UK - December 2019 General Election

[P.J. Denyer]

Do that if you like, but in that case don't broadcast the programme in Scotland.

I suppose they could have scheduled her first or last and truncated the program in the rest of the UK, but that would have been silly IMO. I agree though, for Scottish constituencies she had to be there and given an equal voice.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why, people in Scotland are still voting for their government?

Because giving this amount of coverage to the other parties in Scotland but not the SNP would be a breach of impartiality rules?

 

[Lothian]

I do actually think looking at these things as per contested seats as well as actual seats last time is a fairish system.

Even though of course that would have meant career politicians like Farage would have been on.

Can't stand the man but his party is contesting 5 times the seats that the SNP are. He should be there before Sturgeon.

 

[Lothian]

Because giving this amount of coverage to the other parties in Scotland but not the SNP would be a breach of impartiality rules?

Why do 59 seats in the North matter more that 59 seats elsewhere. Why should 59 SNP candidates get a voice and 495 green candidates not?

 

[Darat]

You know what I hate? People who argue that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is somehow a job creation opportunity and is going to drive economic growth. They give people the false impression that there's little to no cost (at least in the short term) to cutting emissions, when in reality the typical workers and labourers are likely to be made redundant because the industry they work in just releases too much emissions.

When is going to talk about how he's going to make sure steelworks and cement plants are closed and remain closed? People can also forget about ever mining any coal.

People like Corbyn just risk raising peoples expectations too high, meaning that they more likely to refuse realistic measures because they think they can have their cake and eat it too.

Successive governments in the UK have been working hard for decades to get rid of those sorts of polluting companies!

 

[Rolfe]

Evidence?

https://twitter.com/StevePogson1/status/1198182697585250304

He's not even the only Tory they have on speed-dial.

https://wingsoverscotland.com/aunties-favourite/


ETA: Sorry the second guy is UKIP and Britain First, not a Tory. Not surprising really in the light of how often Nigel Farage is on, and the fact that the woman responsible for assenbling the panels is a fan of Britain First.

 

[Rolfe]

Why, people in Scotland are still voting for their government?

If you can't work it out then I'm done here.

 

[Parsman]

Why do 59 seats in the North matter more that 59 seats elsewhere. Why should 59 SNP candidates get a voice and 495 green candidates not?

Because after the Treaty of Union in 1707 Scotland voluntarily entered into a political union with England. We are therefore not a region like Yorkshire, or even a principality like Wales. We may be a smaller unit in terms of population but we are entitled to equal respect and consideration under the system. Also, we have a good chance of heading for a hung parliament again so if the SNP are 3rd in terms of numbers of seats in Westminster again then they could very well hold a balance of power. Why shouldn't my fellow UK citizens in England be deprived of the possibility of hearing what that might mean? Finally, if the Union does break apart, it is 50% likely it will be Johnson and Brexit that cause it, the other 50% people like you with opinions like that. Even the most unionist of Scotsmen hates being belittled and ignored.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Why do 59 seats in the North matter more that 59 seats elsewhere. Why should 59 SNP candidates get a voice and 495 green candidates not?

Firstly because these things are based on historical results. The discussion was about broadcasting in Scotland where the SNP are the largest single party, Rolfe suggested not showing the program in Scotland and I commented that a truncated program could be shown in the rest of the UK, but excluding the third largest party from the last Parliament from the debate broadcast in the area they stand would be ridiculously partial.

If you think that representation in the debates should be based on the number of candidates standing rather than previous results then fair enough, it's a reasonable proposition and one that has it's own advantages and disadvantages but it's a different question to the one that was raised.

 

[Rolfe]

The interesting situation in Scotland is that every single one of these 59 seats is a two-way contest between the SNP and either the Conservatives, Labour or the LibDems. There are no sears which are Conservative/Labour contests, or Conservative/LibDem, or Labour/LibDem. Well over half of the seats are already held by the SNP with a Conservative, Labour or LibDem challenger (OK, you might find the odd one of these where the strongest challenger might be in dispute, but they are indubitably SNP/somebody else contests). In all of the others it is the SNP which is the strong challenger to the Conservative, Labour or LibDem incumbent.

This is the country which is told that we are a valued equal partner in the union every time we show some signs of wanting independence. "Lead the UK, don't leave the UK" was actually said by the then PM in 2014. But then when circumstances change we're "only 59 seats" who deserve no special accommodation.

Holding a series of election debates which exclude the party which dominates Scottish politics and is either the incumbent or the main challenger in all these 59 seats, and broadcasting these in Scotland, is actually outrageous.

 

[Rolfe]

Firstly because these things are based on historical results. The discussion was about broadcasting in Scotland where the SNP are the largest single party, Rolfe suggested not showing the program in Scotland and I commented that a truncated program could be shown in the rest of the UK, but excluding the third largest party from the last Parliament from the debate broadcast in the area they stand would be ridiculously partial.

If you think that representation in the debates should be based on the number of candidates standing rather than previous results then fair enough, it's a reasonable proposition and one that has it's own advantages and disadvantages but it's a different question to the one that was raised.

There is also the question of people elsewhere in the UK being exposed to a party which may well end up with a lot of influence in government. In 2015 it won 56 seats. In 2017 it won 35 seats. The total is expected to be somewhere between these two numbers this time. This is a high enough number to potentially be in a position to influence the next government, depending on how the parliamentary arithmetic works out. It's not desirable to have people in England suddenly waking up and saying "who are these people who are now in a position of real political power in Westminster?"

 

[catsmate]

Why do 59 seats in the North matter more that 59 seats elsewhere. Why should 59 SNP candidates get a voice and 495 green candidates not?

Because 35 of those 59 candidates are MP's while zero of the 495 are...

 

[Rolfe]

I think there's one, no? Or is she standing down? Nevertheless the Greens did win Brighton Pavilion with over 50% of the vote in 2017. The trouble is that they aren't serious contenders in any other seats that I know of. The SNP are either the holders or the main challengers in all 59 Scottish seats.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There are no seats in the commons. It has been dissolved. If we are going by last time why have an election? I can see why the largest parties last time would want to keep their advantage but the BBC should be independent.

Invite people on based on having something worthwhile to say then. So Johnson Farage Swinson and Corbyn can be excluded for a start.

 

[Lothian]

Because after the Treaty of Union in 1707 Scotland voluntarily entered into a political union with England. We are therefore not a region like Yorkshire, or even a principality like Wales. We may be a smaller unit in terms of population but we are entitled to equal respect and consideration under the system..

Ok, there are two issues and we need to keep them separate.
Scotland as part of the union should be treated the same as England. A national election broadcast should be broadcast to the whole nation. Scotland shoudn't miss out. That is equal respect and consideration.
The parties in that broadcast and the participation of the SNP in that debate is a totally different matter. Don't mistake what is good for the SNP as being what is good for Scotland. As far as I am aware there is nothing in the treaty of the union saying Scottish based political parties should get advantages over truly national ones.

If you think that representation in the debates should be based on the number of candidates standing rather than previous results then fair enough, it's a reasonable proposition and one that has it's own advantages and disadvantages but it's a different question to the one that was raised.

Yeah, sorry. That was my point before it was sidetracked with a suggestion that debates based on the 4 parties with the most candidates should not be broadcast to Scotland as it would disadvantage the parties not in the debate, one party on particular.
.

Because 35 of those 59 candidates are MP's while zero of the 495 are...

I would argue none are MPs and all candidates should be treated fairly and the same. No advantage should be given to the previous election winner.
I recall party election broadcasts (being given the air time) are based on candidate numbers. That seems fair. These leaders debates are similar and I think should follow the same rules.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

There is also the question of people elsewhere in the UK being exposed to a party which may well end up with a lot of influence in government. In 2015 it won 56 seats. In 2017 it won 35 seats. The total is expected to be somewhere between these two numbers this time. This is a high enough number to potentially be in a position to influence the next government, depending on how the parliamentary arithmetic works out. It's not desirable to have people in England suddenly waking up and saying "who are these people who are now in a position of real political power in Westminster?"

That's another reasonable point, but as I said I thought not showing that part of the program would be a bit silly anyway, that's one of the reasons why of course.

 

[Lothian]

Invite people on based on having something worthwhile to say then. So Johnson Farage Swinson and Corbyn can be excluded for a start.

Wanting to become a MP should exclude anyone from the job. Leaders of parties more so. Talking of party leaders what has the previous SNP leader been up to?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

debates based on the 4 parties with the most candidates should not be broadcast to Scotland as it would disadvantage the parties not in the debate, one party on particular.

Well no, it was argued that it shouldn't be broadcast to Scotland if the biggest party in Scotland was excluded.

 

[Information Analyst]

Because 35 of those 59 candidates are MP's while zero one of the 495 are is...

FTFY.

 

[Information Analyst]

I think there's one, no? Or is she standing down? Nevertheless the Greens did win Brighton Pavilion with over 50% of the vote in 2017.

She is standing again, and is very likely to win, given that she's increased her vote share in both subsequent election after first securing the seat in 2010. It would be great if the Green Party got more MPs, but I doubt it will happen this time around, despite the good results in the recent local and European Parliament elections.