On the wine? Have you been on the beer? I said "theoretically". It can be a theoretical level playing field if all parties had the same media spend, the same television exposure. But they don't, of course. What do you think, that I am expecting the Green Party to be the party of government post the election? Don't take me for a complete fool. The posts are simple: if you want democracy, you allow equal expression to the parties you can vote for. If you just want a straight choice out of Tories or Labour, just let them monopolise the debate, make sure that only their leaders are ever interviewed on TV etc etc. The small parties can't win the marketing war, as they don't have the cash. If you're a cash-strapped business, the only thing that might give you some leverage is PR (public relations, before you think I mean proportional representation). The other parties at least deserve a voice they don't have to pay for. What is the Green manifesto? Come to that, what's the UKIP manifesto? The idea that the only people who are allowed to be elected are those who have already been elected is the really laughable thing in all this. Still, what do I care? I'm being represented by all sorts of different parties and what's more, I'm allowed to vote for more than one. I can even vote for the guy who I think is good at running the economy, although I don't much like his politics, and then vote for more left-wing people for other positions. But just you all carry on as you are.
It sounds like you are arguing for financial support for political parties from the taxpayer ? I am opposed to this. If a party can't raise funding from it's own supporters why should I pay for it ? Exposure should be in proportion to the support, and cash, they can raise. The problem arrises when individuals buy influence with the parties, so limit the size of individual donations and publish a list of donations above a certain size.
Not at all. What is the variable cost of inviting some of the smaller parties to debate with the others? Essentially nothing. Will it affect your licence fee? No. Will it impact your amount of BBC3 reality show bollocks? No. Brand leaders always sell more because... they are brand leaders. It doesn't mean that they are better products. If you want to get to better government, then a little thinking outside the box might help. Inviting some smaller parties to debate is a fairly cost-free and limited way of doing this. When you see the amount of crap on TV, I find it odd that anyone would grudge a few hours of it to try and help them decide who they would like to represent them.
The vision of a potential future PM is what I want to hear from a TV debate, the wittering and points scoring from the minor parties will not help that process. Let the minor party leaders have their own debate to put forward their ideas, then if they get support they can join the major parties next time round. For better government try The Plan: Twelve months to renew Britain: Amazon.co.uk: Douglas Carswell, Dan Hannan: 9780955979903: Books and make parliament, and therefore government, more accountable to the people. These are two completely separate issues.
I'm against TV debates involving politicians.It's rare that they give a straight answer to a straight question at any time,let alone when they know that anything they say will be slated by the other speakers,(and if it's the Beeb,in front of a specially selected audience.....) Nor do I care whether a party leader looks good in a suit,I'd bloody vote for Colombo if he was good for the Country Why not send a list of the 50 most important questions to each party HQ and then print the un-edited responses in the daily rags? Yes it would cost money,but at least we'd have the chance to pore over their plans at our leisure. It's a general election,not the bloody X Factor
In which case Glidd, the monster loony party should also be on there, as they do still command some votes Ukip will take either middle england disaffected tories who believe the immigration story for crime etc or old labour who see immigrants as a threat to their working class way of life Theoretically, The queen may disband the lot and stick Andrew in charge..
Well, as I say, if the MRL party were remotely serious about forming a government and didn't just want to discredit the debate with parody, sure, get them along. But they aren't so we can forget them. When I see the support for UKIP views on here, I'm not at all sure that they aren't the most representative party in the country at the moment. People may have to be careful what they wish for. Farage talks a better game than Clegg or Milliband and possibly than Cameron. OK, Prince Andrew it is then.
Saying is one thing. Doing is another. Why not invite them all, and have a few rounds in the build up? You could have people voting on the phones, real Peaoples stuff this, the stuff the politicians talk about all the time. Lowest vote is excluded from next round. To avoid an unfair pairing, you could start with a league, seprate into A and B, then each 'play' eachother, run it over 3 months. Andrew Marr can do the 'evicted' show, with clare Balding for eye candy...its a winner
maybe time for P.R., or we could just cut out the middle men and let the industrialist and media tycoons get on with it. cant imagine it would make me and many others less skeptical.
I think that's happened already. Corporatism sets the agenda, politicians do the presentational hair-splitting and the electorate pay for it - in all sorts of ways.
I'm pretty sure you said this in jest - and it is funny - but honestly, it's not such a bad idea. Aa you have already pointed out, it is in fact a popularity contest. Politics in the age of PR, soundbites and makeovers has been reduced to this, so maybe go the whole hog and call it like it is. It would be entertaining and might get more people out to vote on the day. I like it!
Depends how many candidates you are fielding. If it's only a handful, do you need to be taken seriously?
You might want to change race to religion. Muslims come from all races after all. But as they won't be standing as a single party in the election, what's the point of inviting them to a pre-general election political debate? I'm sure many Muslims will be standing for election for the other parties, though, especially Labour in London and the north.
I want to hear new ideas,from free-thinking people,who are not handcuffed to a party line or political dogma...because in many cases,the once-good ideas and theories from some time in history have been hijacked/manipulated/twisted by pressure groups, MumsNet middle class morality preachers and selfish interest groups...(not a comprehensive list by any means,but you get the picture).The NHS and the Welfare state are two very good examples. If media coverage is based on current popularity,I'll never hear of these new ideas. I had hoped that the Internet would provide a relatively inexpensive way for new ideas to be discussed,but sadly big corporations have taken over,and unless someone has reasonable funds to invest in Google adwords or similar there is little chance of this happening. So why not have a Government-run website where anyone can expound their political theories? Those who have more than a passing interest in the future of the Country could register as contributors or voting citizens,and then examine/question/comment on the ideas put forward. Can't see that costing a heap of tax-payers cash
