Something that is getting my goat a little: Cameron is saying that he won't participate in TV debates if the Greens aren't invited. This is being presented as a ruse to avoid TV debates by the other parties. For me this throws up a lot of questions: 1. Why wouldn't you invite the Greens? 2. If Cameron doesn't want to show up, you can still have a good debate with Farage, Clegg and Milliband - and the Greens. 3. In a democracy where people can only have one vote every 5 years, what right does Cameron think he has to deprive the people of informed debate? I find it astonishingly arrogant that the PM would decide if the people need to be informed about the parties they are voting for. Of course they do. The BBC should just organise the debates, invite the participants and if they don't show, more fool them. I think they will happen, and when they do, here is a ready made thread on which you can vent your ire.
I think the Greens and the SNP should be invited together with reprentatives from the Muslim race. Up 10 minutes and no bites.... Fishing's bad today.
1. Or the Monster Raving Loony Party. Cameron has everything to lose and little to gain, The Greens will mitigate the risk. 2. Legal issues. The broadcasters have a legal responsibility to show balance. 3. Was the last debate informative ? Clegg came out poorly, but what else would anyone expect ? Yes they will happen, but don't expect anything other than preprepared soundbites.
The avatar has gone blank again! EDIT: No, someone has given the best present ever...a new coffee mug. The wife?
i know i was only pissing about. i think the snp should be there, as far as members go they are bigger than than the uk liberals. as you are probably sick of hearing.:smile:
Watching question time now. Cameron won the slanging match. And looks so much stronger than the other guy?
The parties with seats in the House of Commons at present comprise: Conservative Labour Liberal Democrat Scottish National Plaid Cymru Democratic Unionist Sinn Fein SDLP (NI) UKIP Alliance Respect Greens The question is whether all twelve parties should take part in a debate? Or just the top two? Or how far down the list should it go? Since the Greens have only one seat, why should they take priority over parties with several seats?
Indeed, but as you know it is currently talks about talks. I think Respect and UKIP should be included
I think they should all be included, at least anyone you can vote for in England. There's no point debating with regional parties who aren't going to field candidates in the country you live in. You'd have to split the debates into 2 or 3 but so what? The idea that only the major parties get a say is ridiculous. That's not democracy, that's self-perpetuating oligarchy (which is sort of what we have).
There is no party which fields candidates throughout the UK. Every party restricts itself to selected constituencies, even the two main parties.
This has all got complicated at a rather early stage. Nothing seems to have been decided for sure yet: BBC News - Greens are 'not a major party', suggests Ofcom I am sure there is a lot of political weighing up of pros-and-cons on all sides, but at the moment it looks to me like: Cameron - not a lot to gain from appearing, but he'll probably be forced to. At least he can expect to demonstrate some "gravitas", even if only on the strength of "I have been PM and the country has not collapsed". Miliband - people are entitled to their opinions, but he still just looks like a tedious smart-arse students' union debater to me. Clegg - doomed, but I am fairly sure that the LibDems good showing in 2010 was put down partly to his performance in the debate last time (didn't opinion polls show a surge in LibDem popularity immediately afterwards? Most people didn't even know who he was until then). There's something so "sincere" and self-righteous about him though Farage - will have a field day Bennett - might go down well with some, especially socialists who are not impressed by Miliband. She's very much a water-melon (in the sense of being a Communist with a thin coat of green paint). Sturgeon etc - It's not clear whether the broadcasters might push to have some separate debates in Scotland, Wales and NI. Re Cameron, he can't simply refuse. I'll never forget the time that Have I Got News For You suffered a last minute cancellation by Roy Hattersley and instead of a substitute politician, they used something better:
What I mean is that there is no point in inviting the DUP, the SNP and Plaid Cymru to national debates on English TV, because they will just take up air time for nothing, as their concerns are non-English. You'd expect them to feature in debates in the respective countries. Many politicians don't like debating, because they like to dodge issues, prepare soundbites and control conversations. But it's pretty obvious that in this day and age, it makes a lot more sense to do more TV, radio etc than attend school halls in front of 100 constituents. The electorate is entitled to know what these clowns all stand for and to compare and contrast their specific policies.
murphy isn't a unionist now. i also hate this style of questioning BBC News - Jim Murphy: 'I've never been a Unionist'
Indeed, but the winner is usually not the one who makes the best argument but the person who doesn't make a complete arse of it. Contrast Wee Eck in his first debate with Alistair Darling compared to his second. Therefore the name of the game is not to put forward your case but to set traps for the other side to fall into. In that sense it isn't a "positive" debate.
