Nothing will convince me that having Plaid Cymru or the SNP electioneering on TV when the audience includes OAPs in Cornwall isn't anything other than an utter waste of time.
It's supposed to be a debate. If there's no representation from the SNP then the parties who are represented can't discuss anything that the SNP might potentially have influence over. Nor is it impossible that Sturgeon's input might not swing opinion about any of the other parties outwith Scotland.
But this is a General Election not election to the Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament.
So a debate between regional leaders would be as daft as my home city of Stoke on Trent hosting a debate between Cllr's Mohammed Pervez (Lab), David Conway (Ind) and Abi Brown (Con).
It's a General Election but some of the parties in the debate are regional parties who are talking only to a tiny percentage of the national population, most of whom are not able to vote for them even if they wanted to.
A national debate should only include national parties. It really is as simple as that. If regional parties want to have a second debate then no-one is stopping them.
Everywhere in the UK can vote for Con/Lab/Lib, UKIP and the Greens so their presence is justifiable. ONLY Wales and Scotland can vote for PC or the SNP so their presence is a total joke.
It's supposed to be a debate. If there's no representation from the SNP then the parties who are represented can't discuss anything that the SNP might potentially have influence over. Nor is it impossible that Sturgeon's input might not swing opinion about any of the other parties outwith Scotland.
But it's irrelevant as people in England and Wales can't even vote for the SNP.
How long is the debate on for? Three or four hours!? It'll need to be. How much do you think is actually going to get covered with seven different parties, each having to have their allotted time (equal time too, I suspect) and the right of come back?
But it's irrelevant as people in England and Wales can't even vote for the SNP.
How long is the debate on for? Three or four hours!? It'll need to be. How much do you think is actually going to get covered with seven different parties, each having to have their allotted time (equal time too, I suspect) and the right of come back?
The debates are two hours long, I imagine that the vast majority of topics debated in the 7 ways will be things affecting the whole of Britain ie welfare, immigration, EU, other tax issues, perhaps terrorism & the Snoopers Charter, the majority of England only things ie education will be saved for Dave v Ed I think)
I would like to think the leaders will have a limit on how long they can talk during points.
If not then at least it will be entertaining car crash TV.
If it's a televised debate simply about UK politics then fine - get them all up there. It'll be on a par with the 30 man WWE Royal Rumble as far as farcical events go and leave the viewer none the wiser but what the hell in a cell.
But.....these particular televised debates are more than that. They're for those hoping to get their mits on the keys to number 10. Parties not contesting that prize will simply get in the way of those arguments making the whole thing a waste of time.
I don't give a monkey's about 'Jocko' politics, true, but I'd be more than happy with an English-only debate, only broadcast in England, between the Tories, Labour, Libs, UKIP and the Greens because those are parties you can vote for in England.
The Scots watching the proposed debate will be able to vote for ALL of the parties that take part. The English won't. Once again, the tail will wag the dog.
It looks like you want to amputate the tail. Remind me what happened to "better together"
If it's a televised debate simply about UK politics then fine - get them all up there. It'll be on a par with the 30 man WWE Royal Rumble as far as farcical events go and leave the viewer none the wiser but what the hell in a cell.
But.....these particular televised debates are more than that. They're for those hoping to get their mits on the keys to number 10. Parties not contesting that prize will simply get in the way of those arguments making the whole thing a waste of time.
So that is just Labour and Conservative the others are all space fillers with no chance of getting into No 10, they just get in the way.
The debates are two hours long, I imagine that the vast majority of topics debated in the 7 ways will be things affecting the whole of Britain ie welfare, immigration, EU, other tax issues, perhaps terrorism & the Snoopers Charter, the majority of England only things ie education will be saved for Dave v Ed I think)
I would like to think the leaders will have a limit on how long they can talk during points.
If not then at least it will be entertaining car crash TV.
Not equal time, I assume. The SNP can be voted for by a tiny minority of the UK population so why should that woman have the same amount of time as Miliband or Cameron who represent parties that can be voted for across the UK?
But.....these particular televised debates are more than that. They're for those hoping to get their mits on the keys to number 10. Parties not contesting that prize will simply get in the way of those arguments making the whole thing a waste of time.
Away and don't be so daft. Yes Labour, in particular, in Scotland might possibly be in number 10 on their own merit or as the main party in an alliance. But by definition any party standing against them is getting in the way of their arguments.
"In the event that any of the invited party leaders decline to participate, debates will take place with the party leaders who accept the invitation."
^^^ This +1. I'm pleased that the broadcasters have stood up to Cameron's gamesmanship and that they've now called his bluff. He's now got to abide by their formats which have been accepted by the other parties (even if grudgingly so in the case of the Lib Dems) or do a no-show and face ridicule as a frit chicken which will do him electoral damage.
Not equal time, I assume. The SNP can be voted for by a tiny minority of the UK population so why should that woman have the same amount of time as Miliband or Cameron who represent parties that can be voted for across the UK?
It is a fair point that you're making but it could be argued that the SNP in recent years have had more influence one way and the other on British national politics than either the Greens or Plaid Cymru. Furthermore, the numbers of their elected representatives, including at senior levels, make them a major British political party operating in the UK.
Not equal time, I assume. The SNP can be voted for by a tiny minority of the UK population so why should that woman have the same amount of time as Miliband or Cameron who represent parties that can be voted for across the UK?
For a scottish voter, it would show incredible bias to give more time to English politicians than the leader of the SNP. Some people forget this is a UK wide election and to exclude scottish and Welsh parties would give an unfair advantage to the Greens, LDs and UKIP.
For a scottish voter, it would show incredible bias to give more time to English politicians than the leader of the SNP. Some people forget this is a UK wide election and to exclude scottish and Welsh parties would give an unfair advantage to the Greens, LDs and UKIP.
Despite them being a minority party that you can only vote for north of the border. Yes, it's a UK wide election and the debates should reflect parties that you can vote for across the entire UK.
It is a fair point that you're making but it could be argued that the SNP in recent years have had more influence one way and the other on British national politics than either the Greens or Plaid Cymru. Furthermore, the numbers of their elected representatives, including at senior levels, make them a major British political party operating in the UK.
But what English voters think of them or their policies is an utter irrelevance when it comes to a televised debate. You could argue that Russian or German elections have an impact on the entire UK so why not include representatives from those countries?
Do I want to hear Sturgeon sounding off for five minutes on how she's going to improve the Scottish NHS when not a single person south of the border can vote for her party? It's absurd.
The SNP, and Plaid Cyrmu, are entirely regional parties. They are not national parties on any level, unlike the Greens, UKIP, LibDems and the main two.
The whole thing seems like an ill-conceived mess, IMO. Viewers of the debate in Scotland will be able to vote for all of the parties except for Plaid Cyrmu. Viewers in Wales will be able to vote for all the parties except the SNP. Viewers in England however will not be able to vote for either the SNP or Plaid Cymru.
So just under 30% of the debate, if all parties are allotted equal time, will be a complete irrelevance to the English viewer.
So just under 30% of the debate, if all parties are allotted equal time, will be a complete irrelevance to the English viewer.
Given the very real possibility of the SNP propping up a Labour government maybe it's worth understanding what is likely to be horse traded to them for their support.
But what English voters think of them or their policies is an utter irrelevance when it comes to a televised debate. You could argue that Russian or German elections have an impact on the entire UK so why not include representatives from those countries?
Do I want to hear Sturgeon sounding off for five minutes on how she's going to improve the Scottish NHS when not a single person south of the border can vote for her party? It's absurd.
The SNP, and Plaid Cyrmu, are entirely regional parties. They are not national parties on any level, unlike the Greens, UKIP, LibDems and the main two.
The whole thing seems like an ill-conceived mess, IMO. Viewers of the debate in Scotland will be able to vote for all of the parties except for Plaid Cyrmu. Viewers in Wales will be able to vote for all the parties except the SNP. Viewers in England however will not be able to vote for either the SNP or Plaid Cymru.
So just under 30% of the debate, if all parties are allotted equal time, will be a complete irrelevance to the English viewer.
Blame the frit coward Cameron for all these developments. His only objective was to try to wreck the debates so that he wouldn't have to take part in them.
However flawed they are, I still hope that they take place with or without coward Cameron. In 2010, millions of voters watched the three leaders' debates and in all probability, those debates were instrumental in pushing up the voter turnout from 61% in 2005 to 65.1% in 2010 (2 million extra people voted) and that is a really good thing. I hope that something similar happens this year.
Not equal time, I assume. The SNP can be voted for by a tiny minority of the UK population so why should that woman have the same amount of time as Miliband or Cameron who represent parties that can be voted for across the UK?
Labour & Lib Dem have no candidates in Northern Ireland, the Tories have one candidate only.
The Greens in this debate are only for England & Wales, the Scottish & Northern Irish Greens are separate.
if only UK wide parties can take part then the only two men present would be David Cameron & Nigel Farage. And we all know Davy would back out and make up a good excuse.
Despite them being a minority party that you can only vote for north of the border. Yes, it's a UK wide election and the debates should reflect parties that you can vote for across the entire UK.
Exactly, Scotland and Wales are part of the UK, so should be represented.
Labour & Lib Dem have no candidates in Northern Ireland, the Tories have one candidate only.
The Greens in this debate are only for England & Wales, the Scottish & Northern Irish Greens are separate.
if only UK wide parties can take part then the only two men present would be David Cameron & Nigel Farage. And we all know Davy would back out and make up a good excuse.
It also turns out that the rumours that David Cameron was going to treated at the BUPA Cromwell Hospital in March for a spine transplant are completely false which should come as no surprise to anyone.
Given the very real possibility of the SNP propping up a Labour government maybe it's worth understanding what is likely to be horse traded to them for their support.
So that is just Labour and Conservative the others are all space fillers with no chance of getting into No 10, they just get in the way.
in practice yes, but if a party is contesting enough seats to win the election (should we vote for them) then I think they have a democratic right to put their case in at least one of the debates (preferably two but dependant on whether the govt of the day was a coalition or a single majority, in which case the second debate should be parties of govt vs most likely successor from the opposition). The "main event" can be a straight forward head to head between the bookies favourites.
Another point about the larger debate is being as the most common reason given for voter apathy is that "they're all the same." Showing voters what alternatives are on offer can only be a good thing, but it's not worth doing if insufficient numbers of people can then go out and vote for those alternatives.
Labour & Lib Dem have no candidates in Northern Ireland, the Tories have one candidate only.
The Greens in this debate are only for England & Wales, the Scottish & Northern Irish Greens are separate.
if only UK wide parties can take part then the only two men present would be David Cameron & Nigel Farage. And we all know Davy would back out and make up a good excuse.
If none of the NI parties aren't going to be invited, then these debates really shouldn't be shown in NI.
For a scottish voter, it would show incredible bias to give more time to English politicians than the leader of the SNP. Some people forget this is a UK wide election and to exclude scottish and Welsh parties would give an unfair advantage to the Greens, LDs and UKIP.
Only if those were the only debates. You could have a live debate broadcast on Scottish and Welsh TV straight afterwards and mug the leaders of their Scottish counterparts with any glaring holes their colleagues left in their case only moments earlier couldn't you?
Labour & Lib Dem have no candidates in Northern Ireland, the Tories have one candidate only.
The Greens in this debate are only for England & Wales, the Scottish & Northern Irish Greens are separate.
The E&W Greens will be perceived as proxy representatives of the Scottish and NI greens as well, it's not as if they are in competition or disagreement with each other, IIRC Natalie Bennett also supported the Scottish Greens being in favour of the Yes campaign during the referendum.
Only 3 days to wait until the broadcasters announce the dates for the Leadership debates.
It seems that the proposed dates are 2, 16 and 30 April.
What are you expecting to happen if Cameron does not turn up for the first debate? Do you think it will turn into a 28 day Crucify Cameron Fest? In particular....what are you expecting to happen just before the last debate?
The tv crews will soon get fed up with the mayhem in Downing Street, at around 7pm, as the Media swarm to see Cameron not leaving his flat so that he can not debate with Miliband.
I guess that bit will last until the Daily Mirror Chicken goes "too far" and is arrested. But what will then fill the 2 hour gap in the schedules?
I have an idea!
And have written to C4 and Sky with my suggestion.
In 1993 Hollywood made a movie about a guy who has to stand in for the President. This guy "looks like" a President (and looks just like the Commander in Chief). But he is a bit dim. Something happens....and this guy has to pretend that he is running the country.
Just imagine that! Some moron who does not believe in anything and has to be told what to say and think by his spin doctors! (But he looks good!) ;-). And then he starts getting ideas of his own. And causes mayhem in meetings......!
Oh - I almost forgot to give you the name of the 1993 movie.
Comments
It's supposed to be a debate. If there's no representation from the SNP then the parties who are represented can't discuss anything that the SNP might potentially have influence over. Nor is it impossible that Sturgeon's input might not swing opinion about any of the other parties outwith Scotland.
It's a General Election but some of the parties in the debate are regional parties who are talking only to a tiny percentage of the national population, most of whom are not able to vote for them even if they wanted to.
A national debate should only include national parties. It really is as simple as that. If regional parties want to have a second debate then no-one is stopping them.
Everywhere in the UK can vote for Con/Lab/Lib, UKIP and the Greens so their presence is justifiable. ONLY Wales and Scotland can vote for PC or the SNP so their presence is a total joke.
But it's irrelevant as people in England and Wales can't even vote for the SNP.
How long is the debate on for? Three or four hours!? It'll need to be. How much do you think is actually going to get covered with seven different parties, each having to have their allotted time (equal time too, I suspect) and the right of come back?
The debates are two hours long, I imagine that the vast majority of topics debated in the 7 ways will be things affecting the whole of Britain ie welfare, immigration, EU, other tax issues, perhaps terrorism & the Snoopers Charter, the majority of England only things ie education will be saved for Dave v Ed I think)
I would like to think the leaders will have a limit on how long they can talk during points.
If not then at least it will be entertaining car crash TV.
So?
If it's a televised debate simply about UK politics then fine - get them all up there. It'll be on a par with the 30 man WWE Royal Rumble as far as farcical events go and leave the viewer none the wiser but what the hell in a cell.
But.....these particular televised debates are more than that. They're for those hoping to get their mits on the keys to number 10. Parties not contesting that prize will simply get in the way of those arguments making the whole thing a waste of time.
It looks like you want to amputate the tail. Remind me what happened to "better together"
So that is just Labour and Conservative the others are all space fillers with no chance of getting into No 10, they just get in the way.
Not equal time, I assume. The SNP can be voted for by a tiny minority of the UK population so why should that woman have the same amount of time as Miliband or Cameron who represent parties that can be voted for across the UK?
Away and don't be so daft. Yes Labour, in particular, in Scotland might possibly be in number 10 on their own merit or as the main party in an alliance. But by definition any party standing against them is getting in the way of their arguments.
^^^ This +1. I'm pleased that the broadcasters have stood up to Cameron's gamesmanship and that they've now called his bluff. He's now got to abide by their formats which have been accepted by the other parties (even if grudgingly so in the case of the Lib Dems) or do a no-show and face ridicule as a frit chicken which will do him electoral damage.
It is a fair point that you're making but it could be argued that the SNP in recent years have had more influence one way and the other on British national politics than either the Greens or Plaid Cymru. Furthermore, the numbers of their elected representatives, including at senior levels, make them a major British political party operating in the UK.
For a scottish voter, it would show incredible bias to give more time to English politicians than the leader of the SNP. Some people forget this is a UK wide election and to exclude scottish and Welsh parties would give an unfair advantage to the Greens, LDs and UKIP.
Despite them being a minority party that you can only vote for north of the border. Yes, it's a UK wide election and the debates should reflect parties that you can vote for across the entire UK.
But what English voters think of them or their policies is an utter irrelevance when it comes to a televised debate. You could argue that Russian or German elections have an impact on the entire UK so why not include representatives from those countries?
Do I want to hear Sturgeon sounding off for five minutes on how she's going to improve the Scottish NHS when not a single person south of the border can vote for her party? It's absurd.
The SNP, and Plaid Cyrmu, are entirely regional parties. They are not national parties on any level, unlike the Greens, UKIP, LibDems and the main two.
The whole thing seems like an ill-conceived mess, IMO. Viewers of the debate in Scotland will be able to vote for all of the parties except for Plaid Cyrmu. Viewers in Wales will be able to vote for all the parties except the SNP. Viewers in England however will not be able to vote for either the SNP or Plaid Cymru.
So just under 30% of the debate, if all parties are allotted equal time, will be a complete irrelevance to the English viewer.
Blame the frit coward Cameron for all these developments. His only objective was to try to wreck the debates so that he wouldn't have to take part in them.
However flawed they are, I still hope that they take place with or without coward Cameron. In 2010, millions of voters watched the three leaders' debates and in all probability, those debates were instrumental in pushing up the voter turnout from 61% in 2005 to 65.1% in 2010 (2 million extra people voted) and that is a really good thing. I hope that something similar happens this year.
Labour & Lib Dem have no candidates in Northern Ireland, the Tories have one candidate only.
The Greens in this debate are only for England & Wales, the Scottish & Northern Irish Greens are separate.
if only UK wide parties can take part then the only two men present would be David Cameron & Nigel Farage. And we all know Davy would back out and make up a good excuse.
Exactly, Scotland and Wales are part of the UK, so should be represented.
It also turns out that the rumours that David Cameron was going to treated at the BUPA Cromwell Hospital in March for a spine transplant are completely false which should come as no surprise to anyone.
We've had 5 years of coalition, it's nothing new.
in practice yes, but if a party is contesting enough seats to win the election (should we vote for them) then I think they have a democratic right to put their case in at least one of the debates (preferably two but dependant on whether the govt of the day was a coalition or a single majority, in which case the second debate should be parties of govt vs most likely successor from the opposition). The "main event" can be a straight forward head to head between the bookies favourites.
Another point about the larger debate is being as the most common reason given for voter apathy is that "they're all the same." Showing voters what alternatives are on offer can only be a good thing, but it's not worth doing if insufficient numbers of people can then go out and vote for those alternatives.
If none of the NI parties aren't going to be invited, then these debates really shouldn't be shown in NI.
Only if those were the only debates. You could have a live debate broadcast on Scottish and Welsh TV straight afterwards and mug the leaders of their Scottish counterparts with any glaring holes their colleagues left in their case only moments earlier couldn't you?
The E&W Greens will be perceived as proxy representatives of the Scottish and NI greens as well, it's not as if they are in competition or disagreement with each other, IIRC Natalie Bennett also supported the Scottish Greens being in favour of the Yes campaign during the referendum.
It seems that the proposed dates are 2, 16 and 30 April.
What are you expecting to happen if Cameron does not turn up for the first debate? Do you think it will turn into a 28 day Crucify Cameron Fest? In particular....what are you expecting to happen just before the last debate?
The tv crews will soon get fed up with the mayhem in Downing Street, at around 7pm, as the Media swarm to see Cameron not leaving his flat so that he can not debate with Miliband.
I guess that bit will last until the Daily Mirror Chicken goes "too far" and is arrested. But what will then fill the 2 hour gap in the schedules?
I have an idea!
And have written to C4 and Sky with my suggestion.
In 1993 Hollywood made a movie about a guy who has to stand in for the President. This guy "looks like" a President (and looks just like the Commander in Chief). But he is a bit dim. Something happens....and this guy has to pretend that he is running the country.
Just imagine that! Some moron who does not believe in anything and has to be told what to say and think by his spin doctors!
Oh - I almost forgot to give you the name of the 1993 movie.
The movie is called Dave.
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=14612