Given the proportion of votes received, they would come a long way down the list. Definitely below UKIP and probably some others. Would we really want to see all of them?

Then what about UKIP?

They have 13 MEPs and are polling 12-17% in national opinion polls (in comparison to the Greens polling just 2%).

Nigel Farage should be in the debates, not the irrelevant Green party.

If you follow the relevant link, you’ll observe that UKIP are indeed mentioned.

In fact, there’s something much more interesting in that Angus Reid poll than the OP talks about. Specifically included in the statement that ‘a majority of Britons’ want to see them on the national stage, UKIP and the Greens. Specifically excluded (or rather, stated as ‘support was lower’) are the BNP (well yes), Plaid and the SNP.

I think by far the most surprising part of the result is that 33% of respondents want Nick Griffin up there. That seems wildly high to me, and makes me wonder if the poll got astroturfed by someone.

The broadcast debate between politicians is not a legal matter. The broadcasters pick who they think will create an entertaining discussion.

To attend the party, you have to be established, handsome or interesting. If you are not invited, assume that you are not interesting.

I am a signatory to the “Media Carta”. The charter states that as well as the human right of free speech, we have the right to communicate. This means access to the publicly-owned airwaves. Entertaining or not? Irrelevent. As a culture-jammer, I get my entertainment from taking the power back. The first stage of that is to get 100,000 signatures which entitles us to a debate on the subject in Parliament.

Well done, University of York Green Party for smashing your way on to liberal conspiracy for the second time in the space of a month, now even more credible!

There’s a key difference between the actual findings of the poll and the way it’s being presented here.

The respondents weren’t asked who they “wanted” to see represented in the general election television debates, but who they thought “should” or “probably should” be included.

It’s perfectly possible to think that particular leaders “should” be there, without actually “wanting” them. There’s a tenable argument that Nick Griffin “should” be there, and indeed the Green Party provides it – it would “broaden(ing) the debate and present(ing) the electorate with a greater political spectrum with which to engage.” It’s hard to argue with that. But there’s no evidence that the public actually “wants” Nick Griffin, or indeed, Natalie Bennett, to take part.

To paraphrase the old saying: there are lies, damn lies, and opinion polls.

A minor irrelevant party. All the environmentalism we need can be done within the bounds of the Labour Party.

@ 3 Chris

“I think by far the most surprising part of the result is that 33% of respondents want Nick Griffin up there. That seems wildly high to me, and makes me wonder if the poll got astroturfed by someone.”

I expect a largish portion of that is made up of people who just think all parties should be included.

Am not a fan of the TV debates – but if they exist it is hard to argue against all national parties with an MP being invited to take part.

The BNP got more than twice as many votes as the Greens.

I’m just saying…

At a time when satisfaction with the main three parties is at an all time low, when satisfaction with most party leaders are underwater it seems only reasonable that the media should be opening up to alternatives. Having both UKIP and the Greens at the debates seems a reasonable step to opening up our democracy.

Jimmy

But they didn’t get an MP and thus don’t have a Parliamentary leader to speak in the leaders debate.

Benali

Again, like the BNP, UKIP don’t have a parliamentary leader. Though that said, I do agree with your general point about opening up to wider range of voices.

Margin4Error: you just said more or less what I was going to say, with the addendum: I’ll bet UKIP have an MP after the next election.

The problem with the Green Party is there isnt a single Green Party.

The Green Party of England and Wales will be standing candidates in every consituency they cover – but that means fewer candidates than UKIP, say.

Chris

I suspect they will too – but that may be a little late for the 2015 debates.

Margin4Error: well, yes, I more meant that even if UKIP miss the debates on grounds of parliamentary representation this time round, they’d be in them on those grounds next time Which differentiates them from the BNP, who as yet I have seen no reason to believe will get into Parliament.

Every time I look at a Green’s face, it makes me want to start heating my house with industrial grade coal.

But no, in all seriousness I would like to see far more parties included in the debates. This constant trio really is rather undemocratic and I would like to hear some of the broader topics from the smaller parties. I would like to hear more of UKIP’s views on the environment, and I would like to hear more of the Green’s views on the economy and fiscal policy.

However, for practical reasons I do think that you need to be polling at least decent figures. From what I understand the Greens are polling less than UKIP or even the BNP.

@ 16 Chris

Well, we don’t want to deliberately design the rules to allow the Greens while excluding UKIP, so it’s heartening that the situation has the potential to be reversed in the near future.

Personally I wonder if a two-tier debate would be more sensible, so Lib/Lab/Con at one event and some of the smaller parties at another. Because it seems silly to give the Greens equal coverage to the three bigger parties, but equally silly to allow them to attend but ignore them for most of the time.

@18 Chaise Guevara
“Personally I wonder if a two-tier debate would be more sensible, so Lib/Lab/Con at one event and some of the smaller parties at another. Because it seems silly to give the Greens equal coverage to the three bigger parties, but equally silly to allow them to attend but ignore them for most of the time.”

The way media rules currently work, parties standing in a certain proportion of the seats in a region, or nationally, are supposed to be treated as “major parties” during an election period, and are entitled to similar shares of media time. At the moment, the BBC puts the threshold at a sixth. Being included in election debates should probably follow rules along those lines.

“They have 13 MEPs and are polling 12-17% in national opinion polls (in comparison to the Greens polling just 2%).”

The Green vote is largely suppressed by our electoral system, which means even strong supporters frequently vote Labour (and up until recently Lib Dem) as a tactical move. If you look at polls where tactical voting isn’t incentivised (such as the London Assembly or EU elections) we poll substantially higher.

UKIP’s supporters are generally extremely angry and disillusioned Tories who voted against immigrants and/or benefits and are enraged that immigrants are still here, some of them are still allowed in, they still have human rights, and that not only have the stories of feckless benefit claimants continued, but most of them are still immigrants.

I can hardly believe the hypocrisy of the Greens on this, it makes them look very self-serving; preaching about “right and in keeping with the democratic principles”, “broadening the debate and presenting the electorate with a greater political spectrum with which to engage”, when it’s all too painfully obvious from this that they are actually only really interested in allowing the public to hear their POV, but not other people’s!

They obviously don’t give a damn that 58% of those polled want UKIP’s views to get an airing compared to 54% for the Greens.

@3 Chris Naden, funny you should say 33% wanting to hear BNP type views represented seems “wildly high”, because Angus Reid, the polling company make out the opposite, describing it as “only 33%”. Interesting though that the British Nationalists get a lower showing than the other two Nationalist parties in Britain.

Try asking Angus Reid how likely it would be for their polls to get “astroturfed” and I think you’d get a dusty response.

@ white trash

“Interesting though that the British Nationalists get a lower showing than the other two Nationalist parties in Britain.”

Where are you going with this? It’s hardly surprising seeing that Plaid and the SNP a) will probably have a lot of people in their respective countries, even non-supporters, who’d like to see them in the debates, and b) don’t have the same rep as the BNP, i.e. they’re not widely seen as thinly disguised racists.

The Greens shouldn’t get so hot under the collar, Osborne and Cameron are not going to be doing any “leaders debates”, they are trying to get out of them. Bunch of cowards!

A minor irrelevant party. All the environmentalism we need can be done within the bounds of the Labour Party.

Except it wasn’t. They were too busy spying on people and bombing the shit out of things.

Personally I wonder if a two-tier debate would be more sensible, so Lib/Lab/Con at one event and some of the smaller parties at another. Because it seems silly to give the Greens equal coverage to the three bigger parties, but equally silly to allow them to attend but ignore them for most of the time.

Or some kind of league so the big three can slug it out together and the Greens, UKIP and the Pirates can have their debate and then the best of the latter get to face the best of the former on election night.

The neatest solution in my view would be to copy Ireland where there is a separate debate for the minor parties. I suspect for entertainment value alone it might get more viewers than the main ones.

Surely UK Greens are in three seperate parties: Green Pary of England and Wales, Scotish Green Party and the Irish Green Party (Comhaontas Glas) – which leader would get to debate?