Prime Ministerial Debates- Thread

[funk de fino]

For you, not for the vast majority of the country.

I like you Rolfe, I think that things not covered by devolution should certainly be addressed, so don't get me wrong, but seriously? Seriously?

Let's compare the populations from the 2001 census shall we?

England: 49,138,831
Scotland: 5,062,011
Wales: 2,903,085
NI: 1,685,267

Percentages:

England: 83.6%
Scotland: 8.6%
Wales: 4.9%
NI: 2.9%

I know that there are issues that aren't covered by the devolutions of Scotland, Wales and NI, but frankly:

1. These were questions prepared by the general public, presumably those from Manchester, since that's where it was, but still, the topics that are or are not covered by the devolution isn't likely to be a big consideration for them.

2. There are going to be 2 more of these things. That one of the three didn't cover things of interest to a grand total of, if we assume NI, Scotland and Wales to be exactly the same in order to really give the devolved nations the maximum amount of influence, 16.4% of the nation isn't really a surprise, nor is it something I consider particularly earth-shattering in importance. Calling them a waste of time simply because they didn't address you is a rather narrow view of things.

I suppose when our "national" news has stories about *Wayne Rooneys ankle as a second story then we tend to get a bit grumpy and touchy up here.

*substitute with Beckhams metatarsal, Owens ligaments and Rooneys metatarsal anytime over the past years

 

[Soapy Sam]

Retune to Al Jazeera.
Wayne Rooney is rarely mentioned.

I would expect a debate by 3 English politicians on "Domestic issues" to cover precisely the issues devolved to Edinburgh and Cardiff. I understand there are other debates to come which might be of more relevance to viewers outside England.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I suppose when our "national" news has stories about *Wayne Rooneys ankle as a second story then we tend to get a bit grumpy and touchy up here.

*substitute with Beckhams metatarsal, Owens ligaments and Rooneys metatarsal anytime over the past years

Which is fair enough, hell I love football and I get hacked off that those stories are so massively important but when it comes to politics, there isn't a great deal you can do about it.

 

[Rolfe]

It's not an easy question. Of course viewers in England wouldn't have wanted the SNP or PC to be included. And debating devolved matters during a Westminster election campaign would be seen as pointless.

On the other hand, in Scotland the SNP gets more votes than the Tories and is currently in government in Holyrood. Broadcasting a debate to the whole of Scotland which excludes that party, and which spends a great deal of time talking about things which are completely irrelevant to a Westminster election in Scotland (without even an on-screen caption reminding viewers of that), isn't a good thing.

Mark makes an excellent case for Scottish independence - you're only 8.6% of the population, so just shut up and take it when we mess with your democratic process. Sure.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Very much so, and without the ridiculous credits at the beginning, hopefully.


..snip...

Isn't the next one on Sky News?

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Mark makes an excellent case for Scottish independence - you're only 8.6% of the population, so just shut up and take it when we mess with your democratic process. Sure.

Rolfe.

That wasn't his case at all - his case was that your statement "Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance." was erroneous.

 

[Rolfe]

I clarify. Total irrelevance to voters in Scotland, total waste of time in that context.

Great programme for English voters, I've no doubt. Unfortunately we were stuck with it too.

Rolfe.

 

[Lothian]

I clarify. Total irrelevance to voters in Scotland, total waste of time in that context.

Great programme for English voters, I've no doubt. Unfortunately we were stuck with it too.

Rolfe.

The debate discussed immigration. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on immigration?

The debate discussed MP's expenses and reformation of the UK parliament. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on MP's expenses and the UK parliament?

The debate discussed the UK armed forces. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on the UK armed forces?

The debate discussed the economy. Does no one in Scotland have any opinions on the UK economy?

 

[Rolfe]

Aagggghhhh! My original post commented that I didn't see the whole thing. I was commenting on the bits I happened to see. (I was setting up a new TV I bought yesterday, and perforce dropped in and out of various programmes.)

Rolfe.

 

[Ashles]

It's not an easy question. Of course viewers in England wouldn't have wanted the SNP or PC to be included. And debating devolved matters during a Westminster election campaign would be seen as pointless.

On the other hand, in Scotland the SNP gets more votes than the Tories and is currently in government in Holyrood. Broadcasting a debate to the whole of Scotland which excludes that party, and which spends a great deal of time talking about things which are completely irrelevant to a Westminster election in Scotland (without even an on-screen caption reminding viewers of that), isn't a good thing.

Then you have an issue with your Media not political debates.

Mark makes an excellent case for Scottish independence - you're only 8.6% of the population, so just shut up and take it when we mess with your democratic process. Sure.

Hearing the viewpoint of the three main political parties is not 'messing' with anyone's democratic process. If anything you are the one requesting bias and and an unfair proportion of your personal viewpoint represented.

Should we stop with the SNP and Paid Cymru? Should the Green party be on the panel? BNP too? Natural Health party?

To be a meaningful debate it needs to be between the three main parties who are the only serious contenders to be the next government.
Sorry but not every minority view (and however much you may not like it, the SNP is a minority view) can be given an equal platform.

 

[Rolfe]

By that token, every party is a minority one, as none of them gets over 50% of the total vote. What has happened here is that the party which got 18% of the vote in Scotland last time was excluded, while the party that got 16% was fully included.

Way to go, unionists.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

By that token, every party is a minority one, as none of them gets over 50% of the total vote. What has happened here is that the party which got 18% of the vote in Scotland last time was excluded, while the party that got 16% was fully included.

Way to go, unionists.

Rolfe.

What was the SNP's percentage of votes in Wales?

 

[Ashles]

By that token, every party is a minority one, as none of them gets over 50% of the total vote. What has happened here is that the party which got 18% of the vote in Scotland last time was excluded, while the party that got 16% was fully included.

That's why they restrict it to parties that actually have a chance of winning the general election. It's hard to understand why you can't understand this except that you are concinved your own minority view should have the same media presence as those which have much greater relevance to the vast majority of voters

 

[Mashuna]

What was the SNP's percentage of votes in Wales?

I understand it was on a par with the Plaid Cymru performance in Scotland.

 

[Darat]

That's why they restrict it to parties that actually have a chance of winning the general election. ...snip....

And that is the bit that Rolfe seems to be forgetting - this is an election that covers the whole of the country, not just one of the regions, so it makes sense to look at the percentage of votes a party got in the last general election not the percentage in just one region. I could understand the argument more if the SNP was a national party that fought across the whole of the country but it isn't.

Saying all that I still don't think we should have any of these debates!

 

[Rolfe]

That's why they restrict it to parties that actually have a chance of winning the general election. It's hard to understand why you can't understand this except that you are concinved your own minority view should have the same media presence as those which have much greater relevance to the vast majority of voters

Please link to where I said the SNP should have had the same media presence in that debate. I was complaining about the effect of what actually happened. I acknowledged that there wasn't an easy answer if these bloody debates had to be run.

I'm heartily sick and tired of my own nation being constantly sidelined and ignored as a "minority" within this behemoth of the UK.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Please link to where I said the SNP should have had the same media presence in that debate. I was complaining about the effect of what actually happened. I acknowledged that there wasn't an easy answer if these bloody debates had to be run.

I'm heartily sick and tired of my own nation being constantly sidelined and ignored as a "minority" within this behemoth of the UK.

Rolfe.

Yet as Lothian demonstrated that did not happen.

 

[Rolfe]

Saying all that I still don't think we should have any of these debates!

I agree with you. I think they were a very bad idea from a number of perspectives. There was never going to be a way to be fair to the major parties in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and arguably the smaller UK-wide parties can also legitimately complain about bias and exclusion.

It also smacks far too much of US-style presidential politics. Fine for the political system they have in the USA, but it doesn't sit well with British politics of the constituency vote.

Rolfe.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Aagggghhhh! My original post commented that I didn't see the whole thing. I was commenting on the bits I happened to see. (I was setting up a new TV I bought yesterday, and perforce dropped in and out of various programmes.)

Rolfe.

Well then maybe you should withold judgement on it being of 'total' irrelevance until you see the actual debate.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It also smacks far too much of US-style presidential politics. Fine for the political system they have in the USA, but it doesn't sit well with British politics of the constituency vote.

Rolfe.

To not listen to the views of the leaders is a profound mistake, given that the people you elect will be voting on the very issues that their leadership sets before them. Private memebers bills hardly ever pass. The British system has a far more vicious whip system than America too, with many of your local MP's dragged into a 'yay' or 'nay' vote.

Go to your local hustings, listen to what your representative has to say, but while you mull it out, consider what their leader has to say as well. They set the ideology for the next five years.