trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 (edited) I understand that it is proposed that there be a head to head debate between Cameron and Red Ed and a further two debates for all 7 parties. I read a proposal put up by somebody which seemed fairly sensible; that the only parties to be represented in the debates should have candidates in a half or more of the seats contested. That would queer the pitch nicely in terms of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, but the Welsh and Scots have their own assemblies, so sod them. Agree with that proposal. I don't see the logic in the likes of Sturgeon standing up on UK-wide TV saying to the audience "hey, vote for my party" when c.90% of the audience won't be able to do so. If a party has a candidate in more han 50% of seats across the UK then they should have a place on any TV debate show. I can't see a more logical solution than that. Edited 27 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Agree with that proposal. I don't see the logic in the likes of Sturgeon standing up on UK-wide TV saying to the audience "hey, vote for my party" when c.90% of the audience won't be able to do so. If a party has a candidate in more han 50% of seats across the UK then then should have a place on any TV debate show. I can't see a more logical solution than that. I agree but I am guessing it will be Salmond (standing for Westminster) rather than Sturgeon in the debates. Both are pointless participants but Sturgeon would be even more pointless. Not seen if that's been confirmed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I agree but I am guessing it will be Salmond (standing for Westminster) rather than Sturgeon in the debates. Both are pointless participants but Sturgeon would be even more pointless. Not seen if that's been confirmed though. When asked this question on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday, Sturgeon said it would be her because its a "party leaders" debate. (Or maybe I'm confusing her with that bonkers Green lady....easily done...) But, yes, agree, it would be even more illogical for someone who won't actually be a 'Westminster' politician taking part in 'Westminster' parliamentary debates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 When asked this question on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday, Sturgeon said it would be her because its a "party leaders" debate. (Or maybe I'm confusing her with that bonkers Green lady....easily done...) But, yes, agree, it would be even more illogical for someone who won't actually be a 'Westminster' politician taking part in 'Westminster' parliamentary debates. Ah okay. I suppose it can't make the whole thing any more lame than it already is. Go Nicola! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 (edited) Agree with that proposal. I don't see the logic in the likes of Sturgeon standing up on UK-wide TV saying to the audience "hey, vote for my party" when c.90% of the audience won't be able to do so. If a party has a candidate in more han 50% of seats across the UK then they should have a place on any TV debate show. I can't see a more logical solution than that. I'm not sure I agree with this. The NF could put up candidates in 50% of seats and still gain next to no votes across the board. Less than the SNP could conceivably in 1/2 seats in Scotland. The SNP are estimated to be on for around 50 seats in Westminster, potentially more than Lib Dems, Greens & UKIP combined. They have a very serious chance of being the 3rd biggest party in Parliament. The debates are pretty lame, but saying the party with potentially the third highest number representatives (despite being a 'regional' party) is pretty illogical. Even as it is, they are still representative of far more people than UKIP or Greens, so do you therefore not give representation to all those currently living in the UK, with a stake in the outcome of the election and currently living in a SNP constituency? If that was me, and Farage was there spouting off (not an MP, leader of a party for over 20 years who have only gotten MPs from Tory defectors in by-elections) I would be royally p!ssed off. The SNP have every ounce as much right as, arguably more so, than UKIP or the Greens to be part of a debate. Edited 27 January, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 (edited) I'm not sure I agree with this. The NF could put up candidates in 50% of seats and still gain next to no votes across the board. Less than the SNP could conceivably in 1/2 seats in Scotland. The SNP are estimated to be on for around 50 seats in Westminster, potentially more than Lib Dems, Greens & UKIP combined. They have a very serious chance of being the 3rd biggest party in Parliament. The debates are pretty lame, but saying the party with potentially the third highest number representatives (despite being a 'regional' party) is pretty illogical. Even as it is, they are still representative of far more people than UKIP or Greens, so do you therefore not give representation to all those currently living in the UK, with a stake in the outcome of the election and currently living in a SNP constituency? If that was me, and Farage was there spouting off (not an MP, leader of a party for over 20 years who have only gotten MPs from Tory defectors in by-elections) I would be royally p!ssed off. The SNP have every ounce as much right as, arguably more so, than UKIP or the Greens to be part of a debate. I see where you're coming from but still disagree. Where is the logic in 'politician A' appearing on a television programme, the primary aim of which is to appeal to the audience to vote for their party, when c.90% of said audience can't do so? Given the SNP are a 'regional' party then they should appear on regional television so they can appeal to the majority of the viewers. Would Sturgeon pitching up at a hustings event in a village hall in Stratton-on-the-Fosse be any less logical? (ok, it would be slightly less logical as it's likely that 100% of the audience wouldn't be able to vote for the SNP rather than 90% of the TV audience....unless, of course, Stratton-on-the-Fosse is a tourist magnet for Scottish separatists at this time of year.) IMHO of course. p.s. the National Front fielded candidates in 17 seats at the 2010 General Election. The BNP would qualify at the 50% cut off though.....on second thoughts, maybe it should be a 75% threshold...! Edited 27 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Regular moment of "agree with trousers" time. Putting candidates in half the seats seems fine. To do that, a party has to have spent £175K on deposits alone. That's before any funds are dished out on campaigning or make-up/cosmetic surgery/prosthetics to make these f**kers look normal on TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I see where you're coming from but still disagree. Where is the logic in 'politician A' appearing on a television programme, the primary aim of which is to appeal to the audience to vote for their party, when c.90% of said audience can't do so? Given the SNP are a 'regional' party then they should appear on regional television so they can appeal to the majority of the viewers. Would Sturgeon pitching up at a hustings event in a village hall in Stratton-on-the-Fosse be any less logical? (ok, it would be slightly less logical as it's likely that 100% of the audience wouldn't be able to vote for the SNP rather than 90% of the TV audience....unless, of course, Stratton-on-the-Fosse is a tourist magnet for Scottish separatists at this time of year.) IMHO of course. p.s. the National Front fielded candidates in 17 seats at the 2010 General Election. The BNP would qualify at the 50% cut off though.....on second thoughts, maybe it should be a 75% threshold...! Exactly. Let the SNP and Plaid Cymru have their own debates on their regional television programmes, rather than boring we English with their local gripes. Basing the right of a party to have representation on national television on what potential percentage vote they might receive from the electorate involves an element of crystal-ball gazing. Any talk about the unfairness of parties not being equally represented can be countered by arguments that the time allotted to each party should be commensurate proportionally to the number of votes they received in the last election. Why is it fair that a small party is allowed the same amount of time to spout their spiel as a party several times bigger than them? I'm not advocating that, merely putting forward a counter argument. When it comes to Party Election broadcasts, I understand that the number of Broadcasts allowable to each party is based on the level of their support, so why should that not apply to the time allocated to them during these TV debates? The whole thing is a can of worms and perhaps there should not be any TV debates and the parties should rely on the Party Political Broadcasts instead to get their messages across, as they used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I see where you're coming from but still disagree. Where is the logic in 'politician A' appearing on a television programme, the primary aim of which is to appeal to the audience to vote for their party, when c.90% of said audience can't do so? Given the SNP are a 'regional' party then they should appear on regional television so they can appeal to the majority of the viewers. Would Sturgeon pitching up at a hustings event in a village hall in Stratton-on-the-Fosse be any less logical? (ok, it would be slightly less logical as it's likely that 100% of the audience wouldn't be able to vote for the SNP rather than 90% of the TV audience....unless, of course, Stratton-on-the-Fosse is a tourist magnet for Scottish separatists at this time of year.) IMHO of course. p.s. the National Front fielded candidates in 17 seats at the 2010 General Election. The BNP would qualify at the 50% cut off though.....on second thoughts, maybe it should be a 75% threshold...! Ok, the NF was a bad example, but I think you understood the wider point The BNP are an adequate substitute (by adequate I mean still awful and unlikely to get anywhere). Likewise, I do understand your point. But I still absolutely think that excluding the (potentially) 3rd largest party in favour of people like Ukip (estimated 4-6 seats) and Greens (estimates of 0-6 seats) just seems utterly bonkers to me. They may only be regional, but they still represent a large segment of people with an interest in the outcome of the election. To refuse to give them a voice over a pratt like Farage who the media seem to have some bizarre love/hate relationship with is utterly bonkers. The whole debates thing is a bit silly in general, imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 (edited) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11370935/David-Cameron-A-Labour-SNP-coalition-would-be-genuinely-frightening.html The prospect of a Labour government being “held hostage” by Alex Salmond and the SNP is “genuinely frightening”, David Cameron has said. The Prime Minister said that Mr Salmond “fundamentally dislikes the UK” and that any coalition between Labour and the SNP after the election is a “very worrying prospect”. Yes, I know I fall into the "well, you would agree with Cameron, wouldn't you?" camp, but what he says here is spot on IMO. Wouldn't it be bordering on 'unconstitutional' for a party to have a share of power in a country (the UK) that they ultimately want to see destroyed? Surely, a party (or parties) have to run the country in the interests of the country as a whole rather than in the interests of just part of it? Yes, I know the counter argument from the separatists will be "well, that happens already as the UK isn't run in the interests of Scotland" but a party who wants to break up the very country they may end up running (as part of a coalition) seems like a distortion of democracy to me. It would be a bit like having an ardent Pompey fan on the board of Southampton Football Club.... #probable bad analogy glaxon # Edited 27 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 The whole debates thing is a bit silly in general, imo. On that we can agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Glaxon? Is that some form of alien research chemist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Glaxon? Is that some form of alien research chemist? One of my more regular typos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 One of my more regular typos Actually I've just been told it's one of those sub-atomic particles that is created for only a nanosecond when you collide a useful fact at light speed into a political debate. It has rarely been seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I thought the debates were a "beauty contest" for potential Prime Ministers, therefore they should be limited to those parties with the potential to garner a majority of MPs, or to be the majority partnerr in a coalition. On a side note, what is the likelihood of a Lab-LD coalition ? How much of a policy volte-face would that take on the part of Cleggy ? Would Red Ed consider it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Ok, the NF was a bad example, but I think you understood the wider point The BNP are an adequate substitute (by adequate I mean still awful and unlikely to get anywhere). Likewise, I do understand your point. But I still absolutely think that excluding the (potentially) 3rd largest party in favour of people like Ukip (estimated 4-6 seats) and Greens (estimates of 0-6 seats) just seems utterly bonkers to me. They may only be regional, but they still represent a large segment of people with an interest in the outcome of the election. To refuse to give them a voice over a pratt like Farage who the media seem to have some bizarre love/hate relationship with is utterly bonkers. The whole debates thing is a bit silly in general, imo. What is bonkers is having a party who might potentially hold the balance of power in the governance of the UK and yet wishes to break away from the UK. Secondly they will have the right to vote on exclusively English matters when the English are disenfranchised from voting on Scottish matters. So don't come this "it isn't fair" viewpoint, it doesn't wash. Furthermore, your guess as to the number of seats the SNP might have against those that UKIP or the Greens might end up with is purely a speculative punt at the outcome, but it is almost certainly going to be the case that those two parties will have many times the number of votes overall that the SNP will receive. Scotland is pretty well a two-horse race, whereas UKIP and the Greens in England are up against the big two as well as the Lib Dems who will probably get slaughtered, but still also poll far more votes than the SNP. If the SNP do end up holding the balance of power, then pressure should be put upon them by all the other parties over the West Lothian question, otherwise there will be growing resentment against them which will fuel the rise of English nationalism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11362683/What-the-SNP-really-wants-is-Mr-Cameron-back-in-No-10.html Sturgeon has ruled out any coalition with the perfidious Tories, yet still needs Cameron more than any other politician in Britain. If she can choose whom to enstool in No 10 in May, she’d choose him. The only goal that matters to the SNP is independence – and that means assembling a narrative of a Scotland suing for divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable political differences. Without a villain, Ms Sturgeon will not have much of a pantomime; so she needs Cameron, the Old Etonian with a Brasenose First, as prime minister. Ideally in coalition with Nigel Farage. And most of all, she wants his in-or-out referendum on the European Union. If England votes to leave and Scotland to stay, it would induce the constitutional crisis that the SNP needs. This is the new road map to independence. But for now, the SNP needs to win as many seats as possible – which means publicly entertaining the idea of coalition with Ed Miliband. Polls show that such an alliance would be the most popular election result in Scotland – which is precisely why, in the end, Ms Sturgeon can’t allow it to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 ****ing hell, these clowns are going to hand the election to Cameron on a plate. Just heard Ed's latest " weaponising " of the NHS. "100 days to save it and the English NHS is in crisis. " " How is it in crisis " asked interviewer. " waiting times in A&E are up" " targets missed" Interviewer points out to Ed that waiting times are longer and targets missed by more in Labour run Welsh NHS " is that in crisis" " no " replies Ed. If like me you're wondering how that can her Ed explains " The Welsh NHS is better than it was 20 years ago , when the Tories ran it, so its not in crisis. " . Ed was then asked " is the English NHS better than it was 20 years ago" . " yes " replies Ed. " so if the English NHS is in crisis despite being better than it was, surely the Welsh one is as well" . Ed thinking on his feet says " I'm here to talk about the English NHS as the Welsh one isnt on the ballot paper in May". This bloke is going to make Gordon Browns Mrs Duffy campaign look like a slick masterpiece. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Given that the scots voted to stay in the UK, how can the SNP then effectively hold Westminster to ransom until it gets what it wants ie independence. Surely that is against the will of the majority of scots. It's back door politics worthy of the EU. it reminds me of a divorce lawyer whose clients have now agreed to stay married but is pressing on with the decree nisi irrespcetively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/SNP/11362683/What-the-SNP-really-wants-is-Mr-Cameron-back-in-No-10.html The SNP have very short memories. Salmonds first spell as first minister relied on a confidence and supply agreement with the Torys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 What is bonkers is having a party who might potentially hold the balance of power in the governance of the UK and yet wishes to break away from the UK. Secondly they will have the right to vote on exclusively English matters when the English are disenfranchised from voting on Scottish matters. So don't come this "it isn't fair" viewpoint, it doesn't wash. Furthermore, your guess as to the number of seats the SNP might have against those that UKIP or the Greens might end up with is purely a speculative punt at the outcome, but it is almost certainly going to be the case that those two parties will have many times the number of votes overall that the SNP will receive. Scotland is pretty well a two-horse race, whereas UKIP and the Greens in England are up against the big two as well as the Lib Dems who will probably get slaughtered, but still also poll far more votes than the SNP. If the SNP do end up holding the balance of power, then pressure should be put upon them by all the other parties over the West Lothian question, otherwise there will be growing resentment against them which will fuel the rise of English nationalism Lol, I've posted pretty regularly on the west lothian question, so throwing that at me is really rather daft. The numbers are not my guess, they are based on polls and estimates. Carried out by people far smarter and knowledgeable than myself. I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than your dislike of the SNP? Is that why they shouldn't be in the debates? I can't stand Ukip, Labour or the Tories (no, I'm not a Lib Dem or Green supporter either) so can we have them in the debates either? I see you agree Lib Dems are likely to take a kicking, does that mean you agree there is a good chance of the SNP being the 3rd largest party in Westminster after the election? Seems odd to include the leaders of the 4th, 5th, 6th biggest parties and not the 3rd. Does it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 ****ing hell, these clowns are going to hand the election to Cameron on a plate. Just heard Ed's latest " weaponising " of the NHS. "100 days to save it and the English NHS is in crisis. " " How is it in crisis " asked interviewer. " waiting times in A&E are up" " targets missed" Interviewer points out to Ed that waiting times are longer and targets missed by more in Labour run Welsh NHS " is that in crisis" " no " replies Ed. If like me you're wondering how that can her Ed explains " The Welsh NHS is better than it was 20 years ago , when the Tories ran it, so its not in crisis. " . Ed was then asked " is the English NHS better than it was 20 years ago" . " yes " replies Ed. " so if the English NHS is in crisis despite being better than it was, surely the Welsh one is as well" . Ed thinking on his feet says " I'm here to talk about the English NHS as the Welsh one isnt on the ballot paper in May". This bloke is going to make Gordon Browns Mrs Duffy campaign look like a slick masterpiece. Talking of the NHS, here's a cage rattler.... http://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2014/11/27/nhs-safe-conservatives/ The NHS is ONLY safe with the Conservatives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 The SNP have very short memories. Salmonds first spell as first minister relied on a confidence and supply agreement with the Torys. Indeed, and not to mention the part they played in Thatcher getting elected in 1979.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I am yet to meet a Labour supporter who approves of Special Ed as a leader. Obviously the point of an election is to pick a political party, and not pick your next Prime Minister (although intrinsically linked), but surely he is making it difficult for those on the edge to vote Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than your dislike of the SNP? Is that why they shouldn't be in the debates? I can't answer for Wes Tender but whilst I also "dislike" the SNP it's not my reason for saying they shouldn't be included in the UK-wide TV debate(s). I simply see a mis-match between a regional political party and the TV audience to which they are appealing for votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Spot the cock.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Lol, I've posted pretty regularly on the west lothian question, so throwing that at me is really rather daft. The numbers are not my guess, they are based on polls and estimates. Carried out by people far smarter and knowledgeable than myself. I'm not entirely sure what your point is, other than your dislike of the SNP? Is that why they shouldn't be in the debates? I can't stand Ukip, Labour or the Tories (no, I'm not a Lib Dem or Green supporter either) so can we have them in the debates either? I see you agree Lib Dems are likely to take a kicking, does that mean you agree there is a good chance of the SNP being the 3rd largest party in Westminster after the election? Seems odd to include the leaders of the 4th, 5th, 6th biggest parties and not the 3rd. Does it not? I'm just contributing my opinions to this debate on the forthcoming General Election and had not particularly followed other debates sufficiently to know your thoughts on the West Lothian question. But to my mind it is pertinent to the debate about what the SNP's part should be in the national TV debates to mention that their potential position in a future coalition government of the UK would be farcical given that they wish to leave the UK and that they would be allowed to vote in English matters when we couldn't vote in Scottish affairs. The polls are far from infallible when it comes to forecasting something that is still 100 days away. I just read earlier today that the most recent projections for the UKIP was about 15 seats, although going back to the time of the European Elections there was even one forecast of 128 seats for them. What opinion polls cannot take account of is tactical voting, agreements between parties to co-operate together to their own mutual advantage and for parties to put in extra affort in targeted specific seats. I don't particularly dislike the SNP any more than I dislike the Scottish Labour Party. What I dislike is their hypocrisy with the West Lothian question which has rumbled on for over 38 years. You're not sure what my point is? It is that regardless of the fact that the SNP will probably achieve far more seats than UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems, nevertheless voters in England will be unable to vote for them unless they have residency in Scottish constituencies and the numbers of voters voting for those other parties will almost certainly exceed the numbers of SNP voters by some considerable distance. The other point I made, was that it could also be argued that the number of MPs in each current party should determine the amount of air-time each had. So no, it isn't necessarily odd to allocate air time on the basis of the number of votes their party received during the last election, rather than allocating them on the basis of some projections from polls of samples of just typically 1000 random people. As for the SNP, as I already suggested, let them have their own debate on Scottish TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Members share their 'homebrew' at the London branch meeting of the National Urolagnia Assocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I'm just contributing my opinions to this debate on the forthcoming General Election and had not particularly followed other debates sufficiently to know your thoughts on the West Lothian question. But to my mind it is pertinent to the debate about what the SNP's part should be in the national TV debates to mention that their potential position in a future coalition government of the UK would be farcical given that they wish to leave the UK and that they would be allowed to vote in English matters when we couldn't vote in Scottish affairs. The polls are far from infallible when it comes to forecasting something that is still 100 days away. I just read earlier today that the most recent projections for the UKIP was about 15 seats, although going back to the time of the European Elections there was even one forecast of 128 seats for them. What opinion polls cannot take account of is tactical voting, agreements between parties to co-operate together to their own mutual advantage and for parties to put in extra affort in targeted specific seats. I don't particularly dislike the SNP any more than I dislike the Scottish Labour Party. What I dislike is their hypocrisy with the West Lothian question which has rumbled on for over 38 years. You're not sure what my point is? It is that regardless of the fact that the SNP will probably achieve far more seats than UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems, nevertheless voters in England will be unable to vote for them unless they have residency in Scottish constituencies and the numbers of voters voting for those other parties will almost certainly exceed the numbers of SNP voters by some considerable distance. The other point I made, was that it could also be argued that the number of MPs in each current party should determine the amount of air-time each had. So no, it isn't necessarily odd to allocate air time on the basis of the number of votes their party received during the last election, rather than allocating them on the basis of some projections from polls of samples of just typically 1000 random people. As for the SNP, as I already suggested, let them have their own debate on Scottish TV. It's a UK election, and the debates are on UK television. The Scots are still entitled to their opinion, and to have their voices represented. Refusing to broadcast the SNP in a televised debate in no way solves the West Lothian Question. Also, polls and electoral projections are slightly more advanced than picking 1000 random people. I'm not claiming they are 100% accurate, hence why I said estimates but they can give a general sense. Also, if we are allocating air time based on # of seats at the last election - the SNP (6) would get far more than the Greens (1) or Ukip (0). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 It's a UK election, and the debates are on UK television. The Scots are still entitled to their opinion, and to have their voices represented. Refusing to broadcast the SNP in a televised debate in no way solves the West Lothian Question. Also, polls and electoral projections are slightly more advanced than picking 1000 random people. I'm not claiming they are 100% accurate, hence why I said estimates but they can give a general sense. Also, if we are allocating air time based on # of seats at the last election - the SNP (6) would get far more than the Greens (1) or Ukip (0). But they doing allocate airtime on the basis of seats at the last election. An independent body Ofcom tell the broadcasters who they should treat as major parties. This is based on number of MPs, polls since the last election and national election results since the last election. Ofcom recently announced that they considered the establishment parties, plus ukip are to be treated as major parties this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 It's a UK election, and the debates are on UK television. The Scots are still entitled to their opinion, and to have their voices represented. Refusing to broadcast the SNP in a televised debate in no way solves the West Lothian Question. Also, polls and electoral projections are slightly more advanced than picking 1000 random people. I'm not claiming they are 100% accurate, hence why I said estimates but they can give a general sense. Also, if we are allocating air time based on # of seats at the last election - the SNP (6) would get far more than the Greens (1) or Ukip (0). Yes, it's a UK Election with debates on UK television and you are trying to make out a case for a party whose main reason for existence is to leave the UK. Don't you see anything ironic in that? No, of course refusing the SNP air-time in the TV debates does not solve the West Lothian question. But it would be sheer hypocrisy for their MPs to vote on English matters after the GE when we cannot vote on theirs, wouldn't it? What would be fun if they are to be included in a national TV debate, would be for the other parties who represent mainly English constituencies to ask them whether they will act in an honourable way and refrain from voting in English matters, or will they be despised and worthy of contempt for being hypocrites? Polls are likely to be wide of the mark for the reasons I gave. And 1000 is quite often the sample size. As I said, I was not advocating that air-time was to be allocated based on number of seats or indeed number of votes cast. These were just alternative methods which could be argued for. Numbers of seats would give the SNP more time, whereas number of votes cast would give them very much less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 (edited) It's a UK election, and the debates are on UK television. The Scots are still entitled to their opinion, and to have their voices represented. If you were a politician trying to convince a room of 100 voters to vote for your party what would you gain most from? - A room where only 10% of the people could vote for you? Or - a room where 90% of the people could vote for you? The reason the SNP are so keen to participate in the "10% room" is to bang the separation drum on a bigger stage rather than presenting the policies that they believe will make the UK a better place, the UK being the country they are aiming to represent by standing at this election.... Edited 27 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11370935/David-Cameron-A-Labour-SNP-coalition-would-be-genuinely-frightening.html Yes, I know I fall into the "well, you would agree with Cameron, wouldn't you?" camp, but what he says here is spot on IMO. Wouldn't it be bordering on 'unconstitutional' for a party to have a share of power in a country (the UK) that they ultimately want to see destroyed? Surely, a party (or parties) have to run the country in the interests of the country as a whole rather than in the interests of just part of it? Yes, I know the counter argument from the separatists will be "well, that happens already as the UK isn't run in the interests of Scotland" but a party who wants to break up the very country they may end up running (as part of a coalition) seems like a distortion of democracy to me. It would be a bit like having an ardent Pompey fan on the board of Southampton Football Club.... #probable bad analogy glaxon # By that token, any separatist movement anywhere in the world could be deemed unconstitutional. Self-determination is supposed to trump all, at least in theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 If you were a politician trying to convince a room of 100 voters to vote for your party what would you gain most from? - A room where only 10% of the people could vote for you? Or - a room where 90% of the people could vote for you? The reason the SNP are so keen to participate in the "10% room" is to bang the separation drum on a bigger stage rather than presenting the policies that they believe will make the UK a better place, the UK being the country they are aiming to represent by standing at this election.... Playing devil's advocate a bit, but isn't there a case to be made for the English being somewhat indifferent about the day to day problems of the rest of the UK? The one good thing about including Scottish and Welsh politicians in the debate is that'll remind people that we are a union of countries. Of course, it's probably redundant. Those Scots have the lot. I hear they are replacing all motorways with a 6-lane gold-plated flume system. At English taxpayer expense, naturally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Why is it that the taffs + main UK parties don't have a debate on BBC Taff, the SNP + main UK parties on BBC Jock and NI parties + main UK on BBC Paddy? This would leave the main UK parties for nationwide debate instead of us having to put up with the whinging celts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Why is it that the taffs + main UK parties don't have a debate on BBC Taff, the SNP + main UK parties on BBC Jock and NI parties + main UK on BBC Paddy? This would leave the main UK parties for nationwide debate instead of us having to put up with the whinging celts. If we are going to have debates , this is clearly the fairest system . As an English voter I don't want to listen to Ian Paisley jr ranting on about Fenians or some obscure Taff moaning about the price of sheep dip. Personally I would have one QT type programme per party , where the front bench are quizzed by journos specialising in their field . I want to see potential chancellors , Home Secretaries , foreign secretaries , health ect , put on the spot . Anyone who votes on the basis of a debate is a moron . You end up voting for the best debater , not the best candidate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 (edited) By that token, any separatist movement anywhere in the world could be deemed unconstitutional. Self-determination is supposed to trump all, at least in theory. I guess argument in this scenario is that the separatists could end up with a disproportional amount of influence on UK politics by being in the cabinet. The same amount of disproportionate representation that people were moaning about in 2010 when the Lib Dems got a sniff of power. Yes, OK, the lib dems have hardly altered the course of history with their interventions, but thats largely due to them ultimately acting in the interests of the UK whereas the SNP would be aiming to cause as much disharmony as possible. Edited 27 January, 2015 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I am yet to meet a Labour supporter who approves of Special Ed as a leader. Obviously the point of an election is to pick a political party, and not pick your next Prime Minister (although intrinsically linked), but surely he is making it difficult for those on the edge to vote Labour. I don't even think most of his party wanted him leader, he just sucked up to the Unions and got their block votes. I despise the Conservatives with a passion but have to admit that a party that can't even get their leader right doesn't deserve to run the country. David Milliband is way more electable than Ed. He can actually speak properly and doesn't look like a cartoon character for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Yes, it's a UK Election with debates on UK television and you are trying to make out a case for a party whose main reason for existence is to leave the UK. Don't you see anything ironic in that? I assume you opposed Farage debating Clegg over the EU then? Also, why is it ironic? That is their view, they clearly represent a number of people that share the same opinion. Not liking their stance is not a reason to not give them space in a debate No, of course refusing the SNP air-time in the TV debates does not solve the West Lothian question. But it would be sheer hypocrisy for their MPs to vote on English matters after the GE when we cannot vote on theirs, wouldn't it? What would be fun if they are to be included in a national TV debate, would be for the other parties who represent mainly English constituencies to ask them whether they will act in an honourable way and refrain from voting in English matters, or will they be despised and worthy of contempt for being hypocrites? Polls are likely to be wide of the mark for the reasons I gave. And 1000 is quite often the sample size. As I said, I was not advocating that air-time was to be allocated based on number of seats or indeed number of votes cast. These were just alternative methods which could be argued for. Numbers of seats would give the SNP more time, whereas number of votes cast would give them very much less. If you were a politician trying to convince a room of 100 voters to vote for your party what would you gain most from? - A room where only 10% of the people could vote for you? Or - a room where 90% of the people could vote for you? The reason the SNP are so keen to participate in the "10% room" is to bang the separation drum on a bigger stage rather than presenting the policies that they believe will make the UK a better place, the UK being the country they are aiming to represent by standing at this election.... Why is banging the separation drum to a larger audience that can't vote for them such a worry. Fairly sure they have other policies, separate to Independence. Considering there is a reasonable (as in it wouldn't be the greatest all time shock) chance they could end up in a coalition govt, it's a decent chance for those in the uk to hear from a party that may potentially end up forming their govt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I assume you opposed Farage debating Clegg over the EU then? Also, why is it ironic? That is their view, they clearly represent a number of people that share the same opinion. Not liking their stance is not a reason to not give them space in a debate Why is banging the separation drum to a larger audience that can't vote for them such a worry. Fairly sure they have other policies, separate to Independence. Considering there is a reasonable (as in it wouldn't be the greatest all time shock) chance they could end up in a coalition govt, it's a decent chance for those in the uk to hear from a party that may potentially end up forming their govt. Fair point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I guess argument in this scenario is that the separatists could end up with a disproportional amount of influence on UK politics by being in the cabinet. The same amount of disproportionate representation that people were moaning about in 2010 when the Lib Dems got a sniff of power. Yes, OK, the lib dems have hardly altered the course of history with their interventions, but thats largely due to them ultimately acting in the interests of the UK whereas the SNP would be aiming to cause as much disharmony as possible. Do you honestly think any of these parties are operating in the best interests of the UK? Once, maybe. The Lib Dems put power over principles, time and again, going against the British public each time. They've enabled this bandit Parliament when they could and should have walked away at the first sign of trouble. It wouldn't have taken long. The one thing that I can guarantee in the next election, whoever wins, is that more of the state will be handed over to big business and those plucky Parliamentarians made redundant by the British public will find really good jobs in the private sector with great hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 27 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 27 January, 2015 Do you honestly think any of these parties are operating in the best interests of the UK? Once, maybe. The Lib Dems put power over principles, time and again, going against the British public each time. They've enabled this bandit Parliament when they could and should have walked away at the first sign of trouble. It wouldn't have taken long. OK, perhaps I should have worded it differently. I mean they have the best interest of the UK in that they don't want it broken apart ergo they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise the future of the UK. The SNP would do anything they could to undermine the UK. Anyway, if there's one thing I should credit the SNP for its that they've made politics almost interesting again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/01/27/100-days-to-go-membership-of-the-green-party-of-england-and-wales-passes-50,000/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 27 January, 2015 Share Posted 27 January, 2015 I assume you opposed Farage debating Clegg over the EU then? Also, why is it ironic? That is their view, they clearly represent a number of people that share the same opinion. Not liking their stance is not a reason to not give them space in a debate. Why is banging the separation drum to a larger audience that can't vote for them such a worry. Fairly sure they have other policies, separate to Independence. Considering there is a reasonable (as in it wouldn't be the greatest all time shock) chance they could end up in a coalition govt, it's a decent chance for those in the uk to hear from a party that may potentially end up forming their govt. The debate between Farage and Clegg was during the European Elections and effectively Farage represented a very large tranche of the electorate who wish to have a referendum on whether we ought to stay in the EU or not. Clegg was the self-appointed front man for the coalition trying to make himself look good, but getting walloped in the process. The difference is that there were just the two of them in the debate and that each put across opposing views. UKIP wants a referendum on the EU, whereas the SNP have already had their referendum on independence and lost it. The SNP do represent a number of people who share the same opinion, largely Scots who want to leave the UK. UKIP have a much larger number of voters who they represent all over the UK, who would like to have a referendum too on their own burning issue. Trousers, Lord D and me have given several reasons why we feel that they should not be given space in a debate. You think that they should. So just different opinions where opposing views are obviously entrenched. Yes, the SNP have a realistic chance of forming the next government in coalition with Labour, but everybody knows what their policies are on most things, having had to endure Salmond telling us all during their referendum debates. And if they do form a coalition with Labour, then there will be the deepest resentment in England if they use their MPs votes on English matters, so if it brings that matter to a head at long last, then at least that is something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 28 January, 2015 Share Posted 28 January, 2015 The debate between Farage and Clegg was during the European Elections and effectively Farage represented a very large tranche of the electorate who wish to have a referendum on whether we ought to stay in the EU or not. Clegg was the self-appointed front man for the coalition trying to make himself look good, but getting walloped in the process. The difference is that there were just the two of them in the debate and that each put across opposing views. UKIP wants a referendum on the EU, whereas the SNP have already had their referendum on independence and lost it. The SNP do represent a number of people who share the same opinion, largely Scots who want to leave the UK. UKIP have a much larger number of voters who they represent all over the UK, who would like to have a referendum too on their own burning issue. Trousers, Lord D and me have given several reasons why we feel that they should not be given space in a debate. You think that they should. So just different opinions where opposing views are obviously entrenched. Yes, the SNP have a realistic chance of forming the next government in coalition with Labour, but everybody knows what their policies are on most things, having had to endure Salmond telling us all during their referendum debates. And if they do form a coalition with Labour, then there will be the deepest resentment in England if they use their MPs votes on English matters, so if it brings that matter to a head at long last, then at least that is something. How did you come to that conclusion? Don't you listen to the SNP. More than 1.6 million Scots voted in favour of separation, and the SNP will continue to work to achieve that for them. The other 55% of voters ticked the wrong box because they didn't understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 28 January, 2015 Share Posted 28 January, 2015 How did you come to that conclusion? Don't you listen to the SNP. More than 1.6 million Scots voted in favour of separation, and the SNP will continue to work to achieve that for them. The other 55% of voters ticked the wrong box because they didn't understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 Just watching daily politics and the labour bloke is getting a right grilling. Labour opened up the NHS to more private companies than what the coalition want to do/have done. yet, the 'tories' are destroying the NHS in england by 'privatisation' (despite it performing better than the labour NHS in wales) yet it was not 'privatisation' when labour had their hands on it in England for so long.......so was the cut of the jib on the show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 http://www.buzzfeed.com/solomonhughes/nhs-contract-stoke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 30 January, 2015 Share Posted 30 January, 2015 http://www.buzzfeed.com/solomonhughes/nhs-contract-stoke does cheaper mean 'the best'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2015 Author Share Posted 30 January, 2015 does cheaper mean 'the best'? No, of course not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now