Thanks for the opportunity.

Obviously this is mainly an argument in bullet point form, but happy to answer/debate any responses.

Marcus

It is a debate between candidates seeking to be Prime Minister on May 7th, for which they need 326 seats in the house of commons, or to lead a coalition of parties with a majority of seats, or to lead a government with sufficient support not to lose a vote of confidence in the Commons.

Neither the SNP nor Plaid Cymru would claim to be seeking to lead a government or provide a candidate for Prime Minister of the UK. UKIP is fielding about 500 candidates and the Greens over 300, and might have a better claim, but my recollection is that a formula covering share of the vote last time, number of candidates and polls is used to get a fair coverage ratio for elections.

There should and will be prominent coverage of the Welsh and Scottish only parties in relevant national coverage, including Scottish and Welsh debates, and they should also be covered in UK-wide coverage of the election, as they have been eg on the day the election was announced, around their manifestos, etc.

And there are also now national elections for their parliament and assembly!

It’s a prime minister debate, not a leader debate, regardless of how it’s billed. The SNP and Plaid can’t get overall majority in a westminster government, so why should their leaders be in the debate?

Sunder covers this all off better than I would ever above.

Sunder @ 2

Remember, we do not elect a Prime Minister, we elect a Parliament. Cameron, Brown and Clegg have Candidates standing in almost every mainland seat in the Country. They are not merely standing against each other, but against every other candidate from other Parties and none. All of whom require a voice. Why should a constituency with seven candidates, get to hear detailed policies from the ‘big three’ yet the other four are left with a leaflet campaign? Why is number five on that list be denied the ability to question the health policy of his ‘big three’ rivals, when his ‘big three’ rivals will be able to beam their message directly into the homes of the electorate? In my book that gives the independent candidate a huge disadvantage and makes a mockery of our Parliamentary system.

People complain that our political system is corrupt and the Party system is in some ways responsible and they way to fix that is via a presidential beauty contest? These debates are highly flawed.

Hi Sunder.

But the point is that unless you live in Clegg’s/Brown’s/Cameron’s constituency, you don’t get to vote for them.

It hands a massive advantage to the Lib Dems in Ceredigion, who have a few hundred majority. It is a straight shoot out between Plaid and the Lib Dems, how is that fair to the voters of that seat?

The wider issue, which has not been answered, is why the voters of Scotland and Wales will be subjected to England only debates, without qualification. This week we had Brown giving a guarantee to the voters of Britain, but what he meant was England. Cameron has posters ‘I have never voted Tory, but I like their ideas on schools’ in Wales, where that is devolved. This debate will do exactly the same, is the average voter going to twig it is not devolved? I doubt it, because it suits the three major parties to merely present it as UK wide, particularly given they are not in power in Scotland, and in coalition in Wales.

I refuse to accept that it is right that Welsh and Scottish voters have to have a reduced service, with a token Welsh debate, from the BBC. The King Review clearly nailed the BBC for not doing enough on devolution, this is another example of the tone deaf approach to devolution the Wesminster bubble has.

The fact is that it suits the three major parties to have this stitch up because it hands them a massive advantage over Plaid/SNP. That is wrong, pure and simple.

“It’s a prime minister debate, not a leader debate, regardless of how it’s billed.”

So why is Nick Clegg appearing? He is not going to be Prime Minister, regardless of how many candidates he puts up.

Why are the three major parties so scared of debating with Plaid/SNP?

If the talk of devolution, learning and fair time were accurate, then we would surely want to haul up the DUP and Sinn Fein as well? Their exclusion from your list says it all really.

Agreed with @2 and @3. If your Party can’t – mathematically – get the seats to form the next Gov then you fall at the first hurdle for being invited on the leaders debates. UKIP have a better shout in that regard, much as it pains me. Hell even the BNP have a representative in the EU parliament… hence the BBC Question Time furore.
I’d agree with including Plaid and SNP leaders in debates that were on Welsh and Scottish television mind.

Oh and FWIW I’d love to vote Plaid Cymru (did last time round) but I can’t as I’m in Lancashire!

Hi Tinter,

I accept your point to a degree, but my understanding, which I am happy to be corrected is that Northern Ireland is to all intents and purposes offered as a special case.

That view of course includes my own slight ignorance to the details of NI politics.

In general, but not in a westminster context. Certainly the DUP are as open to deal-making as anyone else, and have a better electoral record than Plaid. The tories are now a major party in NI, and Lab/libs both have sister parties, so fair time arguments apply.

If you are going to make a serious case, make it properly. As is, I can only read that you like SNP and Plaid and so want them included.

Really, as many voters will vote Green and UKIP, and a huge number more can- they would have a much stronger case on most of your own arguments. Essentially you are saying sitting MPs and number of candidates aren’t what counts, while excluding UKIP and Greens for just that reason, and including the nats for just that reason!

If it was a leadership debate and we included the SNP and Plaid, who would represent the SNP – Salmond isn’t standing for election in Westminister this time around…

Of course I do see it more of a question as to why Clegg is going to be involved at all – he won’t be PM (no matter the rhetoric) it will be either Cameron or Brown. And if that has to be propped up by a coalition then the debates will hardly matter as the politics of the coalition will not have been voted for by anyone.

I’m not actually convinced of the case for inviting the Nationalist parties (or any other minor parties) to the debates…. altho’ Alex Salmond is a much more impressive figure than Brown, Cameron or Clegg, which is damning with faint praise perhaps 😉

As an expat Scot, living in England, who supports independence for Scotland, but isn’t an SNP member, I don’t have a particular axe to grind. I doubt many Scots will care about the “angels dancing on the head of a pin” arguments about the BBC having an obligation to represent everyone etc. There will be Scottish debates, and Labour, the LD’s and Tories are the 3 major parties. Granted Clegg hasn’t got a hope of forming a government, but the LD % of support isn’t THAT far behind that for Labour nationally.

Hi Tinter.

I included only Plaid/SNP because I am both a member of Plaid, but also because they have a number of different things to the other parties you mentioned.

Firstly – Plaid and the SNP are parties of national government, my point was that they can point out to voters in their respective countries about devolution. I don’t sense Cameron is going to be so clear when he talks about free schools, brown on cancer guarantees etc.

I still maintain that NI still presents a unique case, but there we are.

In terms of UKIP/Greens etc…

I didn’t add this to my initial argument given the SNP/Plaid focus. But you could easily have given them a platform each during the three debates (maybe adding it to four).

So UKIP would appear with the three once

Greens on another

SNP on another

Plaid on another

The fourth debate had been suggested by Plaid/SNP.

The point is simple – what harm to democracy would occur without Plaid/SNP being involved?

Marcus Warner @ 12,

There is no recognition by Westminster based parties that the ‘one size fits all’ debates are actually meaningless when it gets to Wales or Scotland.

The danger of this sort of debate is that – should it be dominated by issues that are devolved then – effectively we are being sold a false bill of goods.

Douglas,

Indeed. My concern is that people might think ‘I like idea X’ or ‘idea Y’, swaying their vote, without being aware it is devolved. So does not apply to them.

Remember as well that we have Scottish prime minister, deciding English issues, but arguing like it is a UK agenda.

@14 Marcus

If he was from Yorkshire would it make any difference?

I completely and utterly agree with Marcus Warner.

How is it fair that the biggest party in one of the three states that form Great Britain (the SNP in Scotland) is not going to be there?
How is it fair that the 2nd biggest party in another of the three states that form Great Britain (Plaid Cymru) is also not going to be there?

Like Marcus argued in #5, in all those seats where the contest is between a nationalist party and either Labour, the LibDems or the Tories, this gives a massive advantage to the non-nationalist contenders.

There are Scottish and Welsh people serving in the Armed Forces. The decisions on foreign policies will affect them too. They may want to know what the politicians from the SNP and Plaid are offering.

FInally, it is called the British Broadcasting Corporation and not the English Broadcasting Corporation. At least the BBC debate should have included Plaid and the SNP as well.

@15 Galen,

Yes and No. My point was that we currently have a system that is not fit for purpose of accountable Governance in the UK. We should all seek equity and fairness in our democratic system, regardless of party advantage.

I support English votes for English matters, I support English devolution whereby Westminster sits on ‘England days’ and on ‘UK Days’. I sense that if Labour would have a chance of ever winning a majority in England, they probably would to.

But of course ideally I would like to end all this debate and let all four nations govern themselves.

“There are Scottish and Welsh people serving in the Armed Forces. The decisions on foreign policies will affect them too. They may want to know what the politicians from the SNP and Plaid are offering.”

And of course Plaid both opposed Iraq and Afghanistan, and are calling for withdrawal, something the three parties chosen are not.

I also believe Wales provides a larger per head proportion of people to the Armed forces…although I could be wrong on that.

@17 Marcus

Altho I sympathise with your view that “we currently have a system that is not fit for purpose of accountable Governance in the UK”, I’m just not sure tionthis issue demonstrates the point, or is even that important frankly.

“English” devolution is a great idea in the abstract, but again not really workable in practice. The current constitutional settlement doesn’t lend itself to an English parliament with e.g. a Tory majority, but a UK parliament with a Labour or coalition government, particulalry given the disparity in size between the constituent parts of the UK.

I think the plan to stop Nationalist MP’s voting was first posited in the late 1800’s with respect to Irish home rule – I don’t think it would have worked all that well then either to be honest, tho it might be worth a try for Scottish MP’s at Westminster as a last try short of actual seperation.

galen10,

You do know that the SNP at Westminster don’t vote on exclusively English matters?

@20 douglas

That’s voluntary on their part tho’ isn’t it? My point was they wouldn’t have the choice in many schemes for an “English” parliament

Douglas.

Yes – and my labour mp in torfaen does vote on English only matters. It is wrong in my view.

Galen10,

Yes it is voluntary, and there have been occasional rows about what does, actually constitute ‘English only’ legislation.

You say ‘voluntary’ as if it was a bad thing!

Either it’s a prime ministerial debate, in which case the Lib Dems shouldn’t be there, or it’s a leaders’ debate, in which case the SNP and Plaid deserve representation, given their very substantial support in their respective parts of the UK.

A leaders’ debate makes more sense. We don’t, or shouldn’t, have a presidential system. As others have pointed out, no one can vote for Brown or Cameron unless they live in the right constituencies. We elect our local MPs to represent us. It is equally legitimate to elect an SNP or Plaid MP to represent one’s constituency as to pick an MP from one of the big two parties. Labour and the Tories may be the big two nationally (by virtue of their role in England), but Labour and the SNP are the big two in Scotland; Plaid and Labour in Wales. It is manifestly unfair for the national media to exclude Plaid from debates broadcast in Wales, or the SNP from debates broadcast in Scotland.

I agree it is not entirely fair, but not with the planned solution. For the voters in roughly 500 constituencies, this is the right debate, so why shouldn’t it be allowed to happen? Those voters have every right to see the main parties for them debate- without a discussion from a party that doesn’t represent them, and without discussing devolved matters that do not impact them.

Surely the real problem is that the debates for Scotland and Wales are not featuring the Westminster leaders and are not being given equal billing? The most sensible solution would be to have these debates, but have meaningful debates featuring all four leaders for Scotland and Wales as well.

@24

RP:

We elect our local MPs to represent us. It is equally legitimate to elect an SNP or Plaid MP to represent one’s constituency as to pick an MP from one of the big two parties.

But I can’t elect an SNP or Plaid MP because I live in England! If they were standing enough candidates to form a Gov then fair enough (although I’m not sure how that would even work).

I still think the best solution is to have seperate debates for Wales and Scotland on maybe S4C and a Scots-only channerl (are there any..?) respectively.

Then again before all the hoohaa about televised debates I’d much prefer to vote in a PR electoral system… hohum </ *priorites* 😉

The SNP stand candidates in Scotland, but not Wales, England or Northern Ireland.

Plaid stand candidates in Wales, but not Scotland, England or Northern Ireland.

Labour, the Lib Dems, the Conservatives stand candidates in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

These debates are for the leaders of parties who are contending to form the government of Great Britain, not the government of one part of it.

Therefore there is no place for Plaid or SNP leaders at these debates.

Simples!

Lab/Libs don’t stand in NI…

David Strachan,

If the only criteria is UK wide candidacy, then the BNP, UKIP and the Greens have a right to be on that platform!

I’d prefer to see completely separate leaders debates in Wales and Scotland, given the completely different constitutional arrangements.

The BBC is doing quite a lot on this issue of fairness to other parties, and I think has taken the issue seriously. I don’t know what provision ITV or Sky are making

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2010/03_march/02/debates2.shtml

Date: 02.03.2010
Category: News; Scotland; Wales; Northern Ireland

The BBC is to hold separate party leader election debates in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland [1].

These debates are in addition to the three Prime Ministerial Debates that have already been jointly announced by Sky, ITV and the BBC.

The BBC will be talking to the relevant parties about the details of these debates, now that agreement has been reached over the UK-wide debates.

In addition to the debates in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the BBC will ensure that appropriate parties [2] not taking part in the Prime Ministerial debate will receive specific and guaranteed opportunities to air their views responding directly to the UK-wide debate.

These include:

* Immediately following the BBC’s Prime Ministerial Debate, BBC One’s News At Ten will carry contributions from other parties, including UKIP, the Green Party and the BNP. There will be a special and additional opt-out allowing viewers in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland to hear the views of other parties which have substantial electoral support in their part of the UK.
* On Newsnight, following the initial reporting of the debate, Newsnight Scotland will begin earlier than usual for analysis and reaction from parties in Scotland. There will be a special programme for viewers in Wales on BBC Two at the same time. Contributions from UKIP, the Green Party and the BNP will be included on Newsnight.
* Other BBC outlets which report on the debate during the evening will also include contributions from the other parties.
* The following morning, BBC Radio 4’s Today programme will include interviews with representatives of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, the Green Party and the BNP.
* BBC Online, which will stream the Prime Ministerial debate live, will also carry video clips of the reactions of all the above parties, as well as those in Northern Ireland, to the debate.
* Good Morning Scotland, Good Morning Wales and Good Morning Ulster will all carry full reaction to the UK-wide debate, including from those main parties which only stand candidates in those parts of the UK, plus other parties which have significant levels of electoral support.

A BBC news spokesman said: “We believe the national debates, and these additional specific and guaranteed opportunities to air views about the UK-wide debate, will ensure due impartiality is achieved in line with the BBC’s Election Guidelines.”
Notes to Editors

1. The debates in Scotland and Wales are expected to take place on Sunday 2 May, if the General Election is held on 6 May 2010.

2. The BBC will ensure that all political parties are given appropriate coverage during the campaign.

An important factor in these judgements is the previous equivalent election (ie for the 2010 General Election, the level of electoral support demonstrated in the 2005 General Election).

Some weight may also be given to evidence of electoral support at different, subsequent elections, including local and European elections, elections to devolved institutions and Westminster by-elections.

Weight is also applied appropriately taking account of the type of election being contested (for instance, the General Election being first past the post as against different forms of proportional representation) as well as the number of candidates a party is fielding.

Other relevant factors in this consideration could be the formation of new parties, splits in parties, new alliances between parties and consistent trends in robust and reliable opinion polls.

Sunder Katwala,

As I expect most viewers to ‘last’ about 30 minutes into the ‘debate’, giving a right of reply afterwards is hardly fair. Most folk will have found something else to do by that stage!

It is like hitting your head off a brick wall when anyone that isn’t part of the Westminster establishment points out that the debates are essentially English debates, amongst yourselves….

Still, anything to maintain the media – political nexus in Scotland, which is Unionist to the core, has to be OK?

Absent independence, I’d imagine many English voters would actually prefer SNP / Plaid policies to the those we will hear later today.

The opposing arguments are also worth arguing against
* That Plaid/SNP leaders cannot be PM. Nor will Nick Clegg.

Your bias is showing.

* That you open the floodgates to other parties – which is not true, both those parties have elected westminster representatives. UKIP, Greens and the BNP do not.

So you have your own arbitrary criteria for who should’ve been invited.

Fucking nationalists. Always wingeing.

Alex,

Fucking nationalists. Always wingeing.

Why do you say that?

I am pointing out that there are other parties, that however unlikely it might be, are standing sufficient candidates to potentially form a government.

I have also pointed out that the ‘bill of sale’ for a debate in Scotland and Wales that makes Anglo assumptions about just what they can and can’t legislate over makes no sense.

We, the Welsh and the Scots, are supposed to have far greater political nuance than the English.

When David Cameron talks about what he wants to do about, say education, we are supposed to filter that through the fact that he has no mandate in Scotland or Wales on the issue. It is devolved. Can you get your head around that?

I think it is a very reasonable point.

@ douglas 24

No, I’m saying the opposite – I think it’s a good thing that they made a decision not to vote on “England only” legislation (however difficult that is to define). My earlier point was rather that one solution to the “West Lothian” question, is to exclude ALL Scottish MP’s from voting on legislation which only affected England.

I don’t think that solution would work, although I think it might be fun to watch them try. Can you imagine a Cameron government in England, and a Brown government in the UK..?

@ Alex 33

The criteria for who should be invited ought to be simple: the leaders of the 3 “national” parties, who between them account for +/- 80% of the popular vote. Nick Clegg should be included because (irrespective of the fact he hasn’t got a hope of becoming PM) his party is truly national, and has a significant share of the vote.

The other “minor parties” are either sectional, so I have no particular qualms about them being excluded. Others have no Westminster MP’s like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP, so again I have no issue about them not being included.

Inviting every party leader to the debate would make it unweildy and (even more?) unwatchable. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the vast majority of people will be happy with the 3 major parties being represented.

As for your “fucking nationalist” comment, seems like you’d maybe be more at home writing to the Daily Mail…?

Seriously though, who really gives a fuck about who gets to stand up at the dog and pony show? The entire concept is grade-A bollocks.

Galen @ 36

Inviting every party leader to the debate would make it unweildy and (even more?) unwatchable. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and the vast majority of people will be happy with the 3 major parties being represented.

Yes, far better to stymie democarcy in order to appease the ‘big’ Parties and the Murdoch press, then. These debates are imported from America and do not fit our system of Government. So we have to shoehorn our democracy into a TV format. Yeah, well we get the style of politics we want I deserve, I suppose.

I, in common with the rest of us, do not vote in National elections. We all vote in our respective constituencies. As it happens there are at least four Parties in this constituency with a range of policies from Afghanistan to health. However, I will only be given the opportunity to have three of those policies clearly set out and tested by the other leaders. For some reason ‘the establishment’ do not deem it necessary for me and the rest of the Country to know what the SNP stand for reason. Why am I being denied the chance to see those policies debated with everyone who has a candidate in my constituency? Let us not forget, that if the SNP get a good showing at the election, they could hold the balance of power, so perhaps should at least understand whether or not the SNP will continue to send Scot’s soldiers to Afghanistan for example or whatever.

Obviously Labour does not what the SNP getting too much power as it would hurt their heartlands. The Lib Dems are not interested in Alex Salmond tackling the weasely Clegg, either. To be fair, as someone who opposes blood sports, watching poor old Cleggy being ripped into bite sized morsels would simply be too toe curlingly embarrassing for me. As for Cameron…

As a “fucking nationalist” I can’t help but agree with Marcus Warner.

If we’re having a British election, then let’s have Plaid and the SNP on the debates please.

If we’re having an English election then fine exclude the nationalists, but at least be honest about the fact your policies are mostly England-specific. That would be fairer to the whole electorate.

The fact is Plaid and the SNP have the status of mainstream parties in the BBC’s coverage and programming. The usual format of the big 3, becomes the big 4 in Wales and Scotland. We want this to be upheld in any UK-wide debate. Mentioning the Greens, UKIP or anyone else misses the point.

“So you have your own arbitrary criteria for who should’ve been invited.

Fucking nationalists. Always wingeing.”

You could at least have spelt it right.

It is not a whinge to expect equity of treatment and information for Welsh voters.

Arbitrary criteria it may be, that is your view to hold, but the debate is surely about what the criteria is and therefore we can argue the toss on it.

My position is that Wales and Scotland are devolved places, with parties of Government who are not from the big three, and have seats that include straight shoot outs between Nats and Lib Dems, Nats and Labour and Nats and all three.

Given we elect on the basis on constituencies, marginal seats have now been made very unfair by those parties getting millions of people to offer their wares too. Saying Plaid can respond after when everyone turns over to watch ‘Greatest Fights and Riots 87’ on Bravo 2 is not a fair replacement.

@ 38 Jim & 39 Illtyd Luke

The logic of what you are both saying would suggest holding “devolved” debates for Scotland and Wales with the leaders of all the parties, not inviting the SNP and PC to the UK debates.

I’m an expat Scot, and support the aim of independence, but think this in a non-issue.

as for “so perhaps should at least understand whether or not the SNP will continue to send Scot’s soldiers to Afghanistan for example or whatever.”

..that’s bonkers! The SNP don’t have any role in foreign and defence policy, and until the people of Scotland wise up and vote for independence, there’s not a lot Salmond or anyone else can do about where soldiers in the British forces are sent!

Galen10 @ 41

This is not a devolved election though, this is a General Election for the entire Parliament. Brown Cameron and Glegg’s candidates are standing against the SNP’s candidates in a general election, not a devolved election, therefore every body who has candidates standing in a general election should be allowed the same platform. That makes the format unworkable, of course, which is why I oppose this measure imported from a system that easily fits this format. If/when we elect our head of State, then perhaps, but this is not suitable for our system. All we have is the big three carving up the election to ensure they remain the big three, no wonder a corrupt group of shysters get elected.

The SNP’s policy for sending troops to Afghanistan (for example) IS relevant because if they hold the balance of power they are going to negotiate their way into a few cabinet position then their position on National issues comes into play, I think the Welsh Nationalist policy is to pull out, for example. Why can’t we see that position argued? There is talk that we could see a hung Parliament. Perhaps the prospect of a hung Parliament becomes more or less appealing if we know that a Party’s policies would be.

I would like to see separate set piece debates from all the leaders with them being grilled via experts in their fields. Health professionals for example, or teachers etc. spread over a week on BBC4.

We are protesting this obvious distortion, for details of how to suppport this go here:

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2010/04/15/scotland-speaks/

The issue of the logistics and criteria for a fairer approach are discussed here: http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2010/03/04/media-democracy/

No television without representation.

I’m neither a nationalist nor a Celt nor do I live in Scotland or Wales, but that doesn’t stop me from thinking that the SNP/Plaid complaint is legitimate. I don’t think the BBC’s response goes far enough to address it. There would be only two fair systems: either simulcast the Scottish and Welsh debates with the English debate (replacing the English one with the Scottish and Welsh ones on the Scottish and Welsh regional variants of the various channels) or include the SNP and Plaid candidates in the national leaders’ debates (as suggested here). The former option is unsatisfactory because there would no longer be any shared-experience UK-wide debates. The latter is unsatisfactory insofar as English voters might not want to hear about parties they can’t vote for – as some here have suggested. Yet neither option, despite their downsides, is as bad as the one that has been chosen – three Anglocentric debates represented as being UK debates, with token Welsh and Scottish debates held at later dates. You don’t have to be a member or supporter of the nationalist parties to see how flawed – how unbalanced – that model is.

Greens and UKIP both get more votes in my part of country than Labour but we are unrepresented 🙁

@ Jim 42

I don’t buy the line that because our system is different from that in the USA, and we’re not electing a head of state, that this kind of debate is not suitable. I think there IS a congruence between the US “executive” President as Head of State and Government and the UK PM just as head of government. that’s why in all these international conferences you get a combination of Presidents and PM’s depending on the system in each country.

I honestly can’t see what is in it for the SNP and/or PC making such a huge issue of this: it just ISN’T that important. Their carping just makes them look ridiculous. It’s not as if provision isn’t being made for them to have debates of their own, and the vast majority of non-Scottish or non-Welsh voters just aren’t that interested in what either nationalist party has to say.

As for the SNP in coalition scenario, and them having cabinet seats and therefore influence on the “troops out” question, I think you’re living in cloud cuckoo land. Even if Labour formed a coalition, it’s much more likely to be with the LD’s. I’d say the prospect of SNP ministers in a Labour government is vanishingly remote, but even if it were to come about, I somehow doubt any Labour government would allow the tail to wag the dog to that extent.

Galen10- “The logic of what you are both saying would suggest holding “devolved” debates for Scotland and Wales with the leaders of all the parties, not inviting the SNP and PC to the UK debates.”

Or, it suggests that for devolved elections you hold devolved debates,
and for UK-wide elections you hold UK-wide debates involving all 5 of the mainstream UK parties, not England-only ones.

@ 47. Illtyd Luke

“….Or, it suggests that for devolved elections you hold devolved debates,
and for UK-wide elections you hold UK-wide debates involving all 5 of the mainstream UK parties, not England-only ones.”

No, sorry it doesn’t. If that was the case you’d have to invite other parties who fielded candidates across the country too. The programme was dreary enough with 3, it would have been worse with 5, and worse still with 7 or more.

The SNP and PC may be represented in the UK parliament, but they are not UK wide parties. It’s a perfectly rational, pragmatic approach to restrict the debates to the 3 who appeared last night.

Well where to start, the whole idea is flawed. Firstly as pointed out we don’t have a presidential system, so we don’t vote for the leaders unless we live in their constituencies. Unless there is an unbelievable shift in views the Lib Dems will not form a government that they lead, so why were the Lib Dems invited? Now if they were invited because they could form part of a government then so should a host of others, Plaid, The Greens, The SNP, UKIP, The SDLP, The Alliance Party, Assorted Ulster Unionists etc, (Exclude Sinn Féin as they are abstentionist and the BNP because no one will – I hope – work with them). There is no logic in this argument for exclusion.

From a Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish prospective most of the last debate was meaningless. Those policies will not be part of the Devolved governments plans. They are meaningless to any one other than the people of England. Maybe it should have been an England only broadcast.

Wales has a very week print media – most people in Wales rely on the BBC for political news, and although its trying hard inevitably the London based parties get the biggest slice of the cake and Welsh parties are relegated to the and also slots. Its simply not a level playing field. Also the broadcast media have an obligation to educate and explain. We no longer have a truly unitary system of government here, its something of a bastardised semi federal system – as others have stated there would be a value in Plaid and the SNP (and Mebyon Kernow for that matter – they have more councillors than Labour in Cornwall) explaining their views to the whole of the UK, especially if we are heading into hung parliament territory. Remember Plaid kept Labour functioning in government in the 1970s and extracted concessions from them which greatly were to the benefit of Wales.

The only problem with saying Greens should be invited to the debates (LOL) is that the BNP have a similar level of representation. UKIP is ahead of both.

So if you support the Greens, you support free publicity for the BNP.

After failing to stop Nick Griffin last year, the Greens now want to help him out even more.

Bravo, Greens!

@ 49 Lyn David Thomas

The only part of your post I agree with is “where to start” as the rest appears so muddle headed! I’ll break it up a bit as yours is so indigestible…..

1) “Firstly as pointed out we don’t have a presidential system”

So what? That doesn’t negate the value of a debate. The 3 invited lead their parties, and those parties are the 3 major ones. There is EVERY logic to the exclusion of “minor” and nationalist parties; from the point of view of multiple participants making the format unworkable, to not wanting to give parties with very limited national support unwarranted air time, to finding it pointless to have e.g the SNP or PC involved on the off-chance they might be involved in a coalition.

2) “From a Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish prospective most of the last debate was meaningless. Those policies will not be part of the Devolved governments plans. They are meaningless to any one other than the people of England. Maybe it should have been an England only broadcast.”

How blinkered a nationalist do you have to be not to see the point? It wasn’t meaningless because both Scotland and Wales still send MP’s to Westminster, and are (until their peoples wise up, grow some balls and actually vote for independence) part of the UK. The fact that some of the issues discussed aren’t as relevant due to them being under control of the devolved governments doesn’t make the whole debate pointless. Scotland and Wales are still influenced by what goes on in England in a macro-economic sense, and would be even if they WERE independent. If Scottish and Welsh voters can’t be trusted to “cherry pick” the parts of the debate which were relevant to them, you must have a very low opinion of their collective intellects!

As for having an “England only” debate, the BBC would no doubt then have been criticised by some nationalists for that too!

3) Your whole 3rd para.

You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too! On the one hand you want a devolved system and criticise the one we have now (which I agree is a mish mash.. but it is what it is until people vote positively to change it!!), but on the other, you want special treatment, and feel PC and the SNP have some right to a wholly unjustifiable platform for their views in England, on the basis that they might have influence in a coalition government. Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!

Most English people could care less what the SNP or PC thought about ANY given issue. I’m not defending the attitude by the way..just saying what I think is true. They don’t know much about either place, aren’t particularly interested, and wish they would stop moaning, becuase they have uncritically accepted the Daily Mail line that you are a bunch of scroungers, and already over-subsidised.

The nationalists are catered for by their own programmes, and other media opportunities – they are frequently on UK-wide radio and TV, so can hardly claim to be excluded. This misguided campaign simply makes PC and the SNP look a bit odd.

There is a place for “the broadcast media have an obligation to educate and explain” argument, and for promoting a level playing field. These debates AREN’T the time or place.

“I honestly can’t see what is in it for the SNP and/or PC making such a huge issue of this: it just ISN’T that important. Their carping just makes them look ridiculous. It’s not as if provision isn’t being made for them to have debates of their own, and the vast majority of non-Scottish or non-Welsh voters just aren’t that interested in what either nationalist party has to say.”

I will tell you why, because the Lib Dems just got 10million viewers to hear their ideas, ideas that a similar to parties like Plaid in places, while we have to sit on our hands and try to fight them in seats in Wales. I was fuming that Clegg wouldn’t rule out Trident, because Plaid and the SNP do, and he was allowed to look the most anti-trident when in fact is was a bloody sop.

Besides a brief and vague mention by Clegg, no one even mentioned devolution. The average, non political, punter in Wales might have been listening to the debate on a matter than simply is not relevant to them. Brown could have guaranteed the NHS grants you a genie and three wishes and it means jack shit to us Welshys!

I mean, just having that large an audience is a massive advantage to those parties, it reached out far further than any other political programme has in history.

That is manifestly unfair.

Historical query: My blurry memory is that Irish Independence candidates stood for Parliament in Great Britain during the Victorian/Edwardian era. Did any get elected?

On a contemporary note, I see that there is no SNP candidate in Berwick-upon-Tweed, a district that many Scots regard as Scotland. (A challenge to Alan Beith would be a good thing; he is an old fart liberal of the good kind, but he needs to be kept on his toes.)

Usually around 80 Irish Nationalists were elected, and indeed at least one liberal government worked with them.

Galen, nice to be patronised by you…

If it was a debate between people who could realistically be Prime Minister why were the Liberal Democrats represented? It was billed as a Prime ministerial debate not a leaders debate. If it was a leaders debate then more should have been there, hence my argument.

It is an irrelevance as far as policy is concerned in Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland as Westminster does not make policy in these areas in most “domestic” matters, the subject of the debate. Yes the money comes via a formula based on expenditure in England, and that does create a relevant point of interest. But it means that you should hedge every comment with – this is England only – the rest of the UK does things differently.

Having those parties on that might be involved in forming or supporting a government makes greater sense.

@55 Lyn

If you are feeling patronised, you might like to avoid it by not continually spouting the same argument, and not responding to the counter arguments presented to you above.

The LD’s were represented not becuase Clegg has a realistic chance of being PM (even after post debate surge in support), but because it is generally accepted that there are 3 “major” UK parties. Most of the recent polls show those 3 combined with around 90% of the popular vote. The LD’s may have to affect the aim of forming a government, but we all know it isn’t going to happen until we have some form of PR.

Your point about it being a leaders debate and not a PM debate was already dealt with above. Having the leader of every potential party would have made the debate impractical as well as unwatchable, not to mention giving a platforme to certain fringe parties who really don’t deserve the exposure just becuase they happen to be fighting lots of seats.

Your argument is flawed, don’t bitch about being patronised if you can’t marshal a coherent response.