Leadership debates, should the SNP take part?

[gtc]

It is up to the BBC and ITV to decide how many people to invite to debate but even a three way debate is unwieldy.

The SNP, UKIP, the BNP, the DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Greens are all minor parties. A 10 way debate is too ridiculous for words but each of those parties could argue that it would be unfair to allow the SNP to participate without allowing them to also participate. The UKIP and the DUP would appear to have the strongest case for complaining. I have outlined the reasons why.

You appear to disagree but you have not explained why.

 

[Darat]

It is up to the BBC and ITV to decide how many people to invite to debate but even a three way debate is unwieldy.

...snip...

We have very strict restrictions on political reporting once a General Election has been called so it would probably be in the hands of the Electoral Commission to make the call on the format and make-up of any such debate.

 

[gtc]

We have very strict restrictions on political reporting once a General Election has been called so it would probably be in the hands of the Electoral Commission to make the call on the format and make-up of any such debate.

OK. The article seemed to be suggesting that the broadcasters would be deciding the make up, while seeking to ensure impartiality.

The broadcasters have said they would each seek "to make suitable arrangements for ensuring due impartiality across the UK", but have not yet explained how that would be achieved.

That said, my comments apply to whichever body makes the decision.

Out of interest, how could the Scottish Government go about blocking the screening?

But the SNP has threatened to seek to block the screening in Scotland of any debate which did not include Scottish First Minister Mr Salmond.

They don't seem to have any devolved powers in this area.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Out of interest, how could the Scottish Government go about blocking the screening?

...snip...

They couldn't, it's a general election so nowt to do with the devolved areas.

ETA: That's why his comments only make sense in terms of the "we're being oppressed" rallying call of the SNP.

 

[gtc]

They couldn't, it's a general election so nowt to do with the devolved areas.

And even if it was they don't seem to have any control over broadcasters.

ETA: That's why his comments only make sense in terms of the "we're being oppressed" rallying call of the SNP.

Even then it makes people look silly to make threats they can't carry out.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Even then it makes people look silly to make threats they can't carry out.

Not in the eyes of the SNP, for them it becomes yet another example of being under the yoke of the oppressor.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know what the answer to this is. From the point of view of voters in Scotland, where the SNP is comfortably ahead in the Westminster opinion polls (or was the last time I looked), it would be completely surreal to have a high-profile debate without any representation from the party. However, many of the points made in the thread are quite legitimate.

Much will probably depend on the exact format decided for the debate or debates. I don't see much point in speculating until that has become a lot clearer.

Rolfe.

 

[funk de fino]

It is up to the BBC and ITV to decide how many people to invite to debate but even a three way debate is unwieldy.

The SNP, UKIP, the BNP, the DUP, Sinn Fein, Plaid Cymru and the Greens are all minor parties. A 10 way debate is too ridiculous for words but each of those parties could argue that it would be unfair to allow the SNP to participate without allowing them to also participate. The UKIP and the DUP would appear to have the strongest case for complaining. I have outlined the reasons why.

You appear to disagree but you have not explained why.

And again you are incorrect. I am querying your cherrypicking use of data. I have already said Salmond should not take part. Try reading my posts instead of seeing what you want to see. It's not difficult.

He should keep out of this farce

It's also up to Sky and the Electoral commission, so you are wrong on that as well. Lets say they have a debate up here in Scotland. Should the 4th party be excluded? Is this based on votes or seats?

 

[funk de fino]

And even if it was they don't seem to have any control over broadcasters.

Even then it makes people look silly to make threats they can't carry out.

The decision would most likely lay with the Electoral Commission and the appeal would be to them.

 

[gtc]

And again you are incorrect. I am querying your cherrypicking use of data.

Calling something cherrypicking does not make it so. When you have a coherent statment to make about why you think that examining votes won and seats won is not a legitimate way to determine the support for a party then please make that statement. At the moment you just seem to be wanting to bicker and I have no interest in continuing in that vein.

I have already said Salmond should not take part. Try reading my posts instead of seeing what you want to see. It's not difficult.

No one is suggesting that you believe that Salmond should participate. As I have said repeatedly your initial posts on the subject were not clear. I have no idea why you keep harping on about this.

It's also up to Sky and the Electoral commission, so you are wrong on that as well.

The BBC article I quoted was obviously incomplete. If you had read Darat's post you would see that this has been covered.

Lets say they have a debate up here in Scotland. Should the 4th party be excluded? Is this based on votes or seats?

Why the false dichotomy? I am clearly saying that both are valid ways to measure a party's support.

As regards a hypothetical Scottish debate I have already answered this question and you have already responded:

They received 1 seat and 15.8% of the Scottish vote. The SNP received 17.7% of the vote and 6 seats.

As I have already said, it would be odd if the SNP didn't get to participate in a debate for Scottish TV. Given their percentage of vote I would think it would also be odd if the Tories didn't get to participate.

To which you replied:

So the Tories are irrelevant for Scotland? At a pinch they may get two in total next year while the SNP may gain considerably.

Which is a nonsense as I clearly pointed out my opinion that the Tories are not irrelevant based on votes won (even before you consider the likelihood of them forming the next government).

The decision would most likely lay with the Electoral Commission and the appeal would be to them.

Indeed. It sounds highly optimistic to think that complaining to the Electoral Commission that someone not standing for election should be allowed to debate would lead to the debate being blocked from Scottish TV.

 

[funk de fino]

Calling something cherrypicking does not make it so. When you have a coherent statment to make about why you think that examining votes won and seats won is not a legitimate way to determine the support for a party then please make that statement. At the moment you just seem to be wanting to bicker and I have no interest in continuing in that vein.

Why did you not say how many votes the DUP got or how many seats the UKIP got?

No one is suggesting that you believe that Salmond should participate. As I have said repeatedly your initial posts on the subject were not clear. I have no idea why you keep harping on about this.

My initial post was this.

He should keep out of this farce

Explain what is unclear about that? Stop running away from it.

The BBC article I quoted was obviously incomplete. If you had read Darat's post you would see that this has been covered.

Obviously. He did not mention Sky however

Why the false dichotomy? I am clearly saying that both are valid ways to measure a party's support.

And I am saying you spun it with how you used them. Initial posts again.

As regards a hypothetical Scottish debate I have already answered this question and you have already responded:

To which you replied:

Which is a nonsense as I clearly pointed out my opinion that the Tories are not irrelevant based on votes won (even before you consider the likelihood of them forming the next government).

So how many should be allowed to debate in Scotland? What is this based on? Votes or seats. Should it just be Labour and SNP? Who should be debating? The leaders from the UK parties or the Scottish based parties?

Indeed. It sounds highly optimistic to think that complaining to the Electoral Commission that someone not standing for election should be allowed to debate would lead to the debate being blocked from Scottish TV.

You would be surprised at the rules and regulations they have here and the power the electoral commission has for TV stuff.

 

[Rolfe]

The current suggestion for debating format (I think) seems to be that Brown should go one-on-one with Cameron and Clegg separately. I could see a problem with this in general terms, because that gives Brown twice the coverage of either of the others.

If that were the format, then a third debate, Brown against an SNP opponent, only to be broadcast in Scotland, might be reasonable. However, I have a feeling Brown might refuse to lower himelf to debate with Angus Robertson or whoever might be the appropriate person. Also, the more this format is multiplied, the more Brown gets disproportionately excessive coverage.

It will be interesting to see how they square this particular circle. At the moment, I only see Salmond's protestations as a way of making sure those planning the events don't forget that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, this isn't a three-horse race (or at least, it's not the same three horses).

Rolfe.

 

[gtc]

The current suggestion for debating format (I think) seems to be that Brown should go one-on-one with Cameron and Clegg separately. I could see a problem with this in general terms, because that gives Brown twice the coverage of either of the others.

So will the chance to refine his speil help Brown or will the extra exposure hinder him?

If that were the format, then a third debate, Brown against an SNP opponent, only to be broadcast in Scotland, might be reasonable. However, I have a feeling Brown might refuse to lower himelf to debate with Angus Robertson or whoever might be the appropriate person. Also, the more this format is multiplied, the more Brown gets disproportionately excessive coverage.

That sounds like a silly way to do it.

It will be interesting to see how they square this particular circle. At the moment, I only see Salmond's protestations as a way of making sure those planning the events don't forget that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, this isn't a three-horse race (or at least, it's not the same three horses).

Rolfe.

A three way debate between the two potential PMs and the Lib Dems seems the parsimonious solution for the UK wide debate and then local debates in whichever home country or region or what not that wants one.

Why did you not say how many votes the DUP got or how many seats the UKIP got?

Because the claim implicit in the SNP's complaints is that the SNP is the fourth most important party in the UK. To debunk such a claim you look for evidence that it is not true.

Explain what is unclear about that? Stop running away from it.

I have explained repeatedly what was unclear about it. You made two posts that consisted of short sentences that could be construed as contradicting each other. If you don't provide some basic elaboration of your points (to explain what you actually mean and why you mean that) then you can expect people not to grasp your points.

For example, it was not at all clear whether you were saying that Alex Salmond should not participate because the debates would be a farce or whether you were saying that Alex Salmond shouldn't participate but someone else from the SNP should.

So how many should be allowed to debate in Scotland?

Answered.

What is this based on? Votes or seats.

Answered.

Should it just be Labour and SNP?

Restating the initial question.

Who should be debating? The leaders from the UK parties or the Scottish based parties?

Irrelevant but I have no opinion either way.

You would be surprised at the rules and regulations they have here and the power the electoral commission has for TV stuff.

Not really.

 

[funk de fino]

Because the claim implicit in the SNP's complaints is that the SNP is the fourth most important party in the UK. To debunk such a claim you look for evidence that it is not true.

Incorrect and a false claim. The OP link does not state that. Please source this claim.

I have explained repeatedly what was unclear about it. You made two posts that consisted of short sentences that could be construed as contradicting each other. If you don't provide some basic elaboration of your points (to explain what you actually mean and why you mean that) then you can expect people not to grasp your points.

You said initial posts. What was my first post and what did that convey to you?

My next post said a post was spin. If that construes to you that it was the opposite of my initial post then it says more about you than my post. Stop being a coward and admit you mistook that fact that I said SNP should avoid this debate for the fantasy where you thought I thought they should be taking part.

For example, it was not at all clear whether you were saying that Alex Salmond should not participate because the debates would be a farce or whether you were saying that Alex Salmond shouldn't participate but someone else from the SNP should.

It was quite a short and to the point post. He should avoid it. It is not too difficult to follow. For most.

Answered. Answered. Restating the initial question.

Really? Answer the question. Who should be allowed to take part in Scotland? The 4th party?

What do we use to decide up here? Votes or seats?

Irrelevant but I have no opinion either way.

See above.

Not really.

Yes really, your posts show this to be true.