Who should be included in the leaders’ debates for the 2015 general election?

First topic message reminder :

The UK general election campaign of 2010 was unique in at least one way – it was the first time that televised leaders’ debates were held. It was decided that the leaders of Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats would be included, because they represented the three largest parties and because they contested every constituency in Britain.
 
Until recently, Cameron wasn’t going to agree to leaders’ debates in 2015. Historically, that was a common response from an incumbent Prime Minister, no doubt because a debate reduces his or her status to that of being equal to the leaders of other parties. However, Cameron seems to have come round to the idea, but he won’t agree on who should take part. In particular, he doesn’t think Nigel Farage of UKIP should be included.
 
So who should be included? These seem to be the issues to consider:-
 
- UKIP claims that its leader should take part in the debates because it is matching and often outpolling the Liberal Democrats, and because it has a lot of councillors and some MEPs and will probably do well in the 2014 EU elections.
 
- A recent ComRes poll found that 54% of people think Nigel Farage should be allowed to take part.
 
- The broadcasters may well want Farage on the platform. Although his slick replies are often trite or even downright dishonest, love him or loathe him he does make for good television.
 
- Many countries that have PR as their voting system have a threshold of 5%. If your party gets at least that, it gets seats in the legislature. If polls are anything to go by, UKIP is almost certain to get more than 5% - but it probably won’t win any seats because we don’t have PR.
 
- The leaders’ debates will be part of the campaign for an election to the British Parliament (not the EU), where UKIP has no MPs and won only 3.2% of the vote in 2010. According to the pollsters, UKIP probably won’t win any seats at Westminster in 2015 either.
 
- If UKIP’s leader is allowed to take part in the debates, why not the leader of the Green Party, which does at least have an MP at Westminster?
 
- Cameron has said: "Obviously, we have to decide on this nearer the time, but the TV debates should be about the parties that are competing to form the government, in my view.” If "competing to form the next Westminster government" means those parties who can possibly get a majority in Westminster, then it should only be Labour and the Tories represented on the platform.
 
- The Germans are having a general election on 22 September. Their televised debates only include the two party leaders who have any chance of becoming their Chancellor (the equivalent of our PM).
 
- After the precedent set in 2010, it's unlikely that Cameron would have the audacity to exclude Clegg from the debates, but that won't stop a significant number in his party attempting to do so.
 
- Alex Salmond was excluded from the debates in 2010 on the basis that the SNP, fielding candidates only in Scotland, could not be in a position to form a government for the whole of the UK.
 
- If "competing to form the next Westminster government" means any party who could possibly form part of a government coalition in Westminster, then all party leaders in the UK should be represented - and that applies equally to the SNP, PC, UKIP, the Green Party and the Ulster parties.
 
Isn’t life complicated? So many issues thrown up just over a few televised debates. There is one simple solution: don’t have any debates, or would that be a case of trying to put the genie back in the bottle?
 
I recognise the need to interest the voting public, but electing a government is not the same as choosing the winner of ‘X Factor’. Remember all that 'Cleggmania' last time? I assume he was considered the best-looking of the candidates, but what did that tell us about his honesty and integrity? Nothing. Our general elections are not about electing a President (sadly) or even electing a Prime Minister, all we can do is elect our local MP. In my opinion, televised debates encourage the cult of personality, when an election campaign should focus on policies.
 
But I digress. Assuming the debates do take place, who do you think should be allowed to take part? And why?
 
Source used:-
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/how-will-tories-justify-farages-exclusion-leaders-debates

The feverish debate surrounding a TV confrontation is yet more Bread and circuses designed to distract the electorate from the main issue, which is perpetuating the Tory control of government.

I do not think the people of the UK will ever forget this coalition gov't OW, they know who makes up the coalition (Tories & Lib-Dems) A lot of people have got the scars and the tee-shirt to prove it, Ed Miliband and the Labour MPs need to keep reminding the people of all of call me Dave BROKEN PROMISES since the 2010 general election.

You can find a lively current discussion on Youtube concerning this and similar matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M6I9terO0Q

If youre name is on the ballot paper you should have as much opportunity to speak as any other.

Quite right ghost whistler, may I say it's nice to see you posting again.

stuart torr wrote:Quite right ghost whistler, may I say it's nice to see you posting again.

Thanks, i keep forgetting this site in my bookmarks list!

I will send you reminders next time

Chances of a TV election debate? Choose between zilch and nada

Extracts from an article by Andrew Rawnsley:-

In 2010, Cameron pronounced that “we will have TV debates in every election in the future and that is a really good thing for democracy”. Osborne ran the last Tory campaign and was widely castigated by his colleagues for agreeing to debates; he told friends that he is not going to make the same mistake twice. Crosby is also dead-set against TV debates. The Tories have done everything in their power to prevent TV debates from happening at this election.

If the Cameron brand is supposed to be the strong and confident leader, why is he frit of debating with Ed Miliband, a man the Tories keep telling us is hopelessly weak? Won’t it simply look bad to deny TV debates to the voters? Yes, but the Tories are calculating that any fuss will be short-lived, soon forgotten and, in the end, not that many voters will punish them for it, especially if their spinners can successfully sow confusion about who is responsible.

It would be fair to include the Greens in the debates – and I hoot with laughter to hear that argument coming from Cameron. When did he become obsessed with championing the rights of minority parties? In the history of political excuses, this must go down as one of the most terrible. A way to flush him out would be to strip him of the Green fig leaf he is using as his pretext for not debating and include Natalie Bennett in one. Even then, the Tories are so determined to avoid debates that they’d most likely concoct another pretext for sabotaging them. But at least everyone would then be crystal clear who is to blame.

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/11/tv-election-debate-wont-happen-david-cameron-determined

It would be appropriate to keep that discussion 'live' as long as possible

I think many people realise he is afraid of the result of a fair debate - Cameron's debating style depends on bullying and shouting down his opponent - which would be very noticeable in a live televised debate.

That is so true boatlady, bossy bossy bossy typical Tory attitude.

So keep on commenting about the leaders debates on social media and internet for as long as anyone will engage with the discussion

Any televised debate which Cameron declines to attend should follow the "empty chair" precedent.

However the precise problem for the BBC is that a re-elected Tory administration would exact a full revenge for such a slight.

I think we all have to keep possitive OW that with all the people that the Tories have hurt though there nasty cuts who is left to vote Tory ? Then over the weekend it came out the Tories intend to finish off the Unions that started under the Thatcher Tory gov't so all those members of all the Unions I think will not be voting Tory.

All the people they have hurt with there vile nasty cuts comes to Millions who will not be voting Tory, someone on this page mentioned that Cameron is copying the Major 1992 G.E but I tend to think more like Tony Blairs 1997 win for Ed and the Labour party.

In todays Daily Mirror Norman Tebbit has said that Cameron is "FRIT" of taking part in the televised debates and it will harm him if he does not take part, his cry of the Greens are not taking part so I am not but did not hear about the DUP NI party or UUP or SNP or Plaid when the DUP party sometimes backs the Tories in the HOC you would of thought he would want them to be in the debates.

Yes I read that too Redflag, FRIT IS that another word for scared shitless?

Some people in Yorkshire have been known to use the word "frittened", as in something like "frittened to death". "Frit" is an abbreviation of that and has been used in Lincolnshire, where Thatcher grew up. The word became known to a wider audience after she used it in an exchange with Denis Healey in the House of Commons in 1983.

Thus is born Parliamentary Tradition.

stuart torr wrote:Yes I read that too Redflag, FRIT IS that another word for scared shitless?

Yesstuart your spot on I think at the moment Cameron has a bad dose of "DIARROHEA"

The actor and comedian David Schneider has posted on Twitter: "Here is Cameron's final offer on the debates - him and 265 other party leaders, with no cameras, mikes, audience or questions":-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_UlRJWWkAAW5VK.jpg

All true - contemptible and true

The British public cannot fail but to have seen just what Cameron represents and his determination to avoid having to account for himself in a pre-election Debate.

If they allow him back into power, it will be only because they want -or are prepared to tolerate -what he stands for, and that he is better than what they consider to be even less attractive propositions...

I think it falls into the same category as "sucking-up to the Boss".

Having aspirations to wealth implies being amenable to those who already have it.

Yes, Sir. No, Sir. Three bags full, Sir. Beggin' your pardon and meanin' no 'arm, Sir.

You could put some of that at the door of Grammar School education imho

The careful plan to make Ed Miliband look like the Village Idiot could not survive a debate between him and the flab, obviously, which is why the tories are running scared. Cameron has never anything to say. I think it should be left at that, however: we are ruled by Parliament, not by fuhrers, and what I'm interested in is the bias of the BBC, since we pay for it.

I think the BBC is often in a difficult position - like the Civil Service it is meant to be unbiased but, also like the Civil Service, it is dependent on the whims of the current government for its budget and in the case of the BBC for its very existence.

I'm aware that people like Nick Robinson have a certain bias; however, it is maybe interesting that these are the type of people who get the prominent jobs when we have a Tory government

I suspect if the BBC was not a bit right-leaning it would lose its license

boatlady wrote:I think the BBC is often in a difficult position - like the Civil Service it is meant to be unbiased but, also like the Civil Service, it is dependent on the whims of the current government for its budget and in the case of the BBC for its very existence.

I'm aware that people like Nick Robinson have a certain bias; however, it is maybe interesting that these are the type of people who get the prominent jobs when we have a Tory government

I suspect if the BBC was not a bit right-leaning it would lose its license

We are stuck with that - What I want is for the likes of Humphreys to be equally scared of both sides.

That would be nice - he is a bit of a nasty old right winger isn't he? - and a bully to boot

The type of person who watches TV on their smartphone is probably indifferent to fine shades of political opinion. The precise future of Broadcasting is unknowable.

Hypocrite!  


https://www.youtube.com/embed/fxQ6L3kN4n8

I wonder why young voters have such little respect for politicians.

oftenwrong wrote:I wonder why young voters have such little respect for politicians.

Remember Cleggmania?

'You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God, the British journalist,
But seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.'

That is exactly what the broadcasters should do Ivan of Davy boy does not turn up for the debates put a chicken in his chair it even might lay a EGG, then Ed Miliband can have it for his breakfast while Davy boy hides behind the door of No10.

How many people were tuned in to BBC3TV last night to see Ed Miliband answer questions from a panel of youngsters? On his own.
Impressed with his confidence in a Labour majority government after May election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31864139

Missed that - he does speak well and exudes a sort of relaxed confidence that makes a good impression on me, anyway

oftenwrong wrote:How many people were tuned in to BBC3TV last night to see Ed Miliband answer questions from a panel of youngsters?  On his own.
Impressed with his confidence in a Labour majority government after May election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31864139

I watched only because I seen it advertized on twitter OW, our Ed did very well in answering ALL the question that where asked of him I thought he did very well proof that he would wipe the floor with Davy boy. What did you think of that guy with the big mouth who was proud to announce he was a Tory voter but could not keep his big mouth shut for 5 minutes until the presenter of the show had to tell him to shut the EFF up.

Plus Ivan all the bloody "BLATANT LIES" he has told the people of the UK, I would like to see all his LIES come back and bite him on the butt now that would be painfull for Davy boy.