UKIP to be involved in 2015 Televised Debates - e-petitions You can laugh at them, sympathise with them or vote for them, but I think they should be heard. Circulate to aid democracy.
Each leader of each party is able to choose whether to engage in televised debates with leaders of other parties, and if so when, which ones, and on what terms. UKIP has never won a single seat at Westminster, so it is extremely unlikely any other party leaders would agree to include them. Several other parties (Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists, Greens, Ulster unionist parties, Sinn Fein) have won actual seats and hold them today, so they are well ahead of UKIP in that particular queue. The petition is a fantasy.
Yes Pete but who are the leaders of the Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists, Greens, Ulster unionist parties and Sinn Fein and what percentage of the vote do they get ? The petition may be a fantasy, but that is politics for you.
Pete you are absolutely correct about UKIP getting no seats. Of the minor parties you mention the Scottish Nationalists did the best with 6 seats, but, UKIP actually got twice the votes they did! And even the BNP got more votes than the SNP. When sorted by the votes received the table looks like this: Party Seats Votes Conservative 306 10706647 Labour 258 8604358 Liberal Dem 57 6827938 UK IP 0 917832 BNP 0 563743 SNP 6 491386 Others 1 319891 Green 1 285616 Sinn Fein 5 171942 DUP 8 168216 Plaid Cymru 3 165394 So, maybe UKIP and the BNP should be on the televised debates, but it won’t happen because the leaders of the bigger parties would find that too difficult. It’s a bit of a plus point for proportional representation because some parties are clearly punching above their weight! OK my table did not work when posted but the basic figures I'm trying to get across are that SNP have 6 seats and 491k votes while UKIP have 0 seats and 918k votes
It is a characteristic of our electoral system that a minor party with its support evenly spread across a great number of constituencies gets few or no seats, whilst a party with concentrated support in a limited number of constituencies may get more seats. The Scottish Welsh and Irish parties have, of course, no possibility of ever forming a UK government so they focus almost entirely on local issues; thus they are over-represented in seats but never represented in government, and it evens out. As regards opinion polls, at the mid-point of every parliament there is usually a protest factor which sees some fringe party getting the occasional flash 20% rating. Often they win the odd by-election (though UKIP has not managed even that). Come the general election most of the flash evaporates, as reality kicks in.
As a matter of abstract principles, proportional representation is attractive intellectually; I am greatly drawn to PR. In terms of practical politics, PR would mean always having coalition governments, and they mean that immediately after each election the parties would have to compromise on their manifestoes so that coalitions could be agreed. Thus the real question is not so much "Is PR fairer?" as rather "Do you want continual coalitions?" The Single Transferable Vote is the opposite of PR - I voted against it in the referendum.
The chances of a single party getting over 50% of the national vote are very unlikely indeed (no party has come near it in 60 years), so we are talking about coalitions. With the "winner takes all" system, there is a real possibility that the winning party may be able to attempt to implement its manifesto commitments; with a coalition that possibility disappears, and parties would always be forced to dump their manifestoes straight after the election and to compromise with other parties. Many countries operate exactly that system - the question is, do we want it in the UK? And would it be an improvement?
There are two points being muddled here. One is the method of putting MPs on seats after a general election and the other is the amount of exposure given to parties before the election. The subject of this thread is the latter of the two, so the pros and cons of PR and first past the post systems possibly don’t apply. The question is how we decide if UKIP (and other minority parties) are given the chance to step up next to the big three during the televised pre-election debates. It is, in my opinion, perfectly valid to say that a party should be given the exposure of the televised debates based on the interest shown in them across the whole of the country and to remove the effect of regionalised boundaries put in place to cater for the existing first past the post system used for the actual election. [FONT="]From the election results it is clear there are many more people in Britain who are interested in independence for Britain than in independence for Scotland so it’s reasonable to say that UKIP should be at the front of the queue to see how its policy stands up to the test of an open nationwide political debate[/FONT]
No it wouldn't be an improvement, it would further entrench the political class. Our politicians are tied too closely to the political party machines via the whips office. We need to break that and make them more accountable to the electorate. 60% of all seats are safe seats and their MP's are decided by a local constituency party or imposed by the central party machine. Open primaries for all candidates would be a start.
This is drifting away into fantasy-land. There's not a hope in hell that the leaders of any of the main parties would agree to admit the leader of any fringe party to their debates, let alone one which has never had a single MP.
It sounds as if you would like to see more rebellions by back-benchers, more defections, and more splits in parties. This would certainly make politics more exciting, chaotic and crisis-ridden which would be entertaining for those of us who love to follow the never-ending story. I'm afraid it would make it more difficult to get anything done though, or any legislation passed. Again, is that really the scenario we want?
Calm down Pete, this is supposed to be an open discussion. As I stated in Post 7 I do not believe that UKIP or any other minority party will get into the televised debate, but that does not mean it is the correct approach. I put forward a proposition that possibly the narrow minded approach of our political leaders is not correct and that the minority parties should be considered for inclusion. Whether the proposition is ‘fantasy’ is a matter of opinion but I should remind you that votes for women and the idea of a round earth were once considered to be a fantasy.
I would like to reduce the power of the political class. Politics is bland and all about not giving the other side the means with which to inflict damage and appealing to the lowest common denominator. Politics was more exciting, chaotic and crisis-ridden and people flocked to the parties, whereas now the individual membership of each main political party could fit into a single football stadium. That is what we certainly don't want, unless you want to give it all up to the unelected Commissioners in Europe ?
historically the whigs and tories were the rich, royals, peers and landed 'gentry' who wanted to maintain the 'status quo' and keep exploiting the other 99% of the population.. the unions came about from necessity and poverty, and eventually organised themselves into politcal movements...and produced the most heroic politicians..people of moral courage and scruples..many ended up in jail for their so called 'subversion' or were appallingly treated.. then it all turned to shit with the advent of the 'career politician'...people who saw that a career in politics opened many doors into the most powerful jibs in the private sector..principles and fairness (what little there ever was of it), went out the window. Can you honestly tell me, what a person such as George Osbourne knows about normal life??
In the 18th century I would suggest the Whig view was that the aristocracy should govern the nation in the interests of the people; the Tory view was that the aristocracy should govern the nation in the interests of the Tories.
