• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Prime Ministerial Debates- Thread

Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...

So....why are you complaining about the debate itself?

Seriously, when you bring in the comparison of the SNP performance compared to the Tory party in Scotland it makes zero sense. It would be completely moronic to allow equal airtime to the SNP and PC in a national debate when this means that 2/5 of the show is only really relevent to less than 1/5 of the population.

I understand that you thought it was a waste of time airing it in Scotland based on your admitted ignorance of a large portion of the show, but the problem isn't with the debate itself, it's with ITV who decided to broadcast it all over the nation.


As for your comment that this sort of thing doesn't sit well with UK style politics, I would agree with you....if the leaders were just trying to smarm their way into power. I admit, personality and charisma were certainly factors, but the three leaders discussed the respective policy ideas that the parties they represent adhere to. This is not something that happens in a US presidential debate because there is no real party unity in the US, and in fact I think made the debate work in the UK system very well.

Tell me something, do you vote for your MP based on party, or person? I will go ahead here and assume it's party (SNP, I believe) as most people do. Given that people in the UK vote for a party, be it Labour, Tory, LibDem, Green or whoever else they agree with, how was allowing the leaders to effectively field questions based on party policy not a great idea? This debate wasn't a pissing contest between the three leaders to anything like the extent that the US debates are, but was a party policy driven discussion.
 
I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. I'm sure it was a fine programme for English voters. But make no mistake, it's going to skew the vote in Scotland and Wales compared to what was likely to happen if the debate hadn't taken place, or hadn't been broadcast there (a bit hard to organise, practically speaking), or if a debate that allowed representation from the main parties in Scotland and Wales had been broadcast in these countries.

And this was of course very deliberate. You rightly point out that many people vote for the party rather than for the individual candidate. So excluding any representation from the party favoured by up to 30% of Scots in some opinion polls is a pretty transparent trick.

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English UK system. ....snip...
Click to expand...

See above Rolfe - I've corrected your mistake - we are not talking about an English election this is the general election for the UK.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. I'm sure it was a fine programme for English voters. But make no mistake, it's going to skew the vote in Scotland and Wales compared to what was likely to happen if the debate hadn't taken place, or hadn't been broadcast there (a bit hard to organise, practically speaking), or if a debate that allowed representation from the main parties in Scotland and Wales had been broadcast in these countries.
Click to expand...

And how do you know this?

And this was of course very deliberate. You rightly point out that many people vote for the party rather than for the individual candidate. So excluding any representation from the party favoured by up to 30% of Scots in some opinion polls is a pretty transparent trick.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theories now. :rolleyes:

This is fairly ludicrous - the whole election process does not revolve solely (or to any great degree) around Scotland and this election debate correctly represented that.

Anyway it hardly seems like anyone voting for the SNP is going to be swayed to vote differently by watching a TV debate which didn't have an SNP representative.

By your argument a BNP supporter should make all the same claims you make and demand the same representation in any such debate (And they would at least have a stronger case in that they actually can and have won seats in England) and so should every other minority party.
Which would of course render such public debates impossible.

Or is that your aim? No debate whatsoever allowed unless it discusses what you personally feel is important?

For someone worrying so much about the democratic process you seem quite opposed to it working efficiently or fairly for anyone outside the SNP.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I'm mainly complaining about the attempt to shoe-horn Scotland (and Wales) into the three-party English system. I'm sure it was a fine programme for English voters. But make no mistake, it's going to skew the vote in Scotland and Wales compared to what was likely to happen if the debate hadn't taken place, or hadn't been broadcast there (a bit hard to organise, practically speaking), or if a debate that allowed representation from the main parties in Scotland and Wales had been broadcast in these countries.

And this was of course very deliberate. You rightly point out that many people vote for the party rather than for the individual candidate. So excluding any representation from the party favoured by up to 30% of Scots in some opinion polls is a pretty transparent trick.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

That's 30% of 8.6%, right?

Gee, I wonder why such a staggeringly popular view wasn't represented on a national stage. :rolleyes:
 
As an aside, there was a phone in thing with Salmond and Wyn Jones the other day on radio 4 (part of a series I think). 3 english people phoned (surprisingly high proportion, I thought).Two wanted to say there should be no Scottish MP's in Westminster - quite vehement about it and quite ill informed, I have to say. And the other one very kindly pointed out that if Scotland votes for independence we will be less free because we will be ruled by Brussels. I couldn't make any sense of that one.

But it seems there is some interest in Scottish politics in england, at least amongst those who listen to radio 4.
 
Fiona said:
...snip...

But it seems there is some interest in Scottish politics in england, at least amongst those who listen to radio 4.
Click to expand...

Of course there is, we all live in the same country after all! And I think there should have been a question last night (since it was about domestic affairs) about devolution etc. and the plans and policies that the parties have on the matter. However I suspect that might have opened it up to even more criticism even though it would simply have been reflecting reality.
 
I thought Cameron's: "I spoke with a black man" was pretty funny, especially as it came under the discussion on immigration. The political equivalent of "some of my best friends are black..".

Seeing as the bloke he was talking about was an immigrant, wouldn't calling him an immigrant suffice? Why call him a black man?
 
I'd say it was one of his practised phrases - Cameron was obviously doing what he always does, that is he has set responses to deal with certain key words he hears - we've seen what happens when he is asked to answer something off his prepared script.

 
What about the smaller parties?

The BBC is to hold separate leader debates in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. In addition, parties that have demonstrated electoral support, such as UKIP, the Greens and the BNP, will be given more space on news bulletins in the run-up to the BBC debate so they can have their say. It is understood Sky News will hold debates in Scotland and Wales.
Click to expand...

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8587362.stm This was also mentioned several times in the run up to last night's debate.
 
Ashles said:
Anyway it hardly seems like anyone voting for the SNP is going to be swayed to vote differently by watching a TV debate which didn't have an SNP representative.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

By your argument a BNP supporter should make all the same claims you make and demand the same representation in any such debate (And they would at least have a stronger case in that they actually can and have won seats in England) and so should every other minority party.
Which would of course render such public debates impossible.
Click to expand...

Which constituencies did they win last UK election?
 
Ashles said:
Conspiracy theories now. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Oh, you think ruling patries always make sure they bend over backwards to give rivals they cordially detext a fair crack of the whip? Really?

Ashles said:
This is fairly ludicrous - the whole election process does not revolve solely (or to any great degree) around Scotland and this election debate correctly represented that.
Click to expand...


And that's exactly what's wrong with this incorporating union. So much for the equal partnership of nations.

Ashles said:
Anyway it hardly seems like anyone voting for the SNP is going to be swayed to vote differently by watching a TV debate which didn't have an SNP representative.
Click to expand...


Which planet are you on? The more the "Big Three" strut the stage and pretend its all about them, the more the smaller parties are edged out. And that affects the SNP and PC (etc.), with their large followings in their own countries, just as much as it affects UKIP and the Greens - probably more, actually.

Ashles said:
By your argument a BNP supporter should make all the same claims you make and demand the same representation in any such debate (And they would at least have a stronger case in that they actually can and have won seats in England) and so should every other minority party.
Which would of course render such public debates impossible.
Click to expand...


It's a legitimate point of view. It's not a case I'd go so far as to make, but I could see how it could be argued.

Ashles said:
Or is that your aim? No debate whatsoever allowed unless it discusses what you personally feel is important?

For someone worrying so much about the democratic process you seem quite opposed to it working efficiently or fairly for anyone outside the SNP.
Click to expand...


Me, personally? I'm talking about a serious democratic deficit inherent in this grandstanding style of politics, affecting three of the four COUNTRIES that make up the UK.

Rolfe.
 
Darat said:
Tell me Rolfe what rights do you not have that say an English person has in the UK?
Click to expand...

While I don't think bringing rights into it is really helpful, I can see what you mean.

What makes it worse for me is that I could almost see it from a Welsh standpoint because they have the same legal system and the level of devolution is so much lower. Scotland though? Reasonably highly devolved with a seperate legal system such that if I obtained a law degree in England or Wales I couldn't practice law in Scotland and a monetary system that doesn't wholly mesh with the rest of the UK.

Other than that though, they're all tied down by those scum in Westminster :rolleyes:

ETA:
Rolfe said:
Most of the bits I saw was all about things that are devolved in Scotland. What a waste of time. Total irrelevance.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Assuming this consists of a significant portion of the debate, what the hell?

If you have so many devolved powers you feel you can brand a whole debate a total waste of time for Scotland that would suggest to me that you aren't quite so inconvenienced by the union as you would like us to think.

Which is it, you have no power, or so much that we waste your time with a national debate focused on a strip of things that aren't relevant to Sctoland?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom