• 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

Back specifically to the debates, the SNP have filed court papers protesting their exclusion from the next debate. The party said its proposed action would seek to ensure the debate was broadcast in Scotland "with the nation's political make-up fairly reflected".

That's an interesting argument. While they are no doubt highly relevant the Scottish political make up, and thus invited to Scottish Debates, they are far from relevant on the national stage. They have no theoretical chance of forming the next government, as they are only standing in 59 seats. Other then the big three, there are three parties which are standing in enough seats to theoretically form the next government, UKIP with 557, the BNP with 337 and the Green's with 334. Perhaps a good measure of the right to be involved in the debate might be a theoretical chance of forming the next government as a bare minimum?

If you want to go on votes cast as a reflection of the nations political make-up, well UKIP gained 2.2% of the national vote at the last General Election, compared to the SNP's 1.5%. Personally, I think that the SNP, though highly relevant to Scottish politics, is less relevant nationally then UKIP, and as such, shouldn't be invited to the debates.
 
Uzzy said:
Back specifically to the debates, the SNP have filed court papers protesting their exclusion from the next debate. The party said its proposed action would seek to ensure the debate was broadcast in Scotland "with the nation's political make-up fairly reflected".

That's an interesting argument. While they are no doubt highly relevant the Scottish political make up, and thus invited to Scottish Debates, they are far from relevant on the national stage. They have no theoretical chance of forming the next government, as they are only standing in 59 seats. Other then the big three, there are three parties which are standing in enough seats to theoretically form the next government, UKIP with 557, the BNP with 337 and the Green's with 334. Perhaps a good measure of the right to be involved in the debate might be a theoretical chance of forming the next government as a bare minimum?

If you want to go on votes cast as a reflection of the nations political make-up, well UKIP gained 2.2% of the national vote at the last General Election, compared to the SNP's 1.5%. Personally, I think that the SNP, though highly relevant to Scottish politics, is less relevant nationally then UKIP, and as such, shouldn't be invited to the debates.
Click to expand...

Oh no, round and round we go....
 
Uzzy said:
Kidding? Not at all. Both were racist statements.
Click to expand...

Really? I'd rather my children not marry Muslims; I'd also prefer they not marry Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Moonies, Roman Catholics or any brand of practicising Christianity for that matter, since I don't particularly want my (as yet potential) grandchildren brainwashed. Does that make me racist?
 
Uzzy said:
Back specifically to the debates, the SNP have filed court papers protesting their exclusion from the next debate. The party said its proposed action would seek to ensure the debate was broadcast in Scotland "with the nation's political make-up fairly reflected".

That's an interesting argument. While they are no doubt highly relevant the Scottish political make up, and thus invited to Scottish Debates, they are far from relevant on the national stage. They have no theoretical chance of forming the next government, as they are only standing in 59 seats. Other then the big three, there are three parties which are standing in enough seats to theoretically form the next government, UKIP with 557, the BNP with 337 and the Green's with 334. Perhaps a good measure of the right to be involved in the debate might be a theoretical chance of forming the next government as a bare minimum?

If you want to go on votes cast as a reflection of the nations political make-up, well UKIP gained 2.2% of the national vote at the last General Election, compared to the SNP's 1.5%. Personally, I think that the SNP, though highly relevant to Scottish politics, is less relevant nationally then UKIP, and as such, shouldn't be invited to the debates.
Click to expand...

Whether some posters like it or not, the SNP is the party of Government in Scotland and polls highly here: failing to let it appear does weight the debate in favour of the UK-wide parties - and let's look at the Clegg effect following the debates to see just what a difference it can make.

For what it's worth, I was one of the 1600 contributors to the legal fund....
 
Just had some ranting SNP rep on radio 5; Sturgeon? She was complaining that Alex Salmon wasn’t allowed on the debate to explain the SNP policies on Education and Health.

Are the SNP now fighting for the control of Scottish Health and Education to pass back to Westminster or is she a bit thick?
 
Architect said:
Whether some posters like it or not, the SNP is the party of Government in Scotland and polls highly here: failing to let it appear does weight the debate in favour of the UK-wide parties - and let's look at the Clegg effect following the debates to see just what a difference it can make.
Click to expand...

Ah, but does Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, the DUP and the UUP have a right to appear too? The difference is that the debates are Prime Ministerial, people who can become UK Prime Minister.

Why do you think Alex Salmond isn't given a slot at PMQ's like Clegg is? There's no doubt being a speaker at PMQ's would give his party the potential to boost their support, but that isn't reason alone to give it to him.

You talk about polling high, but the BNP and the Greens polled higher than the SNP in the Euro elections, and UKIP higher than the SNP in 2005.
 
zooterkin said:
Really? I'd rather my children not marry Muslims; I'd also prefer they not marry Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Moonies, Roman Catholics or any brand of practicising Christianity for that matter, since I don't particularly want my (as yet potential) grandchildren brainwashed. Does that make me racist?
Click to expand...

No, because unlike John Cowen, you're not picking on one racial group and saying 'I don't want my children to marry them.' See the difference?
 
I think they're a silly media sideshow, encouraging voters to judge on superficialities rather than engage with policy issues. However, they are delivering enormous publicity advantages to the three parties who are represented.

In England, this may not matter hugely. UKIP and the Greens may be miffed, and they may have a point, but their share of the vote wasn't going to get them anywhere serious, let's face it.

In Northern Ireland, again it may not matter hugely. Do the Labour and Conservative parties even stand there? As I understand it, they rely on electoral pacts with their NI counterparts.

In Scotland and Wales, especially Scotland, it does indeed matter hugely. If we're talking the 2009 Euro elections, the SNP actually got 29.1% of the results, over 8% ahead of Labour, its nearest challenger.

Taking SNP results as a percentage of the total UK vote is disingenuous, dishonest, and divisive. Whatever the motivation for mounting these debates, there's no dount at all that they are hugely damaging to the leading party in Scotland, the party of government in Scotland, and the party that is mounting the biggest challenge to Labour in Scotland.

I don't have a neat answer, but that doesn't make the problem go away.

I wonder how constructive the legal challenge can be though. It might just piss everybody off. And hey, Alex, £50,000? I ran out of the generic SNP leaflets part way round the village and was told we couldn't get any more. You can buy a fair few leaflets with £50,000.

Rolfe.
 
zooterkin said:
Really? I'd rather my children not marry Muslims; I'd also prefer they not marry Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Moonies, Roman Catholics or any brand of practicising Christianity for that matter, since I don't particularly want my (as yet potential) grandchildren brainwashed. Does that make me racist?
Click to expand...
No, because Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, Moonies, Roman Catholics are not races.
 
funk de fino said:
These debates should never have taken place. They are a travesty.
Click to expand...

That's a reasonable viewpoint, I think they are trivialising the issues and giving more weight to style over substance, and distorting the view of the process by focusing on the leaders rather than the parties; though they are also having the effect of increasing interest in the election in general, I think.
 
Rolfe said:
I think they're a silly media sideshow, encouraging voters to judge on superficialities rather than engage with policy issues. However, they are delivering enormous publicity advantages to the three parties who are represented.

In England, this may not matter hugely. UKIP and the Greens may be miffed, and they may have a point, but their share of the vote wasn't going to get them anywhere serious, let's face it.

In Northern Ireland, again it may not matter hugely. Do the Labour and Conservative parties even stand there? As I understand it, they rely on electoral pacts with their NI counterparts.

In Scotland and Wales, especially Scotland, it does indeed matter hugely. If we're talking the 2009 Euro elections, the SNP actually got 29.1% of the results, over 8% ahead of Labour, its nearest challenger.

Taking SNP results as a percentage of the total UK vote is disingenuous, dishonest, and divisive. Whatever the motivation for mounting these debates, there's no dount at all that they are hugely damaging to the leading party in Scotland, the party of government in Scotland, and the party that is mounting the biggest challenge to Labour in Scotland.
Click to expand...

..but this is a UK election for seats in Westminster. It is not about the Welsh assembly or Scottish Parliament.

As far as the UK election goes the SNP’s share of the vote wasn't going to get them anywhere serious, let's face it.

As far as damage….. Have you seen the debates? I suspect the labour marginals in Scotland wish the debates weren’t shown…..


It may affect the Government in Scotland, just as the scottish parliament elections affect the westminster one. It may affect the local council in Burnley. This is not a local election or a Scottish Parliament one. It is for the UK government and needs to reflect the popular parties in the UK as a whole.
I wonder how constructive the legal challenge can be though. It might just piss everybody off. And hey, Alex, £50,000? I ran out of the generic SNP leaflets part way round the village and was told we couldn't get any more. You can buy a fair few leaflets with £50,000.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Newsnight visited a Scottish constituency the other night ,North Berwick perhaps. The SNP candidate cancelled the interview, the local chairman refused to comment and would put no one up to speak. The story was that the SNP were not expecting much change this time round and couldn’t afford to fight seats they didn’t hold.

As you say £50,000 would help campaigning. It is not just about the current election is it about future ones as well. Giving up in an area sends a bad message.
 
Last edited:
Lothian said:
2005 General election

UKIP 603,298
SNP 412,267


2009 Euro elections

Greens 8.6%
British National Party 6.2%
Scottish National Party 2.1%
Click to expand...


I see. You're using UK wide figures. How very... ...selective.

As Rolfe said, the SNP took close to 30% of the Scottish votes. That's substantial support by any fair reckoning.

Keep talking. The more I hear opinions like that, I know that independence will happen one day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom