Doesn't matter in my view. Any party should be eligible as long as it's putting up a sufficient number of candidates. Treat them all the same - what could be fairer?
It may be fairer but would not be practical for the format and the time allocated to it. Under such rules UKIP would of had to of been included in 2010, the BNP as they fielded 338 candidates, the Green party who fielded 310 and consider inviting the English Democrats as they had 107 candidates.
What would of been the point of inviting those parties other than fairness? Between the four of them they managed to get 1 MP.
It may be fairer but would not be practical for the format and the time allocated to it. Under such rules UKIP would of had to of been included in 2010, the BNP as they fielded 338 candidates, the Green party who fielded 310 and consider inviting the English Democrats as they had 107 candidates.
So change the format and/or allocated time. To fairly represent six parties (I wouldn't worry about parties with much fewer candidates) by focussing on their leaders is not an impossibility.
What would of been the point of inviting those parties other than fairness? Between the four of them they managed to get 1 MP.
Surely fairness is an extremely compelling point when it comes to informing voters about the alternatives on offer? Hindsight is all very well, but perhaps if those other parties had been invited, they'd have got more than one MP between them!
So change the format and/or allocated time. To fairly represent six parties (I wouldn't worry about parties with much fewer candidates) by focussing on their leaders is not an impossibility.
Personally I couldn't watch the debates last time around, they would of just sent me to sleep. The only way it can be done without making the debates lengthy is to have one for the smaller parties (there may of been one last time, I can't remember).
Surely fairness is an extremely compelling point when it comes to informing voters about the alternatives on offer? Hindsight is all very well, but perhaps if those other parties had been invited, they'd have got more than one MP between them!
You have to draw the line somewhere, plus this is the 21st century so for most people they can easily find out about the alternatives if they so wish. I doubt the result would of changed very much. We have an outdated voting system which makes people ignore the alternatives, to vote tactically and allows governments with support as low as the mid 30s to form a strong majority.
Personally I couldn't watch the debates last time around, they would of just sent me to sleep. The only way it can be done without making the debates lengthy is to have one for the smaller parties (there may of been one last time, I can't remember).
Question Time has five panellists and interaction from the audience, which can get through quite a lot in one hour. So I'd suggest that a couple of one-hour debates with six party leaders would be quite feasible.
You have to draw the line somewhere.
I agree. Draw the line at a reasonable number of candidates being put up, as I suggested!
Leaders debates aside I think political reporting of the greens is woefully underdone especially in the mainstream.I think theres a reluctance to allow them fair coverage incase they gain traction.Also I think the media establishment are too invested in the old dying duopoly and a half political status quo.
Question Time has five panellists and interaction from the audience, which can get through quite a lot in one hour. So I'd suggest that a couple of one-hour debates with six party leaders would be quite feasible.
They could do it in a tournament format, too. Not sure how informative or actually GOOD that'd be, but it'd be fun, and an interesting way to get people watching.
They could do it in a tournament format, too. Not sure how informative or actually GOOD that'd be, but it'd be fun, and an interesting way to get people watching.
Bring back "It's a Knockout!". Boris would be comedy gold on that.
Leaders debates aside I think political reporting of the greens is woefully underdone especially in the mainstream.
I'd argue the opposite and that 'Green' issues are overreported. For the Green party(s), there are a few issues. There's 3 of'em. One for England & Wales, one for Scotland and another for NI. So for any 'National' stuff, who would speak? Lucas has dropped out, so that leaves their Aussie import as spokesperson.
Despite having having been around since the early '70s, they've only got <25,000 members, 1/650th of Parliament and 1/725th of the Lords. They're a minority party.
I'd argue the opposite and that 'Green' issues are overreported. For the Green party(s), there are a few issues. There's 3 of'em. One for England & Wales, one for Scotland and another for NI. So for any 'National' stuff, who would speak? Lucas has dropped out, so that leaves their Aussie import as spokesperson.
Despite having having been around since the early '70s, they've only got <25,000 members, 1/650th of Parliament and 1/725th of the Lords. They're a minority party.
They have policies on everything not just green issues .When green issues are on the news their not predominantly reported in the context of the green party but just as green issues that have implications for us all.
The way the votes fragmenting all parties eventually will be minority parties and fptp will be redundant.
I think their low polling and low coverage on mainstream press is linked.
I think their low polling and low coverage on mainstream press is linked.
Well, surely they can buy advertising to boost their membership and become more than a minority/fringe party. And if Greens think they should be on TV more, should other parties like MRL, BNP etc?
= total espoo. The BBC are only following the advice of the independent Electoral Commission since they do not yet define the Green party as being a major party. Currently, both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP are proposed to appear in one of the leadership debates and they, overall, are both doing noticeably better than the Green party hence the latter's exclusion. Compared to the Green party, UKIP have 8x as many MEPs, twice as many local councillors and twice as many parliamentarians.
If the Green party had been doing broadly as well as UKIP then their exclusion would be wholly unjust but they are not at that stage yet. If they do better in subsequent years then there might indeed be justification for including them in the leadership debates.
Well, surely they can buy advertising to boost their membership and become more than a minority/fringe party. And if Greens think they should be on TV more, should other parties like MRL, BNP etc?
Politicians dont pay for news or press coverage and the greens membership is already increasing.
Well I think the Greens should get a spot in the debates. They should have that spot in the interests of BBC supposed impartiality. While I personally like Farage getting so much air time, how come the greens barley get a look in.
Even though the Greens are hell bent on crushing the economy, killing jobs and ultimately intent on finding the fastest way to make us a 3rd world country on ether a play it safe just in case philosophy based on Science which has yet to prove man made climate change ether way and or Scientific consensus which is historically horribly wrong..... They mean well.
= total espoo. The BBC are only following the advice of the independent Electoral Commission since they do not yet define the Green party as being a major party. Currently, both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP are proposed to appear in one of the leadership debates and they, overall, are both doing noticeably better than the Green party hence the latter's exclusion. Compared to the Green party, UKIP have 8x as many MEPs, twice as many local councillors and twice as many parliamentarians.
If the Green party had been doing broadly as well as UKIP then their exclusion would be wholly unjust but they are not at that stage yet. If they do better in subsequent years then there might indeed be justification for including them in the leadership debates.
Twice as many parliamentarians - you're a bit premature aren't you?
Greens have more MEPs than the Lib Dems and more MSPs than UKIP
Maybe a points system is needed: 5 points per mp, 3 points per mep, 1 point per councillor. Attain the threshold of x points and get a place in the debates.
Maybe a points system is needed: 5 points per mp, 3 points per mep, 1 point per councillor. Attain the threshold of x points and get a place in the debates.
I'd prefer phone votes. Left everyone onto the first debate, then let the viewers vote to eliminate - whittle it down to the final four before going to the second debate, final two for the last debate. With a bit of luck that would end up Nigel Farage v Gary Busey
Twice as many parliamentarians - you're a bit premature aren't you?
Greens have more MEPs than the Lib Dems and more MSPs than UKIP
I was quite careful in my choice of words - I didn't use the term MP only. UKIP have four parliamentarians (1x MP, 3x Lords) and the Greens have two (1x MP, 1x Lord). Taking the wider overall picture, the Greens are still not currently at the same broad level of support and representation as either the Liberal Democrats or UKIP.
I'm actually sympathetic to the case that they're putting and the UK really could do with a viable nationwide progressive alternative to the stale, Tory-lite Lib Dems and Labour but they've got to do better and attract even more supporters. Indeed, I'd be only too happy to see them take Bristol West in 2015 thereby pushing aside Labour and the Lib Dems.
Maybe a points system is needed: 5 points per mp, 3 points per mep, 1 point per councillor. Attain the threshold of x points and get a place in the debates.
That's fine by me and it would provide an objective, measurable standard. That said, if one party got just below that threshold figure then there'd probably still be a bit of grumbling. Is that constructive idea worth suggesting to the Electoral Commission?
who unlike the Greens, have successfully challenged the right to appear on panels, debates etc..
Im talking about news coverage not just appearing on Question Time something the greens have done more than the bnp.Politicians dont pay to appear on newsnight or have their politics reported on in news coverage.
Ads arent what Im talking about.
Comments
It may be fairer but would not be practical for the format and the time allocated to it. Under such rules UKIP would of had to of been included in 2010, the BNP as they fielded 338 candidates, the Green party who fielded 310 and consider inviting the English Democrats as they had 107 candidates.
What would of been the point of inviting those parties other than fairness? Between the four of them they managed to get 1 MP.
So change the format and/or allocated time. To fairly represent six parties (I wouldn't worry about parties with much fewer candidates) by focussing on their leaders is not an impossibility.
Surely fairness is an extremely compelling point when it comes to informing voters about the alternatives on offer? Hindsight is all very well, but perhaps if those other parties had been invited, they'd have got more than one MP between them!
Personally I couldn't watch the debates last time around, they would of just sent me to sleep. The only way it can be done without making the debates lengthy is to have one for the smaller parties (there may of been one last time, I can't remember).
You have to draw the line somewhere, plus this is the 21st century so for most people they can easily find out about the alternatives if they so wish. I doubt the result would of changed very much. We have an outdated voting system which makes people ignore the alternatives, to vote tactically and allows governments with support as low as the mid 30s to form a strong majority.
I agree. Draw the line at a reasonable number of candidates being put up, as I suggested!
They could do it in a tournament format, too. Not sure how informative or actually GOOD that'd be, but it'd be fun, and an interesting way to get people watching.
Bring back "It's a Knockout!". Boris would be comedy gold on that.
Yes, of course they are;-)
I'd argue the opposite and that 'Green' issues are overreported. For the Green party(s), there are a few issues. There's 3 of'em. One for England & Wales, one for Scotland and another for NI. So for any 'National' stuff, who would speak? Lucas has dropped out, so that leaves their Aussie import as spokesperson.
Despite having having been around since the early '70s, they've only got <25,000 members, 1/650th of Parliament and 1/725th of the Lords. They're a minority party.
They have policies on everything not just green issues .When green issues are on the news their not predominantly reported in the context of the green party but just as green issues that have implications for us all.
The way the votes fragmenting all parties eventually will be minority parties and fptp will be redundant.
I think their low polling and low coverage on mainstream press is linked.
Well, surely they can buy advertising to boost their membership and become more than a minority/fringe party. And if Greens think they should be on TV more, should other parties like MRL, BNP etc?
Who are the Literal Democrats, and who is tolerating them?
= total espoo. The BBC are only following the advice of the independent Electoral Commission since they do not yet define the Green party as being a major party. Currently, both the Liberal Democrats and UKIP are proposed to appear in one of the leadership debates and they, overall, are both doing noticeably better than the Green party hence the latter's exclusion. Compared to the Green party, UKIP have 8x as many MEPs, twice as many local councillors and twice as many parliamentarians.
If the Green party had been doing broadly as well as UKIP then their exclusion would be wholly unjust but they are not at that stage yet. If they do better in subsequent years then there might indeed be justification for including them in the leadership debates.
Politicians dont pay for news or press coverage and the greens membership is already increasing.
Whos mrl?The greens,are much bigger than the bnp.
Even though the Greens are hell bent on crushing the economy, killing jobs and ultimately intent on finding the fastest way to make us a 3rd world country on ether a play it safe just in case philosophy based on Science which has yet to prove man made climate change ether way and or Scientific consensus which is historically horribly wrong..... They mean well.
Sure they do. Who sets the licence fee? Or there's the more overt ads in papers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party#Policies_and_electoral_strategy
who unlike the Greens, have successfully challenged the right to appear on panels, debates etc..
Greens have more MEPs than the Lib Dems and more MSPs than UKIP
I'd prefer phone votes. Left everyone onto the first debate, then let the viewers vote to eliminate - whittle it down to the final four before going to the second debate, final two for the last debate. With a bit of luck that would end up Nigel Farage v Gary Busey
I was quite careful in my choice of words - I didn't use the term MP only. UKIP have four parliamentarians (1x MP, 3x Lords) and the Greens have two (1x MP, 1x Lord). Taking the wider overall picture, the Greens are still not currently at the same broad level of support and representation as either the Liberal Democrats or UKIP.
I'm actually sympathetic to the case that they're putting and the UK really could do with a viable nationwide progressive alternative to the stale, Tory-lite Lib Dems and Labour but they've got to do better and attract even more supporters. Indeed, I'd be only too happy to see them take Bristol West in 2015 thereby pushing aside Labour and the Lib Dems.
That's fine by me and it would provide an objective, measurable standard. That said, if one party got just below that threshold figure then there'd probably still be a bit of grumbling. Is that constructive idea worth suggesting to the Electoral Commission?
Im talking about news coverage not just appearing on Question Time something the greens have done more than the bnp.Politicians dont pay to appear on newsnight or have their politics reported on in news coverage.
Ads arent what Im talking about.