Televised Leaders Debates..
Discussion
Yazar said:
V8 Fettler said:
Voting decisions should be based on policies...
Policies are not policies though, they are electioneering tools written by spin doctors/strategists which will be wormed out of at will. The day manifestos become legally binding is the day that you can vote on policy alone.
JustAnotherLogin said:
Einion Yrth said:
JustAnotherLogin said:
Or go with the OFCOM interpretation of a major party and exclude UKIP.
You seem to be behind the times.The text of your article (not the headline) says that UKIP may ualify for major party status
The Guardian article linked above says:
Ofcom said its current list of major Great Britain-wide parties consists of the Conservative party, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
In Scotland and Wales respectively, the major parties are joined by the Scottish National party and Plaid Cyrmu.
In Northern Ireland, they are joined by the Alliance party; the Democratic Unionist party; Sinn Féin; the Social Democratic and Labour party; and the Ulster Unionist party.
Bless you, your anti-UKIP hatred really does see you desperately stretch out your weak arguments Why don't we go straight to the horses mouth?
ofcom said:
2.19: Taking together all the evidence, the criteria suggest that UKIP has sufficiently demonstrated evidence of past electoral support and current support to qualify for major party status in England and Wales for the purposes of the General Election and English local (and mayoral) elections in May 2015.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/major-parties-15/summary/Major_parties.pdfWhen the new list is released in March 2015, it is very unlikely that UKIP will not be listed.
Yazar said:
Greg66 said:
These debates are crap. Soundbite TV for people who can't be bothered to listen to or think about long sentences, like Americans. A poorly chosen import for us.
Last time around, the big winner from the debates was Nick Clegg and the LDs, leading to a coalition Govt. Who really thinks now that the boost the LDs got from the debates was a good idea?
So who in their right mind would want a re-run?
What do you think will be happening on parties posters, pamphlets,telephone, email and tv ads? Last time around, the big winner from the debates was Nick Clegg and the LDs, leading to a coalition Govt. Who really thinks now that the boost the LDs got from the debates was a good idea?
So who in their right mind would want a re-run?
Not long sentences but short soundbites. Why do you think the Tories upped the maximum campaign spend allowance against election commission opposition and without any parliamentary debate ( link )
The fact is that the rich Tories are looking to outspend labour by 3 to 1 on campaign budget, and more multiples to UKIP. The televised debates puts them equal and gives much needed exposure to the parties with less money to spend.
Yazar said:
Greg66 said:
As for Farage, the DUP, PC, and the SNP all have more seats than UKIP. They have far better claims to be included.
You are talking 2010, and the landscape has changed radically since then. If you cannot recognize that based on their ongoing performance in council, eu, by-elections, polling and so on, that UKIP have become a major party then you are deluded- the facts speak for themselves. 2010 GE were a very long time ago.
There is form for televised debates creating electoral mistakes. You only have to look back 5 years and read the reports on who became the golden boy during the last ones. Look how that turned out.
I imagine Cameron wants to avoid giving UKIP any more publicity than necessary and certainly doesn't want to go head to head with Farage on live TV, where he'll be bound by political correctness, accountability and party political sensitivities (none of which restrain Farage).
Last time a personable character appeared on the debates it shot the Liberals into the position as power brokers and I don't think Cameron wants a repeat of that.
I can't for the life of me understand why Cameron doesn't do a pre-election deal with UKIP, unless he feels that with them and the SNP hitting Labour also, both big beasts will be equally afflicted come election time.
I imagine Cameron wants to avoid giving UKIP any more publicity than necessary and certainly doesn't want to go head to head with Farage on live TV, where he'll be bound by political correctness, accountability and party political sensitivities (none of which restrain Farage).
Last time a personable character appeared on the debates it shot the Liberals into the position as power brokers and I don't think Cameron wants a repeat of that.
I can't for the life of me understand why Cameron doesn't do a pre-election deal with UKIP, unless he feels that with them and the SNP hitting Labour also, both big beasts will be equally afflicted come election time.
Cameron is a useful idiot. Granted more useful and less idiot than Milliband (who in turn is at least slightly useful, unlike Clegg but nonetheless) he is a puppet for the spinning and plotting of the backroom boys.
The obvious fear for all these idiots is, that in live debate, they lack the autonomy and principle-based grounding of Farage. The other clear worry for them and their minders is that to a man, they 9the figureheads as well as their respective spin doctors) are demonstrably out of touch with the majority of voters in a way that Farage - despite being more toff than tough - is.
You only have to look at Cameron's rebuttal of Farage's response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks to see words that lack conviction and wisdom: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/08/how-dar...
The obvious fear for all these idiots is, that in live debate, they lack the autonomy and principle-based grounding of Farage. The other clear worry for them and their minders is that to a man, they 9the figureheads as well as their respective spin doctors) are demonstrably out of touch with the majority of voters in a way that Farage - despite being more toff than tough - is.
You only have to look at Cameron's rebuttal of Farage's response to the Charlie Hebdo attacks to see words that lack conviction and wisdom: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/08/how-dar...
allergictocheese said:
I can't for the life of me understand why Cameron doesn't do a pre-election deal with UKIP, unless he feels that with them and the SNP hitting Labour also, both big beasts will be equally afflicted come election time.
My guess? Were he to do so, it would be an admission that he can't win. He'd be campaigning from a crippled position from that moment on, *and* he'd be beholden to UKIP. Furthermore, (as I understand it) pollsters predict that the spread of UKIP support is such that it is likely to end up with maybe 5-6 seats - in most constituencies it will wound the incumbent and split the opposition, but not unseat the incumbent - so not enough seats to make a difference. Greg66 said:
And turn your last point on its head - why should a party with 1, or 2, or even 20 MPs, be given equal standing on a stage with the PM and the leader of the Opposition? They are not equals, and it is a fallacy to pretend that they are.
It is a stage for 'major parties', UKIP are judged by Ofcom to meet that criteria.
Your argument of 'pm and leader of the opposition' is flawed, all data indicates that the UK for the foreseeable future is moving away from a 2 party race, instead moving to a 4-5 party fight for a coalition. UKIP could form part of the government so is it not right that the people get to judge their leader alongside the rest? The polling, eu elections, council elections and by-elections all say UKIP deserve to be there.
Greg66 said:
No, I'm talking about today. UKIP has two seats. The DUP has 6, the SNP has 8. Even Sinn Fein has 5 (not taken up though). And again, using the criteria you advocate, the SNP has an overwhelming case to be the fourth man on the stage.
Would SNP, the welsh and Irish parties have a place on a televised debate shown across the UK as a whole? Or would they be better served with their own national tv debates.Yazar said:
Greg66 said:
And turn your last point on its head - why should a party with 1, or 2, or even 20 MPs, be given equal standing on a stage with the PM and the leader of the Opposition? They are not equals, and it is a fallacy to pretend that they are.
It is a stage for 'major parties', UKIP are judged by Ofcom to meet that criteria.
Your argument of 'pm and leader of the opposition' is flawed, all data indicates that the UK for the foreseeable future is moving away from a 2 party race, instead moving to a 4-5 party fight for a coalition. UKIP could form part of the government so is it not right that the people get to judge their leader alongside the rest? The polling, eu elections, council elections and by-elections all say UKIP deserve to be there.
Greg66 said:
No, I'm talking about today. UKIP has two seats. The DUP has 6, the SNP has 8. Even Sinn Fein has 5 (not taken up though). And again, using the criteria you advocate, the SNP has an overwhelming case to be the fourth man on the stage.
Would SNP, the welsh and Irish parties have a place on a televised debate shown across the UK as a whole? Or would they be better served with their own national tv debates.And even in May there will still only be two parties with hundreds of seats. Third place may have 40 or so. You will still have the "mice and men" issue.
The SNP, on the other hand, may well end up with more seats that the LDs. In which case irrespective of their local appeal, the entire UK should get a good look at them. I fear they have more chance of propping up a Lab govt than UKIP do of propping up a Con or Con/LD Govt.
Perhaps a more informative (for the public) format would be
(a) a debate between Cameron and Miliband, as the two leaders most likely to form the leading partner in a coalition; and
(b) a debate between the rest, to see where they stand, who they'd side with, and what concessions they would demand or want.
(c) round 2 between Cameron and Miliband, which would include responses to how they would deal with possible coalition partners.
But then if your starting point is that Farage must be on the stage because he will wipe the floor with everyone and catapult UKIP into the 50-100 seat range, then you're really just looking to turn the debate into a platform for the party of your choice. Personally, although I despise the concept of the debates, if they are to take place I'd like them to be informative for the general public.
Greg66 said:
By-elections and Euro elections aren't the General Election. The polls (IIRC) suggest UKIP might get 5 or 6 seats, in which case it is unlikely they will be holding the balance of power.
And even in May there will still only be two parties with hundreds of seats. Third place may have 40 or so. You will still have the "mice and men" issue.
The SNP, on the other hand, may well end up with more seats that the LDs. In which case irrespective of their local appeal, the entire UK should get a good look at them. I fear they have more chance of propping up a Lab govt than UKIP do of propping up a Con or Con/LD Govt.
Perhaps a more informative (for the public) format would be
(a) a debate between Cameron and Miliband, as the two leaders most likely to form the leading partner in a coalition; and
(b) a debate between the rest, to see where they stand, who they'd side with, and what concessions they would demand or want.
(c) round 2 between Cameron and Miliband, which would include responses to how they would deal with possible coalition partners.
But then if your starting point is that Farage must be on the stage because he will wipe the floor with everyone and catapult UKIP into the 50-100 seat range, then you're really just looking to turn the debate into a platform for the party of your choice. Personally, although I despise the concept of the debates, if they are to take place I'd like them to be informative for the general public.
I find little to disagree with in your post. To spice it up maybe include the winner of (b) in (c). And even in May there will still only be two parties with hundreds of seats. Third place may have 40 or so. You will still have the "mice and men" issue.
The SNP, on the other hand, may well end up with more seats that the LDs. In which case irrespective of their local appeal, the entire UK should get a good look at them. I fear they have more chance of propping up a Lab govt than UKIP do of propping up a Con or Con/LD Govt.
Perhaps a more informative (for the public) format would be
(a) a debate between Cameron and Miliband, as the two leaders most likely to form the leading partner in a coalition; and
(b) a debate between the rest, to see where they stand, who they'd side with, and what concessions they would demand or want.
(c) round 2 between Cameron and Miliband, which would include responses to how they would deal with possible coalition partners.
But then if your starting point is that Farage must be on the stage because he will wipe the floor with everyone and catapult UKIP into the 50-100 seat range, then you're really just looking to turn the debate into a platform for the party of your choice. Personally, although I despise the concept of the debates, if they are to take place I'd like them to be informative for the general public.
Greg66 said:
By-elections and Euro elections aren't the General Election. The polls (IIRC) suggest UKIP might get 5 or 6 seats, in which case it is unlikely they will be holding the balance of power.
And even in May there will still only be two parties with hundreds of seats. Third place may have 40 or so. You will still have the "mice and men" issue.
The SNP, on the other hand, may well end up with more seats that the LDs. In which case irrespective of their local appeal, the entire UK should get a good look at them. I fear they have more chance of propping up a Lab govt than UKIP do of propping up a Con or Con/LD Govt.
Perhaps a more informative (for the public) format would be
(a) a debate between Cameron and Miliband, as the two leaders most likely to form the leading partner in a coalition; and
(b) a debate between the rest, to see where they stand, who they'd side with, and what concessions they would demand or want.
(c) round 2 between Cameron and Miliband, which would include responses to how they would deal with possible coalition partners.
But then if your starting point is that Farage must be on the stage because he will wipe the floor with everyone and catapult UKIP into the 50-100 seat range, then you're really just looking to turn the debate into a platform for the party of your choice. Personally, although I despise the concept of the debates, if they are to take place I'd like them to be informative for the general public.
Good post and the format you are suggesting is better than the proposed initial of Cameron, Miliband and Clegg. Who knows how many seats UKIP will end up with, 'experts' seem to be going anywhere between a max of 128 down to the 1 Carswell will hold onto for certain.And even in May there will still only be two parties with hundreds of seats. Third place may have 40 or so. You will still have the "mice and men" issue.
The SNP, on the other hand, may well end up with more seats that the LDs. In which case irrespective of their local appeal, the entire UK should get a good look at them. I fear they have more chance of propping up a Lab govt than UKIP do of propping up a Con or Con/LD Govt.
Perhaps a more informative (for the public) format would be
(a) a debate between Cameron and Miliband, as the two leaders most likely to form the leading partner in a coalition; and
(b) a debate between the rest, to see where they stand, who they'd side with, and what concessions they would demand or want.
(c) round 2 between Cameron and Miliband, which would include responses to how they would deal with possible coalition partners.
But then if your starting point is that Farage must be on the stage because he will wipe the floor with everyone and catapult UKIP into the 50-100 seat range, then you're really just looking to turn the debate into a platform for the party of your choice. Personally, although I despise the concept of the debates, if they are to take place I'd like them to be informative for the general public.
Telegraph said:
...The Telegraph has learned that discussions between the parties due to participate in the three debates scheduled for next spring had all but broken down some weeks ago, with the Tories introducing a number of stumbling blocks.
Those involved in the discussions are understood to have privately agreed that the debates were unlikely to take place even before the Ofcom draft ruling was disclosed.
While the other parties are said to have accepted the broadcasters’ proposal for three debates to be held during the months of March and April, with the last taking place two weeks before polling day on May 7, the Tories are understood to have requested that they all happen in January.
They also objected to the suggestion, accepted by the others, that the leadership debates comprise one featuring the leaders of all four parties, a second with Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and a third made up of a head-to-head between David Cameron and Ed Miliband.
In the negotiations, the party’s representative is understood to have asked that Northern Ireland’s largest party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), also be allowed to take part.
One senior Labour source said: “Even the DUP hasn’t seriously suggested that they be allowed to take part in the debates.
“They’re not standing in most of the UK, so why would they be featured on the main broadcast?”
The Conservatives’ request for the debates to take place in January is understood to have been dismissed out of hand, with the broadcasters claiming out that the public now had an expectation that the clashes would take place during the heat of a general election campaign.
They [broadcasters] proposed that the clash between the Prime Minister and Mr Miliband be hosted by David Dimbleby on the BBC, with Jeremy Paxman in charge of a joint Channel 4 / Sky three-way bout involving Mr Clegg, and ITV’s Julia Etchingham chairing one featuring Ukip’s Nigel Farage.
Labour is calling on the broadcasters to go ahead with the debates even if the Prime Minister does not take part.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11334385/Conservatives-accused-of-deliberately-sabotaging-televised-General-Election-debates.htmlThose involved in the discussions are understood to have privately agreed that the debates were unlikely to take place even before the Ofcom draft ruling was disclosed.
While the other parties are said to have accepted the broadcasters’ proposal for three debates to be held during the months of March and April, with the last taking place two weeks before polling day on May 7, the Tories are understood to have requested that they all happen in January.
They also objected to the suggestion, accepted by the others, that the leadership debates comprise one featuring the leaders of all four parties, a second with Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, and a third made up of a head-to-head between David Cameron and Ed Miliband.
In the negotiations, the party’s representative is understood to have asked that Northern Ireland’s largest party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), also be allowed to take part.
One senior Labour source said: “Even the DUP hasn’t seriously suggested that they be allowed to take part in the debates.
“They’re not standing in most of the UK, so why would they be featured on the main broadcast?”
The Conservatives’ request for the debates to take place in January is understood to have been dismissed out of hand, with the broadcasters claiming out that the public now had an expectation that the clashes would take place during the heat of a general election campaign.
They [broadcasters] proposed that the clash between the Prime Minister and Mr Miliband be hosted by David Dimbleby on the BBC, with Jeremy Paxman in charge of a joint Channel 4 / Sky three-way bout involving Mr Clegg, and ITV’s Julia Etchingham chairing one featuring Ukip’s Nigel Farage.
Labour is calling on the broadcasters to go ahead with the debates even if the Prime Minister does not take part.
Greg66 said:
The SNP, on the other hand, may well end up with more seats that the LDs. In which case irrespective of their local appeal, the entire UK should get a good look at them. I fear they have more chance of propping up a Lab govt than UKIP do of propping up a Con or Con/LD Govt.
I disagree with this. It does the SNP no good if they go into coalition with Labour, their overriding aim is autonomy for Scotland not shared power in Westminster. Unlike the LibDems they're not out for power in the UK, but sole control of Scotland.The SNP want the English to be the bogeyman - what better bogeymen than the Tories?
Supporting a Westminster party dilutes their message that Westminster can't be trusted, they become the enemy of the Scots they so love to paint.
All the work they've done becoming the party they are in Scotland could be undone by 1 poorly performing term in coalition (the LibDem effect).
The SNP are no real threat to the Tories because I don't believe they will see coalition as in their best interests, so in the Westminster election they're a sideshow (albeit an interesting one).
Greg66 said:
allergictocheese said:
I can't for the life of me understand why Cameron doesn't do a pre-election deal with UKIP, unless he feels that with them and the SNP hitting Labour also, both big beasts will be equally afflicted come election time.
My guess? Were he to do so, it would be an admission that he can't win. He'd be campaigning from a crippled position from that moment on, *and* he'd be beholden to UKIP. Furthermore, (as I understand it) pollsters predict that the spread of UKIP support is such that it is likely to end up with maybe 5-6 seats - in most constituencies it will wound the incumbent and split the opposition, but not unseat the incumbent - so not enough seats to make a difference. He was elected to be leader on that basis 10 years ago and he's still the same.
I do not understand why people expect different of the Conservatives. They have not, for the past 100 years or more, been a strong right-wing party. Even under Thatcher they were still centrist.
Yazar said:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consulta...
When the new list is released in March 2015, it is very unlikely that UKIP will not be listed.
I agree, but when will the broadcasters have to decide. Should they use the list in force or what everyone expects it to become?When the new list is released in March 2015, it is very unlikely that UKIP will not be listed.
They could use either, but if the latter, I can see others crying foul.
I have no idea why you think me pointing out (correctly) that UKIP are not currently on the list is anti-UKIP
Mark Benson said:
I disagree with this. It does the SNP no good if they go into coalition with Labour, their overriding aim is autonomy for Scotland not shared power in Westminster.
Support in exchange for another shot at an independence referendum would be all the reason they'd need. Greg66 said:
Mark Benson said:
I disagree with this. It does the SNP no good if they go into coalition with Labour, their overriding aim is autonomy for Scotland not shared power in Westminster.
Support in exchange for another shot at an independence referendum would be all the reason they'd need. Either way SNP support could only sustain Lab if they voted on English matters. Which could cause a ruckus if there was a no-confidence vote on an English only matter.
JustAnotherLogin said:
I agree, but when will the broadcasters have to decide. Should they use the list in force or what everyone expects it to become?
They could use either, but if the latter, I can see others crying foul.
I have no idea why you think me pointing out (correctly) that UKIP are not currently on the list is anti-UKIP
Because it is pointing out a technicality based on nothing more than a timing issue.They could use either, but if the latter, I can see others crying foul.
I have no idea why you think me pointing out (correctly) that UKIP are not currently on the list is anti-UKIP
Ofcom have used their criteria and have said unambiguously that UKIP is classed a major party, for the sake of red tape and legal they have to leave it open a few months for a 'public consultation' but, as it is based on the same analytical framework as in previous years, short of extreme new circumstances (proof of election wrongdoings/pollster errors etc) UKIP will be classed a major party in March.
In light of this, broadcasters would find it very difficult to justify, and would more than likely face legal challenge from UKIP if they were to use the current (old) list for an April debate.
Not to forget that Farage sells papers and gets viewers/callers tuning in and logging on, so if anything the media will be glad of this ruling so can cash in.
Greg66 said:
Mark Benson said:
I disagree with this. It does the SNP no good if they go into coalition with Labour, their overriding aim is autonomy for Scotland not shared power in Westminster.
Support in exchange for another shot at an independence referendum would be all the reason they'd need. As said, they'll be votes for hire on anything that doesn't affect Scotland, but they won't join Labour in a coalition.
Edited by Mark Benson on Friday 9th January 15:43
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff