Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Farage doesn’t take part in the debates then it will onl
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If Farage doesn’t take part in the debates then it will only make UKIP supporters feel more alienated
The big issue is what they do with Nigel Farage. His party holds no seats at Westminster though it looks set to do very well at Euro2014 and could, indeed, come out as top party.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Farage absolutely should not be there.
We cannot judge a party by its future success because, by definition, we do not know it. We can only judge a party by its past successes. UKIP has a weaker claim, therefore, to participate than the Greens, SNP or Plaid Cymru. Or Sinn Fein, for that matter.
No MPs, and no justification for participation.
On the debates more generally: it is depressing they're going ahead. The worm in particular is a danger to democracy.
The worm is the tracker which a small group (8-12 or so) watching the debates live affect by indicating approval or disapproval for the individual speaking. It was shown in the last election to significantly affect the perception of the wider audience.
It's also wide open to distortion. If a hardcore supporter or opponent of a given candidate gets to participate then they would substantially alter the way the worm went. Furthermore, it's open to groupthink (even if not deliberately provoked) by having individuals 'follow the leader'.
I'm against the debates based on how they went last time, but if they must go ahead the worm should be axed.
I'm even more strongly against the debates than Mr Dancer and for similar reasons.
Eventhough he is likely to tear chunks out of Miliband for his Leftist policies.
Maybe interviews and speeches will play a larger role than last time, though.
Bah.
A rerun of a QT format with political leaders isn't entirely a good thing if audiences are bused in partisan supporters. The Gillian Duffy incident with Gordon Brown was more electrifying, one way or another, voters had a better idea what the man was like. That bigoted woman...
If it's style and appearance politics you want then elect Sarah Jane Mee as Prime Minister and have done with it.
Maybe they could include Farage in one of the debates as the value of them would be lower without him.
One or two for the main leaders Con/Lab/LD.
Another more "round table" with all parties who have candidates in the majority of the country.
And a Scottish one with Con/Lab/LD/SNP.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2013/10/who-is-the-greater-hypocrite-mehdi-hasan-or-the-british-left/
There's also a link to a Polly Toynbee article from 1996. Interesting how her style has changed. There's none of the soaring, hyperbolic pseudo-profundities that mark her later efforts; it was all rather plodding, workmanlike and dull.
If it's for "next PM" then it should be Cameron & Miliband.
If it's "what the parties stand for" then it should be those two plus Clegg, Farage, Salmond, and so forth........
I'd do two "Best PM" and one "Cavalcade of wit & beauty" (sic)
MInd you, it could hardly be less interesting than last time. Wasn't the net result identical to 2005?
Re: Farage
I believe he says he should be include _if_ UKIP top the 2014 EU elections. That's a national election, and MEPs do control UK Gov't policy.
@fitalass any idea where those rules might be found?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7591272/General-Election-2010-party-leaders-must-follow-almost-80-rules-for-TV-election-debates.html
"As things stand, the world remains upside down. The left rather than the right defends reactionary religion, as long as the reactionaries do not have a white skin."
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-05241.pdf
http://www.independent.ie/blog/seanad-referendum-interactive-map-of-results-from-all-constituencies-29636649.html
Sounds like UKIP should prefer not to be there in that case. Either way - coulda shoulda woulda - Very silly to have representation based on opinion polls, local elections or euro elections - this is a General Election and the key criterion for the main debates should be a realistic prospect of winning. I'd probably limit it to the 2 main contenders with additional secondary debates for the also runnings.
Only those parties who
i) fight nationally in a UK general election; and
ii) are ministrable
should appear in the debates.
That's the big three and no-one else...
"Members of the audience will then be called to ask pre-selected questions." How is that one worked out likewise this one - "Mr Stewart may also ask the leaders questions which have been emailed in to the programme." Who is doing the pre-selection of the questions - the parties, the tv channels? Why not have questions selected at random from a machine - like the one used in the lottery? Though there is the danger that they get the how big is your membership type question.
The polling organisation ICM was recruited to vet the 200-strong audience to ensure they are strictly representative.They must have been recruited from within “30 mile radius of the host city” according to their gender, age and social class.
Eight out of 10 of them must have “a voting intention at the time of recruitment” (balanced in favour of Labour and Conservative) and the remaining 20 per cent of the audience must be “undecided but politically engaged”.
Interesting notion of balanced.
A recent tweet.
Stephen C. @cooners1989 2m
So @endakennytd seeing you didn't get the result you wanted, when will we have to have a second Seanad referendum? #seanref
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24404157
I wonder; would it be reasonable to say longer term that the leaders' debates will include Labour, Conservatives and also any other party in government? Maybe, I suppose...
And FPT: Echoing several people's comments earlier today, I'd be far more tempted to de-lurk and actually post every now and then if the atmosphere wasn't so negative. Mind you, it is just a small number of people who (IMO) create that negative atmosphere, and I note tim appears to be banned for a bit...
I'm afraid I can't offer any betting wisdom, though; I'm just someone who's interested in all things political. (I'm also - declaration of interest - a member of the Lib Dems. Yes there are a few of us left!)
I've got to disagree with you (and I'm *not* a Lib Dem member!). Clegg clearly has the strongest case outside the big two for a seat in the debates (although I wouldn't complained if he were thrown overboard).
Has it occurred to you that in the battle for floating voters, it might benefit Cameron to sit in the middle of the spectrum of positions on show, rather than being the 1 'right wing' (ha!) option for the other 2 to paint as extreme.
That said, including Mr Farage in the debates would lead to appeals from the SNP, Plaid, Greens etc, so I don't think he will be included.
I'm not sure it matters much. If he's excluded the headlines will be 'why wasn't UKIP included', if he's included, he shows up how little difference there is between the policy positions of the Con/Lab/LD parties. It's a UKIP-win either way _IF_ UKIP tops the 2014 EU elections.
I don't think Farage has any right to be there though. Not until he at least represents a party that might take cabinet posts in a coalition.
"Some people think I am extremely clever, you know. Nigel is a very charismatic and hard-working leader but he would not pretend for a moment that he could sit down and write policy on quantitative easing."
Bloom claimed a new hierarchy within Ukip had stopped caring about grassroots members and that a person needed to be a "complete sociopath" to be in politics.
"My wife is a little upset," he said. "She rather naively thought you could have friends in politics. I told her not to worry. It's a dirty and disgusting game. I have never been in anything as degrading as politics," he said.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/05/godfrey-bloom-ukip-nigel-farage-lost-touch
Labour 5% lead in post conf Opinium/Observer poll. Lab 36 n/c, Tories 31 (+2) Ukip 15 (-2), Lib Dems 7.
Taken immediately after Tory conf.
I can't imagine Ed Miliband fancies taking part in debates with two members of the government.
If the debates go ahead I'd prefer them in a different format - less stiff - and over a longer timescale.
I'd also like them to be on specified topics with some interaction with a balanced 'expert' audience.
Iirc, there were some satellite events that were in more depth/interesting. But as I can't recall the details maybe I'm imagining it.
Debates are going to be a fixture, the genie is out of the bottle, the only question is how. With fixed term parliaments there is going to be a longer campaign, so reasonable to spread them out a bit.
I think that including Farage would be adding a Joker to the pack, but am not convinced who would benefit. It could make Dave Cameron appear to be the sensible centre, and appeal to socially conservative Labour voters, or it could adversly impact on the Tory vote.
Farage seems to have a personal dislike of Cameron, I do not know how he thinks of Clegg or Milliband.
There are several other possible upsets: What happens if one of these 4 is not the leader of their party? What happens if the Scots vote for the Union and Salmond wants a place also?
My ideal would be the kind of thing that - AndyJS? - has linked to from days of yore.
I don't think the issue is party poltical.
I understand Farage in dispute with the BBC over their proposed ban on drinking and smoking during the debates.
So, we must be talking about GB and that would leave 4-5 parties that may be fighting all 'countries' of GB. So do we wait for the 2013 Referendum and the 2014 EUs.?
Certainly any debates should be much earlier and before the two months that precede the election to allow anything similar to the 2010 Cleggasm to dissipate in the same way that the effects of the political Conferences are allowed to disappear from the Polls.
Yes, that was one.
Farage vs. Bloom vs. Sked
I think you're wrong to exclude oil & gas from the trade and other economic numbers.
The existence of North Sea Oil had a knock on effect on other parts of the economy, particularly manufacturing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_disease
What is worthy of investigation is why the rundown of North Sea Oil during the last decade did not result in a corresponding shift back towards manufacturing in the UK.
Perhaps because both Labour and the Conservatives thought the economy could be built upon government spending, financial services, rising house prices and personal consumption.
Interesting Prospect article about someone who's been living in China for 16 years but has finally fallen out of love with the country:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/mark-kitto-youll-never-be-chinese-leaving-china/
"You’ll never be Chinese: why I’m leaving the country I loved
Death and taxes. You know how the saying goes. I’d like to add a third certainty: you’ll never become Chinese, no matter how hard you try, or want to, or think you ought to. I wanted to be Chinese, once. I don’t mean I wanted to wear a silk jacket and cotton slippers, or a Mao suit and cap and dye my hair black and proclaim that blowing your nose in a handkerchief is disgusting. I wanted China to be the place where I made a career and lived my life. For the past 16 years it has been precisely that. But now I will be leaving.
Don’t you think, with all the growth and infrastructure, the material wealth, let alone saving the world like some kind of financial whizz James Bond, that China would be a happier and healthier country? At least better than the country emerging from decades of stultifying state control that I met and fell in love with in 1986 when I first came here as a student? I don’t think it is."
Everything the party leaders demand will be based only on what they think will benefit them as will everything that their cheerleaders will parrot here.
I am not sure I am arguing that oil & gas should be excluded from a review of trade figures, jut that we need to see separate sets of figures in order to avoid the impact of oil and gas swamping underlying trends. A bit like the need for us to see both PSND and PSND ex figures to get a good picture of public sector debt.
The Oil & Gas industry will argue that, even with decline in extraction, the core industry stimulates growth in associated and contingent activities. Last time I looked at the figures, I noted that the UK still refines more than it extracts and remains a net exporter in this sector,
But I think your general point about Dutch disease is correct, The combination of easy oil and gas extraction revenues; the growth in the UK's dominance in financial services; and, the manufacturing threat from China probably led the politicians of the late nineties and early noughties to believe that the UK could afford to allow its manufacturing sector to decline.
Recovering lost capacity and markets will be difficult and require careful targettng of resources at industries where we can build and sustain a competitive advantage. It will still be a long journey back.
But if Dutch disease is to be avoided wouldn't it be better for George to remain at the 'elm?
What happened to bare knuckles?
Still I suppose it would be better than whinging to the audience about being insulted and demanding Cameron set up an inquiry into the customs, ethics and practices of the Tory party.
Neil make a comment about the nationalisation of UK air traffic control a few weeks ago which got me rooting around the internet to find NATS's website. Apart from being a very well designed site it showed how privatising a public sector service and enabling it to access capital markets can lead, under good management, to great entrepreneurial development and export opportunity.
Would that our skills in, say, health services could follow the same route.
Whoever is selling and getting out is the clever one.
I have been a bit busy the last day or so. Did you give an answer to which Tory PM presided over a quarterly GNP contraction of 2.5%?
We know Gordon managed it, but who was the other?
UK is also a world leader in areas concerning nanotechnology and especially in molecular-thin structures such as graphene. In the sphere of health we are maintaining our lead in DNA technology and the future elimination of medicines towards cell structure modification and substitution to prevent disease.
We are currently working with a spin-off of the Cavendish Laboratory on thin film and screen technology that will bypass LCD screens.
There are plenty of new ideas that needs good UK scientists and plenty of venture finance. However, they will never be huge employers.
We also provide our NHS services to a diverse range of international customers here in Leicester, and do make a few bob on the ones who pay before skipping town.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/05/miliband-cameron-approval-ratings-poll
It has said that it will be contesting all seats and its polling continues to be very strong. It is also doing very well in council by-elections picking up the odd seat and chalking up 20-25% vote shares."
It will all depend om the salience of the issues the kippers do well on as well as their level of support at that time.
Should something about Europe or immigration blow up into a huge issue around the time of the election campaign Farage will be wall to wall on the media and impossible to ignore regardless of the debates.
If the kippers are still polling as well come the election campaign then it also won't make a great deal of difference if Farage is in the debates or not. Cameron himself knows he has to push the kippers way, way down from where they are now. That analysis is debatable but what isn't is that more than a few tories believed it and Farage won't have to put on many more percent from 2010 to place Cameron in deep trouble.
Dave's ratings have gone from minus 17 to minus 10
Q2 1958 with Macmillan as PM. The two quarters either side both had above trend postive growth of 1.7% and 2.2% respectively.
I don't know whether it was a statistical anomaly or a response to an event.
Boris and Ivan, two Russian "businessmen" are talking in a nightclub:
Boris: "Hey, Ivan, get a load of my new Jacket!, it cost me US$ 2000"
Ivan: "Boris, you should have spoken to me first, I know where you can get the exact same jacket for US$ 4000!"
They're having a disaster right now and have been every year their activist base and membership get's smashed to ever lower numbers.
No party is going to do well without the usual support from their activist base at elections to drive the campaign on the ground with the GOTV operations and heavy marginal campaigning.
It's why such things as conferences matter even though the public at large obviously doesn't care a great deal about them. If you can't fire up that base don't expect what is left of them to turn out in huge numbers at local elections, EU elections or the GE itself.