I'd like to see the Greens there, but I don't think their case is as valid as UKIP. UKIP are consistently polling much higher than they are and won the last nationwide UK election, while the Greens got about 4%.
I'd have all 5 main party leaders at all the debates. The Nationalist parties and Respect do not contest enough seats nationwide to warrant inclusion imo.
If the SNP put candidates up in England (£500+10 signatures) for enough seats, should they take part in the debates as well (6 MPs at present, possibly 20-30 next time)
If the SNP put candidates up in England (£500+10 signatures) for enough seats, should they take part in the debates as well (6 MPs at present, possibly 20-30 next time)
Yes. Same rules should apply as for any other party.
If the SNP put candidates up in England (£500+10 signatures) for enough seats, should they take part in the debates as well (6 MPs at present, possibly 20-30 next time)
Definitely. Would be rather amusing to see how they would do in England.
If the SNP put candidates up in England (£500+10 signatures) for enough seats, should they take part in the debates as well (6 MPs at present, possibly 20-30 next time)
Yes - But they won't, so it's a moot point.
I doubt they have the 572 x £500 (£286,000) additional required to increase the number of seats they contest to the same level as Lib/Lab/Con (and likely UKIP).
Who knows - NIcola Sturgeon would have fun winding people up with it. 300 extra candidates would cost £150k (plus some admin) and get a lot of prime time TV, especially in Scotand if they weren't allowed to take part in the leader debates. Seems good value for money.
Who knows - NIcola Sturgeon would have fun winding people up with it. 300 extra candidates would cost £150k (plus some admin) and get a lot of prime time TV, especially in Scotand if they weren't allowed to take part in the leader debates. Seems good value for money.
Who knows - NIcola Sturgeon would have fun winding people up with it. 300 extra candidates would cost £150k (plus some admin) and get a lot of prime time TV, especially in Scotand if they weren't allowed to take part in the leader debates. Seems good value for money.
Actually it's entirely feasible and could even be done in a way that didn't look too crazy (by SNP standards).
The SNP could establish a federal structure, creating new ENP (England), WNP (Wales) and UNP (Ulster) sister parties. Create them with the same structures and rules as the SNP and with a smattering of former SNP members who currently live outside Scotland and see what happens.
Might be able to convince the English Democrats and Plaid to consider mergers on the basis of working together to get their message across national media.
It's crazy, but no more crazy than usual for a party that is used to thinking outside of the box.
TBH judging by their coverage over the last year or so I'm surprised the Beeb are even bothering to have anyone except Farage. He's been on more than Ant and bloody Dec.
You must have missed the fact that he's been on everywhere, across all the main TV and news channels as well as the newspapers- must have something to do with the surge in interest in their immigration/EU policies, their surge in support, and their successes ina few by-elections and in the European Elections.
TBH judging by their coverage over the last year or so I'm surprised the Beeb are even bothering to have anyone except Farage. He's been on more than Ant and bloody Dec.
Well he would be...I think the gruesome twosome have exclusive contracts with ITV & Morrison's.
If the Greens won't be included then how can the Lib Dems be included either?
Two issues.
The Bbc is meant to be impartial. So it gives the Greens lots of airtime but when it comes to real political & election related stuff, then this kicks in
Broadcasters transmitting PEBs on a UK/Great Britain-wide basis (such as Channel 5 in the European Parliamentary elections) will be obliged to treat UKIP as a major party across the whole of England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain) as a whole.
In news and current affairs election programming that focuses on the European Parliamentary elections across England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain) as a whole, UKIP will be treated as a major party across the whole of England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain). However, in news and current affairs election programming that focuses on the European Parliamentary elections in just Scotland, UKIP will not be treated as a major party in such programming.
And there are other rules from the Election Commission. But basically UKIP is big/popular enough to be considered a 'major party' for broadcast, the Greens are not.
That poll has got "London/SE" written all over it...... bung 'em on Thames TV or whatever the local franchise is now but I don't want them wasting airtime on them round my way.
They have got some of the Labour and Lib Dem vote.
YouGov/Sun poll:
LAB 34%
CON 31%,
UKIP 17%,
GRNS 7%
LIB DEM 6%
I am actually sympathetic to this issue but the Greens have not necessarily achieved enough overall to currently warrant inclusion in those leaders' debates although that might change in future years. For example, they are not yet regarded by the Electoral Commission as a major party. They should, however, take advantage of the 'same old' Labour and Lib Dem parties to try to recruit more disaffected supporters of those parties and I'm sure the Green vote will go up in the 2015 general election.
In the longer term, the Greens might turn out to be a potential threat to the Liberal Democrats especially since Australia's Green party managed to completely supplant the Australian Democrats in the space of a decade so that they are now one of the four most important parties in Australian politics and the Australian Democrats are now a historical relic.
Why should the Greens be included? They haven't enjoyed a surge in popularity, nor are they covered by every media source in the land like Tories and Labour plus UKIP.
The reason they're higher than Lib Dems is not because they've grown, but because the Libs have fallen so far. Not to mention their one MP is the best they'll ever achieve in anyone's lifetime.
If the Greens won't be included then how can the Lib Dems be included either?
Indeed, the Greens have 3 times as many MEPs as the LibDems.
There may be reason for having some Leaders' debates between the biggest parties, but some debates should include the Greens. The only snag is that since Caroline Lucas resigned as Leader, her successor Natalie Bennett is neither an MP (but hopes to succeed Frank Dobson at Holborn & St Pancras) nor an MEP.
I don't think the Green party should be included just because they are now only just ahead of the Lib Dems in a few polls.
The Lib Dems have to be included simply as they are part of the current government and hold a fair number of MP's. They may be polling badly but I don't think as coalition partner they should be excluded even if they were polling 1%..
UKIP's potential inclusion in one debate is simple to understand. They have consistently been ahead of the Lib Dems for a few years now by a fair margin. They also topped the UK poll in the EU elections. The Green party came 4th and has only just started to get past the Lib Dems in a few polls by 1% or 2% or within the margin of error. It is quite hard to exclude UKIP from at least one debate due to how it has been polling for a few years and its recent success. The Green party on the other hand has not simply not shown the same level of success.
I don't think the Green party should be included just because they are now only just ahead of the Lib Dems in a few polls.
The Lib Dems have to be included simply as they are part of the current government and hold a fair number of MP's. They may be polling badly but I don't think as coalition partner they should be excluded even if they were polling 1%..
UKIP's potential inclusion in one debate is simple to understand. They have consistently been ahead of the Lib Dems for a few years now by a fair margin. They also topped the UK poll in the EU elections. The Green party came 4th and has only just started to get past the Lib Dems in a few polls by 1% or 2% or within the margin of error. It is quite hard to exclude UKIP from at least one debate due to how it has been polling for a few years and its recent success. The Green party on the other hand has not simply not shown the same level of success.
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?
Comments
Greens 1
UKIP 0
If the SNP put candidates up in England (£500+10 signatures) for enough seats, should they take part in the debates as well (6 MPs at present, possibly 20-30 next time)
Yes. Same rules should apply as for any other party.
Definitely. Would be rather amusing to see how they would do in England.
Yes - But they won't, so it's a moot point.
I doubt they have the 572 x £500 (£286,000) additional required to increase the number of seats they contest to the same level as Lib/Lab/Con (and likely UKIP).
Would make them look rather silly though!
Actually it's entirely feasible and could even be done in a way that didn't look too crazy (by SNP standards).
The SNP could establish a federal structure, creating new ENP (England), WNP (Wales) and UNP (Ulster) sister parties. Create them with the same structures and rules as the SNP and with a smattering of former SNP members who currently live outside Scotland and see what happens.
Might be able to convince the English Democrats and Plaid to consider mergers on the basis of working together to get their message across national media.
It's crazy, but no more crazy than usual for a party that is used to thinking outside of the box.
Well he would be...I think the gruesome twosome have exclusive contracts with ITV & Morrison's.
This is what I get for not watching telly, isn't it? I just see clips of him from the BBC on the internet...
You should stick to the "Funny Cat" or "Darth Vader v Barbie" clips.
TBH since I discovered this .gif I don't really watch anything else at all.
Two issues.
The Bbc is meant to be impartial. So it gives the Greens lots of airtime but when it comes to real political & election related stuff, then this kicks in
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/major-political-parties-2014/statement
Broadcasters transmitting PEBs on a UK/Great Britain-wide basis (such as Channel 5 in the European Parliamentary elections) will be obliged to treat UKIP as a major party across the whole of England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain) as a whole.
In news and current affairs election programming that focuses on the European Parliamentary elections across England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain) as a whole, UKIP will be treated as a major party across the whole of England, Wales and Scotland (i.e. Great Britain). However, in news and current affairs election programming that focuses on the European Parliamentary elections in just Scotland, UKIP will not be treated as a major party in such programming.
And there are other rules from the Election Commission. But basically UKIP is big/popular enough to be considered a 'major party' for broadcast, the Greens are not.
I think that's what they did, in fact.
I think that figure is too high in an age of real multiparty politics when the old duopoly is bust and dying.
Yeah, when that age arrives they can lower it a bit then
I am actually sympathetic to this issue but the Greens have not necessarily achieved enough overall to currently warrant inclusion in those leaders' debates although that might change in future years. For example, they are not yet regarded by the Electoral Commission as a major party. They should, however, take advantage of the 'same old' Labour and Lib Dem parties to try to recruit more disaffected supporters of those parties and I'm sure the Green vote will go up in the 2015 general election.
In the longer term, the Greens might turn out to be a potential threat to the Liberal Democrats especially since Australia's Green party managed to completely supplant the Australian Democrats in the space of a decade so that they are now one of the four most important parties in Australian politics and the Australian Democrats are now a historical relic.
Indeed, the Greens have had their MP Caroline Lucas elected as a Green at the start of the 2010 Parliament, not as late defectors from another party.
Indeed, the Greens have 3 times as many MEPs as the LibDems.
There may be reason for having some Leaders' debates between the biggest parties, but some debates should include the Greens. The only snag is that since Caroline Lucas resigned as Leader, her successor Natalie Bennett is neither an MP (but hopes to succeed Frank Dobson at Holborn & St Pancras) nor an MEP.
The Lib Dems have to be included simply as they are part of the current government and hold a fair number of MP's. They may be polling badly but I don't think as coalition partner they should be excluded even if they were polling 1%..
UKIP's potential inclusion in one debate is simple to understand. They have consistently been ahead of the Lib Dems for a few years now by a fair margin. They also topped the UK poll in the EU elections. The Green party came 4th and has only just started to get past the Lib Dems in a few polls by 1% or 2% or within the margin of error. It is quite hard to exclude UKIP from at least one debate due to how it has been polling for a few years and its recent success. The Green party on the other hand has not simply not shown the same level of success.
I'd pay to watch that.
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?