Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » One thing’s for sure post GE17 – incumbent PMs won’t risk skip
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » One thing’s for sure post GE17 – incumbent PMs won’t risk skipping the TV debates again
After the manifesto the other big avoidable mistake of TMay’s GE2017 campaign was the refusal to take part in TV leaders’ debates which became part of the UK political scene at GE2010.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
For example there is an institutional bias towards the left (a factor of 2x right leaning parties vs 5x left leaning).
There should be criteria limiting entry to those leaders who could credibly end up as PM to make sure that there is real debate on the issues that matter not a fragmentation of time into meaningless sound bites
Factor in Philip Hammond being locked in a cupboard because Mrs May didn't want him to have a good campaign, which would make his sacking harder.
Even he didn't dare skip the main presidential debates however - so for a leader of modest ability like May to try and pull this stunt was way beyond her talent.
A clanger of an error, and entirely avoidable.
The coronation of May has come back to haunt the Tories, which surely means that there wont be an agreed take-over by Hammond with no competition.
On your point, if they were limited to "leaders who could credibly end up as PM", you'd reduce the number to at most two, which is too far. There does need to be an element of plurality. I'd set the criteria as those leaders whose parties are likely, given current polling and recent elections, to either (1) return enough MPs (n% of the 650) to be a meaningful presence in the next House, or (2) receive the support of a substantial number of voters (n% of UK votes) and whose voice therefore needs to be heard. Perhaps three debates, with increasing thresholds for n of 3, 10 and 20.
With such a wide field, the main risk is saying or doing something very stupid, it's unlikely there will be a single winner even if you do. This really was a risk worth taking - although with hindsight it gave Amber Rudd a good pitch to depose her!
Without an answer to that question it's far from clear the debates will take place at all.
Mrs May is a very stupid woman. She has brought the country to where we are now.
Say 15% of current MPs or 15% in poll of polls over last 6 months.
4 debates: domestic, finance, foreign and PM.
I disapprove of the debates. Over-simplifying politics, placing the soundbite above the policy detail. It also further entrenches media focus on politicians rather than policies.
The competition wouldn't have been that fierce. Corbyn had a good election, but is susceptible to pressure on policy detail, and it would also have been possible to drive a wedge between him and his party and highlight those issues. Farron is actually a very decent debater (he had a good one in the "all leaders minus May"), as are Sturgeon and Lucas. But they can broadly be brushed off as not relevant to the main issue.
On the Conservative leadership, had it gone to members, she certainly had the firepower to take down Leadsom and, while Bozza (had he got there) has star-power, he'd actually be fine to debate with (just chuckle along with some of his better gags, patronise him a bit, and then say "serious times for serious people").
I agree, that the leader of that party will need to attend.
I also agree with Charles however, that the format MUST be changed to only include those parties with significant support and standing in at LEAST 326 seats nationwide. And for those who say that would exclude the SNP and that isn't fair, the SNP have never (yet) been in UK government and indeed last time, one party who wasn't even invited has ended up proping up the Government. Where was the scrutiny of Arlene Foster?
And including the DUP would lead to it just being a ten way debate - Con, Lab, LD, SNP, UKIP(?), Green, Plaid, DUP, UUP, SDLP. Hell, if you're insistant on the 'nationalist' parties being invited, why not Mebyon Kernow and the English Democrats.
Next time should follow my criteria from an earlier post and would only include Con, Lab, LD and Green.
And who can blame them? Their employer really is taking the p*ss.
Surely a sensible sanction for biscuit overconsumption would be to double his beat time ?
After that it is Plaid, but since they'll generally be invited if the SNP is there (And the SNP ranks ahead of the Lib Dems in terms of seats & potential influence in a Hung HoC) most likely they'll be there.
You can argue for the following I think:
Labour-Tory
Lab-Tory-SNP-LD-Plaid
Lab-Tory-SNP-LD-Plaid-Green-UKIP
Lab-Tory-SNP-LD-Plaid-DUP-Sinn Fein
Good afternoon, everybody. I'm still hiding behind the sofa on politics. I gather Mr Corbyn isn't yet PM.
Additionally, the broadcasters have a lot of cards to play here. So they'd basically say, "We need to comply with Ofcom impartiality rules. Exactly what that means for the 2022 debate (if it is 2022) depends on the political scene at the time so we're not going to limit the debate to two people now. The most we will do is set some objective rules around who gets an invitation. Now you guys can 'agree' what you like outside the broadcasting context... perhaps you want to live stream it on Mumsnet or something else outside traditional regulations, and see how big an audience you get. But we're the one with TV studios and the reach of tens of millions, and we'll contact you nearer the time with your invitations to OUR debates."
So he got a seven way... and now they're near worthless to listen to when at least two leaders of parties aren't standing in English and NI seats (and in my case three).
Interesting question - do they show the debate in Northern Ireland? Many GB parties don't stand there, except possibly UKIP, Con and Greens.
I can only see a (slight) justification for the two people who are contenders to be Prime Minister actually going head to head. That's a Prime Ministerial debate.
For the others - give 'em their own Question Time or something if they've got more than a pocketful of candidates up. That way I can ignore anyone I'm not interested in.
Why should the leader of Plaid, whoever he is, waste my time by interrupting a real contender? It's just pandering to the sheepshaggers. Give him a tv slot one evening to talk about leeks when I'm not going to be watching. Any time at all on the BBC should do that.
I think we should have a minute's silence for all of the soldiers who died in the 2017 Election Campaign.
The SNP and Plaid have their own regional debates to take part in and don't really fit well in a UK wide debate. However, the SNP probably deserve a special dispensation this time by virtue of the number of seats that they hold. The DUP probably have a better claim to a place than Plaid, given that they are more likely to hold the balance of power. However, including them would create issues with Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP.
My instinct would be to go for Lib, Lab, Con & SNP next time. If the SNP get smashed at the election, then I'd take the opportunity to revert to the traditional big three for the election after that. The 2010 debates were much more focussed and engaging to watch than the 2015 and 2017 versions.
I'm not saying that's the right thing to do. Just that there would seem to be objective reasons for doing it.
In those circumstances, you can (and this is broadly what they do in the US) set a polling threshold. They did that to reduce the field for the primary election (the early GOP primaries were pretty ludicrous as it was but would've had a crazy number had they not had a League Two debate). They also do it nationally - generally resulting in two candidates but Perot for example got in.
A criticism is that this makes it very "presidential" whereas actually you do want to hear fairly extensively from the main potential coalition partners in a Parliamentary democracy (particularly one where two of the last three elections has resulted in NOM).
I think I'm getting the hang of this employer lark though. I've only got one "unfair" dismissal claim against me right now and the little shit will lose.
Yep, give an editor two hours of footage and they can edit it as they like.
For example, I saw a snippet of Sky News recently. It was the Ridge/Lammy interview, but they didn't show the bit of him complaining about the judge being white.
That's why I also disagree with PClipp's "lying" meme. You can't lie about something if it's not on your to-do list.
It's stupid having a seven way debate where the PM and Leader of the Opposition have equal speaking time as the leader of Plaid Cymru.
The operative word in "TV debate" is "TV". Party leaders can agree what they like. They could have a showdown on Mumsnet or Wembley Stadium if they wanted. And people COULD watch it online. It would be a real coup for the host.
But the reality is that the big broadcasters still hold all the cards in terms of reach and in terms of people taking it seriously as an event. So they say, "That's all lovely... but our debates having given careful consideration to Ofcom rules and the opinions of viewers is that there will be three debates - one on ITV, one BBC, and one Sky, and the formats will be as follows. You can come or not."
I think next time they will be using the Survation / Yougov big data more because it is a more sophisticated way of addressing all seats with a marginal strategy.
Former Conservative MP Stewart Jackson has set up as a public affairs consultant after losing his seat in the general election.
Jackson, who most recently served as a key aide to the Brexit secretary David Davis, plans to advise organisations on their lobbying strategies for getting the best out of Brexit.
The former MP for Peterborough is a fierce campaigner for Brexit who has used his Twitter account to call on “UK patriots” to boycott The Economist because of its “liberal smugness, Remoaner whining & rampant Europhilia”.
http://www.publicaffairsnews.com/articles/news/ex-aide-brexit-secretary-sets-brexit-adviser
The pertinent point is not how many constituencies you contest but how many you might win. As both 2010 and 2017 have proven, you don't need to win the election to end up in government or in defining government policy. Hence my 3/10/20 suggestion. If projections suggest that you'll get 3% of seats (20 on current numbers), then you're in the first one, irrespective of how many constituencies you contest. Likewise, if you are averaging 3% or more in the polls, you get your pass. For the second debate, you need 10% in one or other category, and in the final one, 20%, to concentrate minds on the question of national leadership.
And frankly I've done dafter things in my life.
In reality, what would probably be better is a tiered system. 1 debate for all and sundry (PM vs SNP vs Green etc.) 1 debate of two big parties, and 1 debate of parties polling at least 5% of vote or holding 5% of seats in last parliament.
Since they got 62 in the previous election, the answer has to be 'Yes'.
The really depressing thing is none of those three are MPs.
Corbyn appoints 20 shadow ministers
Jeremy Corbyn has announced the appointment of 20 shadow ministers. Here is the list in full.
Environment
David Drew
Holly Lynch
Home Affairs
Nick Thomas Symonds
Chris Williamson
Afzal Khan
Louise Haigh
Scotland
Paul Sweeney
Justice
Gloria di Piero
Imran Hussain
International Development
Roberta Blackman Woods
Transport
Rachel Maskell
Karl Turner
Treasury
Anneliese Dodds
Housing
Tony Lloyd
Melanie Onn
Women and equalities
Carolyn Harris
Defence
Gerald Jones
Local Government
Yvonne Fovargue
Education
Tracey Brabin
Wales
Chris Ruane
Support for Brexit isn't collapsing yet, but it is seeping away at the edges.
To give a couple of examples where the Tories won, Mansfield was always a much better prospect than it looked on paper. Big Leave vote, not a lot of students, overwhelmingly UK born, lower middle class etc. Putney was much worse than the big majority made it appear - lots of students, Remain seat, cosmopolitan.
A traditional targeting strategy may well have failed to focus on either, with the result the Tories wouldn't have picked up the former, and would have been shocked to lose the latter. As it was, there were lots of flaws in the Tory targeting... but at least, by the end, they were both attacking Mansfield and defending Putney pretty hard.
Of course, earlier in the campaign, it's clear with hindsight that the Tory targets included long shots that the narrowing of the polls made totally impossible. So energy was obviously wasted. But I don't think the way to deal with that would have been a "traditional" approach as they'd have missed important potential gains and losses.
If we have to have debates the format should be set out by law/agreed between the parties and the broadcasters compelled to show them as a condition of their licence
Would we accept that if TV broadcasters refused to cover a speech that wanted to alter the licence fee?