aren't those going to be Labour voters (More so than Conservative) ?
I wonder if we'll get any by-elections this year that UKIP can win? Somewhere in East Anglia or Kent after the Euro elections? UKIP gaining an MP would be politically significant.
Tory MPs, measured by the number of by-elections, appear to be a very healthy lot - certainly compared with Labour. They've also avoided expenses related criminial cases and jail terms.
Rather than scrap the debates, why not change them?
Fair enough. But any change would have to be aimed at giving them a meaningful purpose beyond just giving media types hard-ons.
I cannot see how they can be changed to become more meaningful. They will continue to be home to sound-bite ephemera.
The entire GE campaign is about sound bites. How many voters get to hear any politician make an entire speech or read party manifestos? An achingly low number. Instead, they get their information from the newspapers and the TV - both of which pick and choose what they decide to cover. Moderated debates take out the middleman.
"Moderated debates take out the middleman."
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.
There is no law stating the debates must remain the same. Unfortunately, Josias, not everyone has your profound wisdom and intelligence. Some of us are just "gormless" and would prefer to see our political leaders present their cases without their views being edited by journalists.
We have party political broadcasts, which allow our political leaders to present their cases without their views being edited by journalists. Likewise, manifestos.
I fail to see any way in which the 2010 debates had any effect on the final outcome, and any way in which meaningful debates can beheld in the future.
Do you really think that politicians can present their true 'views' in these debates, given they are also responding to points made by the other participants ("I agree with Nick") etc?
They're absolutely pointless IMHO. In fact, I'd go further than that: they're bad for the country's politics.
We will have to disagree. Seeing political leaders debating with each other - questioning, responding, agreeing and disagreeing - is a good thing in my view, whether they affect the final outcome of an election or not. As I keep saying, there is no law which states the debates have to be conducted in the way they were in 2010. But if they are and nobody watches, so be it. It will be the politicians who will lose out, not the political process.
Fair enough - as you say, we'll have to disagree.
Of course people will watch whatever the rules - the TV companies will want people to watch them, and put them on at the most advantageous time. As last time, the hype levels will be high.
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
No, but he can make it clear who voted it down.
And that will help the LDs as they try to mop up the pro-EU vote. The more Dave complains about being constrained by the yellows the better it is for Clegg & co.
Aren't those going to be Labour voters (More so than Conservative) ?
Forget national vote shares which are an irrelevance. 2010 LDs, as all the marginals polling has shown, are more inclined to vote Labour in LAB-CON battles. In blue-yellow fights the evidence is that a proportion of LAB voters are giving support and that needs to be increased.
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
No, but he can make it clear who voted it down.
And that will help the LDs as they try to mop up the pro-EU vote. The more Dave complains about being constrained by the yellows the better it is for Clegg & co.
But I thought nobody cared about the EU? It doesn't appear in the voter-concern polls so surely this won't "mop up" any votes at all.
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
The Parliament act is about the House of Lords not over-ruling the Commons. The Commons have already voted in favour. Party affiliation does not come into it.
Mr. Smithson, I half-agree. It could be win-win for the Coalition parties (blues look sceptical, yellows look like they love the EU). However, denying the people a say on the EU after demanding their opinion on AV and refusing to ask them about the deranged plans to bugger up the Lords (as it were...) would not look very Democrat.
I agree. It is win-win.
I often wonder if at their intimate meeting Dave and Nick don't work out issues for a "split" that they both can highlight to the benefit of both.
"THE national chairman of the UK Independence Party revealed today exclusively to the North Devon Journal that he’s been selected as the party’s candidate in North Devon for the next general election."
BenM is right. Dave seems to keep forgetting he has no majority on his own. Any political system fiddling he wants to make (referendums, voting systems, boundaries, MP counts, etc) needs LD support. He can't enforce the Parliament Act.
No, but he can make it clear who voted it down.
And that will help the LDs as they try to mop up the pro-EU vote. The more Dave complains about being constrained by the yellows the better it is for Clegg & co.
True. I doubt either government party would be too upset with that outcome.
I enjoyed the debates even though I didn't fully agree with them - or the format, in particular.
What would interest me is the 'non-anorak' attitude to debates, and how it ties in with any shifts in attitude to politics/politicians. I suspect many would see it as 'politicians on trial'. And Farage as some kind of gladiator.
Apologies for potentially derailing the thread in a Scottish direction, but in response to growing pressure from the Catalan government over independence the Spanish Government has issued its embassies worldwide with guidelines for briefing foreign governments.
On the key issue of self-determination the briefing paper, as leaked by El Pais, states:
“The principle of territorial integrity is a core element of international law. The right of self-determination is only allowed when very specific conditions are met - former colonies, oppressed peoples and massive and flagrant violations of human rights.
Given these requirements, separatists try to present Spain as a colonial and totalitarian country that, only by force, has kept some of its citizens prisoner. Only if international society were persuaded that that is the true reality of Spain would the conditions for self-determination be met according to law. “
The 'no MPs' argument and the 'Greens and Respect should have more right to be on the debates' line are both ridiculous, and if the people saying them think about it they would surely agree. People who justify excluding Farage on grounds of no MPs, can I ask, would you still say the same of UKIP were averaging 30% in the polls?
If the Green Party or Respect are averaging 10-15% in the polls around April 2015 to UKIPs 1% then George Galloway or the Green leader should be allowed on the debates and Farage should be down the pub obviously
Its no more than protectionism by supporters of the old big three to stop a popular new party getting airtime, nothing to do with 'rules of tv debates'.. Its obvious to anyone vaguely interested in politics that the rise of ukip will have a massive affect on the next election, and as such, if the Clegg is allowed on, so should Farage. To try and argue straight faced that it is against the rules is laughable. There has only been one election that had debates, and the rules aren't set in stone, it is just a tv show at the end of the day.
Personally I would have Farage and Clegg involved for the first 30 mins then just Cameron and Miliband for the last half hour. Giving Clegg equal billing with the potential PMs while excluding Farage would be twisting logic beyond belief
Most reckon interest rates will rise in H2 2015, and that inflation will be less than wage increases in 2014. If accurate, that'll be good for the Coalition.
"THE national chairman of the UK Independence Party revealed today exclusively to the North Devon Journal that he’s been selected as the party’s candidate in North Devon for the next general election."
Rather than scrap the debates, why not change them?
Fair enough. But any change would have to be aimed at giving them a meaningful purpose beyond just giving media types hard-ons.
I cannot see how they can be changed to become more meaningful. They will continue to be home to sound-bite ephemera.
The entire GE campaign is about sound bites. How many voters get to hear any politician make an entire speech or read party manifestos? An achingly low number. Instead, they get their information from the newspapers and the TV - both of which pick and choose what they decide to cover. Moderated debates take out the middleman.
"Moderated debates take out the middleman."
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.
There is no law stating the debates must remain the same. Unfortunately, Josias, not everyone has your profound wisdom and intelligence. Some of us are just "gormless" and would prefer to see our political leaders present their cases without their views being edited by journalists.
We have party political broadcasts, which allow our political leaders to present their cases without their views being edited by journalists. Likewise, manifestos.
I fail to see any way in which the 2010 debates had any effect on the final outcome, and any way in which meaningful debates can beheld in the future.
Do you really think that politicians can present their true 'views' in these debates, given they are also responding to points made by the other participants ("I agree with Nick") etc?
They're absolutely pointless IMHO. In fact, I'd go further than that: they're bad for the country's politics.
We will have to disagree. Seeing political leaders debating with each other - questioning, responding, agreeing and disagreeing - is a good thing in my view, whether they affect the final outcome of an election or not. As I keep saying, there is no law which states the debates have to be conducted in the way they were in 2010. But if they are and nobody watches, so be it. It will be the politicians who will lose out, not the political process.
Once again I disagree with Mr Smithson. I am NOT a Farage fan or a UKIP supporter, but I think he will more than hold his own against the 3 stooges. He will rip Miliband to shreds, (good thing), but he will rip lumps out of Dave also, (bad thing). As for the LD clown, well, who cares. Cameron, in my opinion should stay well clear of any such debate. Everything to loose, nothing to gain.
Apologies for potentially derailing the thread in a Scottish direction, but in response to growing pressure from the Catalan government over independence the Spanish Government has issued its embassies worldwide with guidelines for briefing foreign governments.
On the key issue of self-determination the briefing paper, as leaked by El Pais, states:
“The principle of territorial integrity is a core element of international law. The right of self-determination is only allowed when very specific conditions are met - former colonies, oppressed peoples and massive and flagrant violations of human rights.
Given these requirements, separatists try to present Spain as a colonial and totalitarian country that, only by force, has kept some of its citizens prisoner. Only if international society were persuaded that that is the true reality of Spain would the conditions for self-determination be met according to law. “
Given both the Czech/Slovak split and the impending Scottish referendum I suspect Spain is going to have a lot of trouble holding that line for long.
Remember Eck went to court last time, and got gubbed.
Which is not to say that Farage would suffer the same fate if he did the same thing. Personally I think it's more than reasonable to base coverage (including presence in debates) on actual results in the last equivalent election. That rules Farage out for 2015 but gives UKIP every chance of being involved in 2020 (and in the meantime they get the added bonus of being able to complain about the unfairness of being excluded).
REAKING NEWS:BNP leader Nick Griffin has been declared bankrupt after an order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday
Isn't bankruptcy a bar to being an MP or in his case an MEP?
No.
Looking at the electoral commission site, it is more of a grey area, page 5
Bankruptcy 1.12 Bankruptcy in itself is not a disqualification. You are only disqualified if: • you are currently subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or debt relief restrictions order made by a court in England or Wales, or a bankruptcy restrictions order made by a court in Northern Ireland, or • your estate has been sequestrated by a court in Scotland and you have not been discharged, or • you are bankrupt under the law of Gibraltar
1.13 A person is not disqualified if they have been adjudged bankrupt by a court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or are subject to an interim bankruptcy restrictions order, as long as they are not also currently subject to any of the particular bankruptcy disqualifications listed above.
Wonder how many gullible Tories fell for all that Parliament Act posturing?
Ben
I don't think any Tories believed it would pass: that was not the purpose of introducing the Bill.
The bill is a tactical defence against Labour committing to an EU Referendum in their 2015 Manifesto.
It enables Cameron to say: "Can you believe Ed Miliband and Labour are serious in their commitment when they voted against a private members bill to set up a referendum only last year?".
It appears you are the gullible one not the Tories.
I find that a bit thin if that is the line.
Right, not least because Labour don't need to take a public vote against the bill to kill it.
The leadership have got a very minor case of the US Republican condition, where their base think up hair-brained political strategies for them and feel betrayed if they're not followed. I suppose they should be grateful that they symptoms aren't very severe; All they have to do is pretend to try to pass a private member's bill to keep them happy, rather than having to actually shut down the entire government...
REAKING NEWS:BNP leader Nick Griffin has been declared bankrupt after an order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday
Isn't bankruptcy a bar to being an MP or in his case an MEP?
No.
Looking at the electoral commission site, it is more of a grey area, page 5
Bankruptcy 1.12 Bankruptcy in itself is not a disqualification. You are only disqualified if: • you are currently subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or debt relief restrictions order made by a court in England or Wales, or a bankruptcy restrictions order made by a court in Northern Ireland, or • your estate has been sequestrated by a court in Scotland and you have not been discharged, or • you are bankrupt under the law of Gibraltar
1.13 A person is not disqualified if they have been adjudged bankrupt by a court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or are subject to an interim bankruptcy restrictions order, as long as they are not also currently subject to any of the particular bankruptcy disqualifications listed above.
British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin MEP has been declared bankrupt.
A bankruptcy order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday. Mr Griffin tweeted: "Being bankrupt does NOT prevent me being or standing as an MEP. It does free me from financial worries." He added: "I am now turning the experience to the benefit of hard-up constituents by producing a booklet on dealing with debt."
Once again I disagree with Mr Smithson. I am NOT a Farage fan or a UKIP supporter, but I think he will more than hold his own against the 3 stooges. He will rip Miliband to shreds, (good thing), but he will rip lumps out of Dave also, (bad thing). As for the LD clown, well, who cares. Cameron, in my opinion should stay well clear of any such debate. Everything to loose, nothing to gain.
Fundimentally disagree with this. I am in the camp that Miliband is the tories greatest asset and they need him to be seen by as many people as often as possible in the run up to the election. Few people take much interest in politics between elections and fewer still watch PMQ's. The vast majority, therefore, have no idea how dreadful and utterly unfit to be a prime minister Miliband actually is.
There is no greater showcase than the debates and the tories would be mad to pull the plug because of concerns over Farage. The greatest damage will be to Labour and Miliband and, ultimately, it is they that the tories have to beat.
As a side issue, I would also expect Farage and UKIP to be shown up as entirely unfiit for office when put under scrutiny as they were last time when it was clear their chairman had no idea what was in their manifesto.
REAKING NEWS:BNP leader Nick Griffin has been declared bankrupt after an order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday
Isn't bankruptcy a bar to being an MP or in his case an MEP?
No.
Looking at the electoral commission site, it is more of a grey area, page 5
Bankruptcy 1.12 Bankruptcy in itself is not a disqualification. You are only disqualified if: • you are currently subject to a bankruptcy restrictions order or debt relief restrictions order made by a court in England or Wales, or a bankruptcy restrictions order made by a court in Northern Ireland, or • your estate has been sequestrated by a court in Scotland and you have not been discharged, or • you are bankrupt under the law of Gibraltar
1.13 A person is not disqualified if they have been adjudged bankrupt by a court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or are subject to an interim bankruptcy restrictions order, as long as they are not also currently subject to any of the particular bankruptcy disqualifications listed above.
As a side issue, I would also expect Farage and UKIP to be shown up as entirely unfiit for office when put under scrutiny as they were last time when it was clear their chairman had no idea what was in their manifesto.
The problem with this line is that:
(a) they are going to be careful to only have well briefed people represent them (b) voters are looking to them to make a protest not to present a well-thought-through alternative and so are unlikely to care greatly if there is an £x billion black hole in their manifesto
British National Party (BNP) leader Nick Griffin MEP has been declared bankrupt.
A bankruptcy order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday. Mr Griffin tweeted: "Being bankrupt does NOT prevent me being or standing as an MEP. It does free me from financial worries." He added: "I am now turning the experience to the benefit of hard-up constituents by producing a booklet on dealing with debt."
Apologies for potentially derailing the thread in a Scottish direction, but in response to growing pressure from the Catalan government over independence the Spanish Government has issued its embassies worldwide with guidelines for briefing foreign governments.
On the key issue of self-determination the briefing paper, as leaked by El Pais, states:
“The principle of territorial integrity is a core element of international law. The right of self-determination is only allowed when very specific conditions are met - former colonies, oppressed peoples and massive and flagrant violations of human rights.
Given these requirements, separatists try to present Spain as a colonial and totalitarian country that, only by force, has kept some of its citizens prisoner. Only if international society were persuaded that that is the true reality of Spain would the conditions for self-determination be met according to law. “
They don't need that for the London embassy as the Tories and Partido Popular have already been having meetings re Catalunya/Scotland. Which leaves Gibraltar out in the cold, perhaps??
The saga of Nick Griffin's latest bankruptcy and the possible implications for the ragtag bunch of hangers-on that he still has left in the BNP will give us all some light relief in the early months of 2014. I believe there is another hearing with another set of creditors next week.
Remember Eck went to court last time, and got gubbed.
Which is not to say that Farage would suffer the same fate if he did the same thing. Personally I think it's more than reasonable to base coverage (including presence in debates) on actual results in the last equivalent election. That rules Farage out for 2015 but gives UKIP every chance of being involved in 2020 (and in the meantime they get the added bonus of being able to complain about the unfairness of being excluded).
But that would introduce an excessive time-lag into the system. While it's certainly reasonable to base part of the case as to how much coverage a party should receive from a neutral service on their performance 5 years ago, how they have done since surely has to be taken into account too, otherwise breakthrough parties will always face even higher structural barriers (and likewise, declining parties will be excessively protected).
Some consideration of number of candidates, performance in local, by-, Euro- and regional elections, and performance in opinion polling needs to be given too. The precedent is already there in terms of party political/election broadcasts.
My first post on Political Betting (although I've been following for some time) - so go easy on me. Firstly just want to say to Mike that it's a great site and really appreciate the effort that you put in.
Anyway on the following: "I don’t think that Farage will be very good in such an arena and being there could open him up to scrutiny of his party’s policy portfolio. Because he’s not an MP he’s never had to perform in the bear garden atmosphere of PMQs and I’m not convinced that he can think of the his feet."
I really don't agree. During speeches made in the EU parliament, Farage is frequently interrupted and various points/questions are made. From what I've seen he's proved to be more than capable of thinking on his feet there and responding. The reality is that if you really believe in your message (and I'm not sure this is true of the career politicians he'll be debating with), then it's often a lot easier to defend your position. The other risk that the other parties risk is being seen to gang up on Farage because that will play into the view that there's no difference between them.
I do agree though that keeping Farage out of the debate will potentially backfire on the other parties, especially Dave if he's seen to be the one running scared. Of course, if Farage is included, and assuming the Scots haven't voted for independence, then Salmond has a cast iron case to be included too.
"As a side issue, I would also expect Farage and UKIP to be shown up as entirely unfiit for office when put under scrutiny as they were last time when it was clear their chairman had no idea what was in their manifesto."
As a side issue, I would also expect Farage and UKIP to be shown up as entirely unfiit for office when put under scrutiny as they were last time when it was clear their chairman had no idea what was in their manifesto.
The problem with this line is that:
(a) they are going to be careful to only have well briefed people represent them (b) voters are looking to them to make a protest not to present a well-thought-through alternative and so are unlikely to care greatly if there is an £x billion black hole in their manifesto
Maybe, but their scaremongering about many millions of immigrants during the Eastleigh by election was shown up as preposterous and their performance as MEP's is also likely to come under scrutiny and it doesn't hold up well. They have no consistency or depth to their policy and the slightest prodding (IMHO) will show them up as a one issue party run by and populated by simplistic blowhards
Remember Eck went to court last time, and got gubbed.
Which is not to say that Farage would suffer the same fate if he did the same thing. Personally I think it's more than reasonable to base coverage (including presence in debates) on actual results in the last equivalent election. That rules Farage out for 2015 but gives UKIP every chance of being involved in 2020 (and in the meantime they get the added bonus of being able to complain about the unfairness of being excluded).
Salmond did lose - from the Graun report partly because ti was a rushed application (inevitably in the circumstances) and not completely thought through, but also partly because of the wording of the BBC Charter.
As I recall, one reason adduced to exclude him in the media arguments at the time was the idea that only truly "national" (sensu UK) parties should be the ones who get the debates. Yet there are no Tories, LDs or Labour MPs in Northern Ireland. And it may be an old chestnut but it is both true and highly significant that there are more pandas (2) than Tory MPs in Scotland. So are the Tories really a national UK party? Perhaps the SNP should have put up a candidate and possibly won in Berwick-upon-Tweed at the last GE (and they would have been in with a chance, given what the locals think of the county council and London after losing their Burgh independence). And the Tory and LD parties in Scotland are nominally separate so if the Greens are separate at Tweed and Solway, then so are the Tories and LDs ...? This is not, of course, the case for Labour which is a monolithic One Nation Party based in London.
The argument for past performance is one that arguably unfairly favours the reactionary and failing (as well as the previously successful, of course), as noted by someone below.
In this context, I was surprised that there was so little comment about the most recent polling for Westminster VI in Scotland beginning to fall into line with Holyrood figures, with a SNP majority over Labour in vote terms (but not yet seats thanks to FPTP). It does remind me that it is not merely a theoretical possibility, especially given the possible impacts of European elections and the referendum, that the third party at Westminster come 2015 will be neither LD nor UKIP but the SNP with 20-50 seats. It's still so nebulous a possibility that it is not worth worrying about yet (unless someone offers a nice price) - but it should not be forgotten. If one allows UKIP in on the basis of likely impact then so too one should allow the SNP in. It would certainly make for a more interesting debate, and not just on the indy issue, given the differences on social policy which are of interest to all in the UK.
Edited: of course, it will be realpolitik and pressure on the BBC which decides ...
As a side issue, I would also expect Farage and UKIP to be shown up as entirely unfiit for office when put under scrutiny as they were last time when it was clear their chairman had no idea what was in their manifesto.
The problem with this line is that:
(a) they are going to be careful to only have well briefed people represent them (b) voters are looking to them to make a protest not to present a well-thought-through alternative and so are unlikely to care greatly if there is an £x billion black hole in their manifesto
Maybe, but their scaremongering about many millions of immigrants during the Eastleigh by election was shown up as preposterous and their performance as MEP's is also likely to come under scrutiny and it doesn't hold up well. They have no consistency or depth to their policy and the slightest prodding (IMHO) will show them up as a one issue party run by and populated by simplistic blowhards
And yet UKIP apparently won the vote on the day (their loss being due to how the postal votes split), so it can't have had that much impact.
That's not to say that Farage wouldn't implode under serious scrutiny (he does seem to operate on a wing and a prayer sometimes) but we shouldn't take it for granted.
I don't think any Tories believed it would pass: that was not the purpose of introducing the Bill.
The bill is a tactical defence against Labour committing to an EU Referendum in their 2015 Manifesto.
It enables Cameron to say: "Can you believe Ed Miliband and Labour are serious in their commitment when they voted against a private members bill to set up a referendum only last year?".
It appears you are the gullible one not the Tories.
I agree, it was all a typical Cameron dance to be seen to offer something, that he never really was. By this point in time, many of the public are so cynical of career politicians that they're going to see straight through this; this will just re-enforce the message that you can't trust any of them.
For those that are Euro-sceptic (e.g. me), this will just alienate Cameron from them even more.
My first post on Political Betting (although I've been following for some time) - so go easy on me. Firstly just want to say to Mike that it's a great site and really appreciate the effort that you put in.
Anyway on the following: "I don’t think that Farage will be very good in such an arena and being there could open him up to scrutiny of his party’s policy portfolio. Because he’s not an MP he’s never had to perform in the bear garden atmosphere of PMQs and I’m not convinced that he can think of the his feet."
I really don't agree. During speeches made in the EU parliament, Farage is frequently interrupted and various points/questions are made. From what I've seen he's proved to be more than capable of thinking on his feet there and responding. The reality is that if you really believe in your message (and I'm not sure this is true of the career politicians he'll be debating with), then it's often a lot easier to defend your position. The other risk that the other parties risk is being seen to gang up on Farage because that will play into the view that there's no difference between them.
I do agree though that keeping Farage out of the debate will potentially backfire on the other parties, especially Dave if he's seen to be the one running scared. Of course, if Farage is included, and assuming the Scots haven't voted for independence, then Salmond has a cast iron case to be included too.
Very interesting. But can I please just ask, why should the Scots be treated differently if they vote for independence? They'll still be part of the UK meantime and still need to be represented in Westminster.
I think the debates are a good thing. They are frustrating for the sort of people that spend their time on a website like this because there is not enough analysis and opportunities to rebut but that should not be the standard. We need to think how much the average member of the public who goes to quite considerable lengths to avoid even thinking about politics more than once a year might glean from them. And the answer is quite a lot.
I would hope they would be better than last time. I totally agree with Mr Dancer that the worm was a mistake and should not be repeated. I also agree that rebuttal should be a more important part of the debate with more cut and thrust but that has important implications for the number of participants. Arguably 3 is too many.
I can see no basis for Farage being included this time. If UKIP get 5 MPs then maybe next time UKIP should be included but there has to be a line somewhere. If they had won Eastleigh they might have had a case but they didn't.
The real question is whether Clegg has the right to be a full participant. I suspect inertia and the instant tradition that the UK specialises in will preserve his participation this time but the cost of this in terms of a clear choice and a sharper debate is considerable. If the Lib Dems lose a significant number of seats in 2015 and were not a part of the next government of whatever colour their future participation should be looked at.
Maybe, but their scaremongering about many millions of immigrants during the Eastleigh by election was shown up as preposterous and their performance as MEP's is also likely to come under scrutiny and it doesn't hold up well. They have no consistency or depth to their policy and the slightest prodding (IMHO) will show them up as a one issue party run by and populated by simplistic blowhards
Look you can get all emotional if you want and label it as scaremongering, but the facts show a genuine reason for concern:
"Net migration - the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK and those emigrating - rose to 182,000 in the year to June, up from 167,000 in the previous 12 months."
This level of immigration is just not sustainable and will inevitably put strain on an already stressed NHS, roads, housing and schools system. Whether thousands of new immigrants arrive from Romania/Bulgaria over the next 12 months remains to be seen; it's far too early to know this right now, but even if they don't it doesn't change the the fact that immigration levels are already rising again.
I think the issue here will boil down to whether a party technically could win a majority (regardless of how many seats they actually win). That in my view is the best option for the electorate.
In other words it would come down to how many seats a party are contesting. So if we look at 2010 that would have meant :
Conservatives, Labour and Libdem (all contested 631 seats in 2010) obviously yes. UKIP (contested 558) obviously yes. Green 310 (majority technically impossible so no). SNP fought only 59 seats so definitely no (however there is a separate argument for regional debates for the devolved home nations). Which leaves us with the thorny problem of the BNP (who contested 338 seats) so Technically yes and on purely democratic terms it would be difficult to exclude them using such criteria although I suspect something could have been cobbled together like a 2/3rds of seats threshold to exclude them. Given the fate of the BNP since I'm not sure they would qualify this time anyway.
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.
That poll, in retrospect was bad. Interesting that ICM didn't pick up the Cleggasm to anything like the same extent and it didn't register on the firm's Wisdom Index.
Oh yeah, splendid decision to drop Root and play Carberry.
Blame the county system. While we still have county cricket, selectors have no idea if good county cricketers can step up or not because the gap between the two games is such a chasm.
Now the old team has disintegrated, its bound to be trial and error for a while.
I think the issue here will boil down to whether a party technically could win a majority (regardless of how many seats they actually win). That in my view is the best option for the electorate.
In other words it would come down to how many seats a party are contesting. So if we look at 2010 that would have meant :
Conservatives, Labour and Libdem (all contested 631 seats in 2010) obviously yes. UKIP (contested 558) obviously yes. Green 310 (majority technically impossible so no). SNP only fought only 59 seats so definitely no (however there is a separate argument for regional debates for the devolved home nations). Which leaves us with the thorny problem of the BNP (who contested 338 seats) so Technically yes and on purely democratic terms it would be difficult to exclude them using such criteria although I suspect something could have been cobbled together like a 2/3rds of seats threshold to exclude them. Given the fate of the BNP since I'm not sure they would qualify this time anyway.
Thanks. That is at least a rational and arguable analysis. I have a feeling it will be used as an ex post facto justification for whatever compromise is knocked together (as I suspect happened in 2010 - the BBC probably hadn't even thought through the SNP question but were lucky) - but that does not mean it is wrong. It would still be a shame to exclude the centrist social democratic views from the debate, but that is another criterion.
I think the issue here will boil down to whether a party technically could win a majority (regardless of how many seats they actually win). That in my view is the best option for the electorate.
In other words it would come down to how many seats a party are contesting. So if we look at 2010 that would have meant :
Conservatives, Labour and Libdem (all contested 631 seats in 2010) obviously yes. UKIP (contested 558) obviously yes. Green 310 (majority technically impossible so no). SNP fought only 59 seats so definitely no (however there is a separate argument for regional debates for the devolved home nations). Which leaves us with the thorny problem of the BNP (who contested 338 seats) so Technically yes and on purely democratic terms it would be difficult to exclude them using such criteria although I suspect something could have been cobbled together like a 2/3rds of seats threshold to exclude them. Given the fate of the BNP since I'm not sure they would qualify this time anyway.
That would have given James Goldsmith a place in a 1997 debate though (and similarly, any other multi-millionaire on an ego trip in the future) and the Natural Law Party wouldn't have been far off in 1992. In addition to seats contested, there really would have to be some criteria related to current and/or past performance.
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.
That poll, in retrospect was bad. Interesting that ICM didn't pick up the Cleggasm to anything like the same extent and it didn't register on the firm's Wisdom Index.
Agreed - any poll which has the Yellow Peril ahead of both the Stupid Party and the Evil Party is surely bad.
Maybe the sensible debate inclusion criteria should be: 1. Contesting enough seats to form a (theoretical) majority; and 2. Above X% in the national polls - say 5%
I think the issue here will boil down to whether a party technically could win a majority (regardless of how many seats they actually win). That in my view is the best option for the electorate.
In other words it would come down to how many seats a party are contesting. So if we look at 2010 that would have meant :
Conservatives, Labour and Libdem (all contested 631 seats in 2010) obviously yes. UKIP (contested 558) obviously yes. Green 310 (majority technically impossible so no). SNP fought only 59 seats so definitely no (however there is a separate argument for regional debates for the devolved home nations). Which leaves us with the thorny problem of the BNP (who contested 338 seats) so Technically yes and on purely democratic terms it would be difficult to exclude them using such criteria although I suspect something could have been cobbled together like a 2/3rds of seats threshold to exclude them. Given the fate of the BNP since I'm not sure they would qualify this time anyway.
That would have given James Goldsmith a place in a 1997 debate though (and similarly, any other multi-millionaire on an ego trip in the future) and the Natural Law Party wouldn't have been far off in 1992. In addition to seats contested, there really would have to be some criteria related to current and/or past performance.
The other way to do this would be to decentralize the whole thing: Do the debate over a week or so, everyone posts YouTube clips, anyone can ask questions or reply to anyone else, and it's up to the participants who they address or answer. The broadcasters can compile whichever of the clips they like according to the same principles they use for the rest of the campaign, presumably meaning all the parties get a shot but with more coverage of the biggest ones, and weighted towards people saying something interesting.
I think the issue here will boil down to whether a party technically could win a majority (regardless of how many seats they actually win). That in my view is the best option for the electorate.
In other words it would come down to how many seats a party are contesting. So if we look at 2010 that would have meant :
Conservatives, Labour and Libdem (all contested 631 seats in 2010) obviously yes. UKIP (contested 558) obviously yes. Green 310 (majority technically impossible so no). SNP fought only 59 seats so definitely no (however there is a separate argument for regional debates for the devolved home nations). Which leaves us with the thorny problem of the BNP (who contested 338 seats) so Technically yes and on purely democratic terms it would be difficult to exclude them using such criteria although I suspect something could have been cobbled together like a 2/3rds of seats threshold to exclude them. Given the fate of the BNP since I'm not sure they would qualify this time anyway.
That would have given James Goldsmith a place in a 1997 debate though (and similarly, any other multi-millionaire on an ego trip in the future) and the Natural Law Party wouldn't have been far off in 1992. In addition to seats contested, there really would have to be some criteria related to current and/or past performance.
Why not just use the average of the last three months opinion polls as a guide?
Relying on past results gives a ridiculously unfair incumbency advantage... People on here are seriously suggesting that a new party could be polling 40% and be favourites for an overall majority yet be excluded from the debates,... Crazy partisan rubbish
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way - not what the ideal format would be, but what the parties are likely to accept in terms of cold-blooded calculation.
The Conservatives think Cameron is their greatest asset and UKIP is their biggest danger. They're bound to want any formula that includes him and not Farage. A two-leader debate would fit their concept ideally.
Labour thinks that Miliband will outperform expectations, so any reasonable format is good. Having Farage is OK because he's probably more of a threat to the Tories. But we won't want to be tag-teamed by DC/NC and in general I'd think we'll resist giving Clegg equal status again.
The LibDems will emphatically resist any downgrading, and will quite like having Farage, to weaken the Tory challenge in Lib/Con marginals and help them promote their "we are the anti-UKIP" niche approach.
Nobody is really certain that the debates will help them or that they'll win without them, so there isn't a huge pressure to agree or disagree. However, that could change nearer the election. If one party is clearly in a commanding position,their interest will switch against having the debate, since it throws an unpredictable element into the mix. The TV companies should try to nail down an agreement as soon as possible while the parties are still unsure. Some sort of varying format seems the only way through the thicket - a PM Cam/Mil debate, a couple of Cam/Mil/Clegg ones and one all-party debate, perhaps?
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way - not what the ideal format would be, but what the parties are likely to accept in terms of cold-blooded calculation.
The Conservatives think Cameron is their greatest asset and UKIP is their biggest danger. They're bound to want any formula that includes him and not Farage. A two-leader debate would fit their concept ideally.
Labour thinks that Miliband will outperform expectations, so any reasonable format is good. Having Farage is OK because he's probably more of a threat to the Tories. But we won't want to be tag-teamed by DC/NC and in general I'd think we'll resist giving Clegg equal status again.
The LibDems will emphatically resist any downgrading, and will quite like having Farage, to weaken the Tory challenge in Lib/Con marginals and help them promote their "we are the anti-UKIP" niche approach.
Nobody is really certain that the debates will help them or that they'll win without them, so there isn't a huge pressure to agree or disagree. However, that could change nearer the election. If one party is clearly in a commanding position,their interest will switch against having the debate, since it throws an unpredictable element into the mix. The TV companies should try to nail down an agreement as soon as possible while the parties are still unsure. Some sort of varying format seems the only way through the thicket - a PM Cam/Mil debate, a couple of Cam/Mil/Clegg ones and one all-party debate, perhaps?
The best outcome for UKIP would be to involved in only one debate. If Farage preps properly, he can have one excellent performance and there is no risk of comeback in any other future debates.
I think Miliband will do quite well in the debates personally, Dave will probably falter but he is pretty good at comebacks so could well finish strongly.
I think the biggest danger for UKIP is to be in all the debates. If it is negotiated so Farage is in one debate only then that will be first and last impression of him. If he does well in it, it will be job done to a greater extent.
Maybe the sensible debate inclusion criteria should be: 1. Contesting enough seats to form a (theoretical) majority; and 2. Above X% in the national polls - say 5%
I suggest setting X at 10%. Then we'd have a three way debate, including UKIP.
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way - not what the ideal format would be, but what the parties are likely to accept in terms of cold-blooded calculation.
The Conservatives think Cameron is their greatest asset and UKIP is their biggest danger. They're bound to want any formula that includes him and not Farage. A two-leader debate would fit their concept ideally.
Labour thinks that Miliband will outperform expectations, so any reasonable format is good. Having Farage is OK because he's probably more of a threat to the Tories. But we won't want to be tag-teamed by DC/NC and in general I'd think we'll resist giving Clegg equal status again.
The LibDems will emphatically resist any downgrading, and will quite like having Farage, to weaken the Tory challenge in Lib/Con marginals and help them promote their "we are the anti-UKIP" niche approach.
Nobody is really certain that the debates will help them or that they'll win without them, so there isn't a huge pressure to agree or disagree. However, that could change nearer the election. If one party is clearly in a commanding position,their interest will switch against having the debate, since it throws an unpredictable element into the mix. The TV companies should try to nail down an agreement as soon as possible while the parties are still unsure. Some sort of varying format seems the only way through the thicket - a PM Cam/Mil debate, a couple of Cam/Mil/Clegg ones and one all-party debate, perhaps?
Agree with the last bit particularly.. it is ridiculous to give Clegg equal billing to Cameron and Miliband, and I guess Farage should be less involved than Clegg given UKIPs lack of MPs
Having three debates, with one less participant each time, seems perfectly fair
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way - not what the ideal format would be, but what the parties are likely to accept in terms of cold-blooded calculation.
...and what the broadcasters will accept, and what is within the law.
Comments
Some trenchant views on this one this morning. I think you have to define what the debate is - is it a Party Leaders' debate or a Prime Ministerial debate ? As others have said, if it's the latter, there can only be two participants. If you go for the former, then you have to draw lines somewhere - the current line is presence in the House of Commons.
Alternative guidelines could be number of candidates such as govern the allocation of PEBs. In that case, where do you draw the line - 100 candidates, 300, 500 ? UKIP might be included but then so mght the Greens, BNP, Natural Law Party or anyone wealthy enough to stump for the deposits and who wants a platform but then you could call that democracy I suppose ?
The view from here seems to be to use the nebulous criterion of polling. OK, but UKIP have only polled noticeably for the past 24 months or so - in 2011 I don't recall high UKIP figures so we're going to use transitory polling popularity as a rationale for inclusion as well.
The answer is that there's no fair answer - short of having no debate at all which I think is entirely possible - whatever format will leave someone disappointed/angry. I'm not quite sure what a "second tier" Leaders' debate achieves (in its defence, the debate of the US third party candidates in 2012 was excellent).
OGH does have a very valid point - we have yet to see any meat on the UKIP policy skeleton and it will be fascinating to see how that manifesto stands up to intensive scrutiny.
I fail to see any way in which the 2010 debates had any effect on the final outcome, and any way in which meaningful debates can beheld in the future.
Do you really think that politicians can present their true 'views' in these debates, given they are also responding to points made by the other participants ("I agree with Nick") etc?
They're absolutely pointless IMHO. In fact, I'd go further than that: they're bad for the country's politics.
I don't think any Tories believed it would pass: that was not the purpose of introducing the Bill.
The bill is a tactical defence against Labour committing to an EU Referendum in their 2015 Manifesto.
It enables Cameron to say: "Can you believe Ed Miliband and Labour are serious in their commitment when they voted against a private members bill to set up a referendum only last year?".
It appears you are the gullible one not the Tories.
Best scenario for Cameron is no debates. So if I were him I'd say yes to UKIP being part of it and open it up so that Salmond and Galloway can be involved too. That way there'd likely be no agreement on who should feature and no debate.
Cameron would be on solid ground arguing that Galloway and Salmond have more right to feature than Farage.
Incidentally, can anyone spin this EU referendum/No Bill passing into law problem as a good thing? Or is it the seriously brain-ache it appears to be for the Tories?
Of course people will watch whatever the rules - the TV companies will want people to watch them, and put them on at the most advantageous time. As last time, the hype levels will be high.
I often wonder if at their intimate meeting Dave and Nick don't work out issues for a "split" that they both can highlight to the benefit of both.
Cameron`s going to need to show some courage on this issue and not appear to be a chicken.
Milliband appears to realise he would look like a coward if said no to Farage taking part in election debates. Hope DC has same epiphany
Read more: http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Steve-Crowther-stand-UKIP-North-Devon-2015/story-20392929-detail/story.html
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/devonnorth/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDZoVmdlVXBEQVNvcUNfR294UXo0S3c#gid=0
What would interest me is the 'non-anorak' attitude to debates, and how it ties in with any shifts in attitude to politics/politicians. I suspect many would see it as 'politicians on trial'. And Farage as some kind of gladiator.
On the key issue of self-determination the briefing paper, as leaked by El Pais, states:
If the Green Party or Respect are averaging 10-15% in the polls around April 2015 to UKIPs 1% then George Galloway or the Green leader should be allowed on the debates and Farage should be down the pub obviously
Its no more than protectionism by supporters of the old big three to stop a popular new party getting airtime, nothing to do with 'rules of tv debates'.. Its obvious to anyone vaguely interested in politics that the rise of ukip will have a massive affect on the next election, and as such, if the Clegg is allowed on, so should Farage. To try and argue straight faced that it is against the rules is laughable. There has only been one election that had debates, and the rules aren't set in stone, it is just a tv show at the end of the day.
Personally I would have Farage and Clegg involved for the first 30 mins then just Cameron and Miliband for the last half hour. Giving Clegg equal billing with the potential PMs while excluding Farage would be twisting logic beyond belief
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25549596
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25561477
Most reckon interest rates will rise in H2 2015, and that inflation will be less than wage increases in 2014. If accurate, that'll be good for the Coalition.
Con 8,003
UKIP 5,245
LD 4,516
Ind 3,340
Lab 1,694
Green 1,417
Others 126"
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/2015guide/devonnorth/comment-page-1/#comment-13867
Cameron, in my opinion should stay well clear of any such debate. Everything to loose, nothing to gain.
I would have a format of 4 debates,Cameron vs Miliband twice and with all other leaders twice.
REAKING NEWS:BNP leader Nick Griffin has been declared bankrupt after an order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday
All this talk of whether Miliband or Cameron should "let Farage" into the debate ignores the role of both the TV companies and the law.
Remember Eck went to court last time, and got gubbed.
Bankruptcy
1.12 Bankruptcy in itself is not a disqualification. You are only
disqualified if:
• you are currently subject to a bankruptcy restrictions
order or debt relief restrictions order made by a court in
England or Wales, or a bankruptcy restrictions order
made by a court in Northern Ireland, or
• your estate has been sequestrated by a court in Scotland
and you have not been discharged, or
• you are bankrupt under the law of Gibraltar
1.13 A person is not disqualified if they have been adjudged
bankrupt by a court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or
are subject to an interim bankruptcy restrictions order, as long
as they are not also currently subject to any of the particular
bankruptcy disqualifications listed above.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/163523/EPE-Part-1-Can-you-stand-for-election.pdf
The leadership have got a very minor case of the US Republican condition, where their base think up hair-brained political strategies for them and feel betrayed if they're not followed. I suppose they should be grateful that they symptoms aren't very severe; All they have to do is pretend to try to pass a private member's bill to keep them happy, rather than having to actually shut down the entire government...
A bankruptcy order was made at Welshpool County Court on Thursday. Mr Griffin tweeted: "Being bankrupt does NOT prevent me being or standing as an MEP. It does free me from financial worries." He added: "I am now turning the experience to the benefit of hard-up constituents by producing a booklet on dealing with debt."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25590155
There is no greater showcase than the debates and the tories would be mad to pull the plug because of concerns over Farage. The greatest damage will be to Labour and Miliband and, ultimately, it is they that the tories have to beat.
As a side issue, I would also expect Farage and UKIP to be shown up as entirely unfiit for office when put under scrutiny as they were last time when it was clear their chairman had no idea what was in their manifesto.
(a) they are going to be careful to only have well briefed people represent them
(b) voters are looking to them to make a protest not to present a well-thought-through alternative and so are unlikely to care greatly if there is an £x billion black hole in their manifesto
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25590155#TWEET1002121
I know quite a few banks refused to touch the BNP and Griffin with a 100 ft barge pole.
Some consideration of number of candidates, performance in local, by-, Euro- and regional elections, and performance in opinion polling needs to be given too. The precedent is already there in terms of party political/election broadcasts.
Anyway on the following:
"I don’t think that Farage will be very good in such an arena and being there could open him up to scrutiny of his party’s policy portfolio. Because he’s not an MP he’s never had to perform in the bear garden atmosphere of PMQs and I’m not convinced that he can think of the his feet."
I really don't agree. During speeches made in the EU parliament, Farage is frequently interrupted and various points/questions are made. From what I've seen he's proved to be more than capable of thinking on his feet there and responding. The reality is that if you really believe in your message (and I'm not sure this is true of the career politicians he'll be debating with), then it's often a lot easier to defend your position. The other risk that the other parties risk is being seen to gang up on Farage because that will play into the view that there's no difference between them.
I do agree though that keeping Farage out of the debate will potentially backfire on the other parties, especially Dave if he's seen to be the one running scared. Of course, if Farage is included, and assuming the Scots haven't voted for independence, then Salmond has a cast iron case to be included too.
Farage is not Lord Pearson.
The TV companies host the debates. Who gets included is up to them within the limits of the law as it stands.
Nick's
Penniless
Charlotte Meredith @chmeredith 1m
The @bnp leader @nickgriffinmep is very happy about being declared bankrupt…
http://huff.to/1gvjCDL
pic.twitter.com/w6l4nWUf9G
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/apr/28/leaders-debate-snp-bbc
As I recall, one reason adduced to exclude him in the media arguments at the time was the idea that only truly "national" (sensu UK) parties should be the ones who get the debates. Yet there are no Tories, LDs or Labour MPs in Northern Ireland. And it may be an old chestnut but it is both true and highly significant that there are more pandas (2) than Tory MPs in Scotland. So are the Tories really a national UK party? Perhaps the SNP should have put up a candidate and possibly won in Berwick-upon-Tweed at the last GE (and they would have been in with a chance, given what the locals think of the county council and London after losing their Burgh independence). And the Tory and LD parties in Scotland are nominally separate so if the Greens are separate at Tweed and Solway, then so are the Tories and LDs ...? This is not, of course, the case for Labour which is a monolithic One Nation Party based in London.
The argument for past performance is one that arguably unfairly favours the reactionary and failing (as well as the previously successful, of course), as noted by someone below.
In this context, I was surprised that there was so little comment about the most recent polling for Westminster VI in Scotland beginning to fall into line with Holyrood figures, with a SNP majority over Labour in vote terms (but not yet seats thanks to FPTP). It does remind me that it is not merely a theoretical possibility, especially given the possible impacts of European elections and the referendum, that the third party at Westminster come 2015 will be neither LD nor UKIP but the SNP with 20-50 seats. It's still so nebulous a possibility that it is not worth worrying about yet (unless someone offers a nice price) - but it should not be forgotten. If one allows UKIP in on the basis of likely impact then so too one should allow the SNP in. It would certainly make for a more interesting debate, and not just on the indy issue, given the differences on social policy which are of interest to all in the UK.
Edited: of course, it will be realpolitik and pressure on the BBC which decides ...
That's not to say that Farage wouldn't implode under serious scrutiny (he does seem to operate on a wing and a prayer sometimes) but we shouldn't take it for granted.
For those that are Euro-sceptic (e.g. me), this will just alienate Cameron from them even more.
I would hope they would be better than last time. I totally agree with Mr Dancer that the worm was a mistake and should not be repeated. I also agree that rebuttal should be a more important part of the debate with more cut and thrust but that has important implications for the number of participants. Arguably 3 is too many.
I can see no basis for Farage being included this time. If UKIP get 5 MPs then maybe next time UKIP should be included but there has to be a line somewhere. If they had won Eastleigh they might have had a case but they didn't.
The real question is whether Clegg has the right to be a full participant. I suspect inertia and the instant tradition that the UK specialises in will preserve his participation this time but the cost of this in terms of a clear choice and a sharper debate is considerable. If the Lib Dems lose a significant number of seats in 2015 and were not a part of the next government of whatever colour their future participation should be looked at.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25135418
"Net migration - the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK and those emigrating - rose to 182,000 in the year to June, up from 167,000 in the previous 12 months."
This level of immigration is just not sustainable and will inevitably put strain on an already stressed NHS, roads, housing and schools system. Whether thousands of new immigrants arrive from Romania/Bulgaria over the next 12 months remains to be seen; it's far too early to know this right now, but even if they don't it doesn't change the the fact that immigration levels are already rising again.
I think the issue here will boil down to whether a party technically could win a majority (regardless of how many seats they actually win). That in my view is the best option for the electorate.
In other words it would come down to how many seats a party are contesting. So if we look at 2010 that would have meant :
Conservatives, Labour and Libdem (all contested 631 seats in 2010) obviously yes. UKIP (contested 558) obviously yes. Green 310 (majority technically impossible so no). SNP fought only 59 seats so definitely no (however there is a separate argument for regional debates for the devolved home nations). Which leaves us with the thorny problem of the BNP (who contested 338 seats) so Technically yes and on purely democratic terms it would be difficult to exclude them using such criteria although I suspect something could have been cobbled together like a 2/3rds of seats threshold to exclude them. Given the fate of the BNP since I'm not sure they would qualify this time anyway.
Blame the county system. While we still have county cricket, selectors have no idea if good county cricketers can step up or not because the gap between the two games is such a
chasm.
Now the old team has disintegrated, its bound to be trial and error for a while.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jreITHdm6NY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQE0QPFoLfs
Huhne, Warsi, Griffin, (and Straw).
Our last debates positively encouraged these, not the Bartlet response.
1. Contesting enough seats to form a (theoretical) majority; and
2. Above X% in the national polls - say 5%
Relying on past results gives a ridiculously unfair incumbency advantage... People on here are seriously suggesting that a new party could be polling 40% and be favourites for an overall majority yet be excluded from the debates,... Crazy partisan rubbish
The Conservatives think Cameron is their greatest asset and UKIP is their biggest danger. They're bound to want any formula that includes him and not Farage. A two-leader debate would fit their concept ideally.
Labour thinks that Miliband will outperform expectations, so any reasonable format is good. Having Farage is OK because he's probably more of a threat to the Tories. But we won't want to be tag-teamed by DC/NC and in general I'd think we'll resist giving Clegg equal status again.
The LibDems will emphatically resist any downgrading, and will quite like having Farage, to weaken the Tory challenge in Lib/Con marginals and help them promote their "we are the anti-UKIP" niche approach.
Nobody is really certain that the debates will help them or that they'll win without them, so there isn't a huge pressure to agree or disagree. However, that could change nearer the election. If one party is clearly in a commanding position,their interest will switch against having the debate, since it throws an unpredictable element into the mix. The TV companies should try to nail down an agreement as soon as possible while the parties are still unsure. Some sort of varying format seems the only way through the thicket - a PM Cam/Mil debate, a couple of Cam/Mil/Clegg ones and one all-party debate, perhaps?
Zulu!
I think Miliband will do quite well in the debates personally, Dave will probably falter but he is pretty good at comebacks so could well finish strongly.
I think the biggest danger for UKIP is to be in all the debates. If it is negotiated so Farage is in one debate only then that will be first and last impression of him. If he does well in it, it will be job done to a greater extent.
Having three debates, with one less participant each time, seems perfectly fair