Who SHOULD take part in leader's debates?

So, assuming these should happen at all, who do you think should take part?

Points to consider ....

- LibDems are out-polled by UKIP and, IIRC, by the Greens but, currently, are by far the third-largest party in Westminster

- LibDems are also, currently, in government.

- UKIP won the last national election, beating all comers. That's a first, it not being Labour or Tory, in about 100 years.

- SNP aren't a national party for UK

- All indicators suggest SNP are likely to be third, or maybe fourth, largest party after the next election, with LDs maybe 5th.

- Can the SNP be included, and Plaid excluded, without offending the entire Welsh nation?

- If we have 6, 7 or even 8 party leaders, aren't we giving undue influence to tiny parties?

- If ever-smaller parties are included, where do you stop? Monster Raving Loony? BNP?



Note - this thread is NOT about which party leader wants what, or why they might want it. I want party politics kept out of this thread. It's about what YOU think, not what we think Cameron, Miliband, etc, think.

If you want to discuss what politicians want, please start your own thread on it. Thanks.

Personally, I find it hard to exclude UKIP, given two MPs, and the Euro election results.

I can't see how LDs could conceivably be excluded, at least this time, given the number of MPs and that they're part of the government.

But if the debates aren't to get so large as to be unwieldy and pointless, I can't see 6, 7 or more working.

Personally, I'd go for either the current three plus UKIP, or, perhaps better yet, no TV debates at all.

If we are to have debates, I 'd like to see dramatic changes go the rules which, last time, were HUGELY restrictive. For a start, more audience feedback .... and questions from the audience. Second, more direct leader-to-leader challenges, and debate. Last time was so restricted as to be sterile, boring, anodyne and utterly uninformative. It was more like a three-part press statement than a debate.

But if we do have them, they have to be small enough to be manageable.

I vote for none at all. What purpose do they serve apart from adding more theater to the theater that is Politics? How good someone is at winning over the audience on TV with someone else has little to no bearing on their competence as a prime minister. Remember, the audience in general don't pick those that win the arguments. They pick those that come across better (for example, being more polite)

I don't think that including smaller parties would give them 'undue influence' or that debates and questions to a panel of six or seven should be unwieldy.

Although imperfect (given the attempt by the major players to spin things, avoid answering questions and slyly uttering untruths), in this democracy any information that is not scripted or stage managed electioneering that is made available to the electorate can only be a good thing.

I also think it's a mistake to think that people would be disproportionately influenced by smaller parties - especially if they're speaking unvarnished sense!

It depends.

If its a debate between potential Prime Ministers, then no one but the Conservatives and Labour.

No coalition would let a member of one of the smaller partners be PM.

If its a debate between all parties, then they shouldnt bother, as thats what their party political liarcasts are for.

That said, you have to have some sort of requirement for including parties, otherwise it will get out of hand.
If you include the Greens, why not Monster Raving Loonie? Why not every Independent candidate?

'I'm a politician, get me out of here.' instead.

TV debates are largly unessesary in my opinion.
But if there has to be one, then just have the big 4 parties.

If Cameron insists on staying firm on his position that he won't do one unless the greens are there. Then let's have one without the conservatives. He's made his bed.

Most people are too stupid to vote - this stuff proves it.

I really really hate these debates as they simply reinforce the cult of personality. I don't want to vote for an X-Factor style posturing figurehead leader, I want to vote for a set of policies I understand and believe in. But then I don't believe in democracy - not that we live in a democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

I don't think that including smaller parties would give them 'undue influence' or that debates and questions to a panel of six or seven should be unwieldy.

....

---

Where do we draw the line between a smaller party that should be included, and a smaller one that shouldn't?

And .... who draws the line?

Suppose I form a political party, and get the requisite minimum level of support to comply with whatever the minimum is for a registered, legitimate party (and I've no idea what that is). Maybe we get a few hundred Hexus members to join, stump up a pound each (or whatever) and form the official Hexus party. As leader, do I get to debate with Cameron, Miliband, etc, on national TV?

I'd say that it did indeed give me undue influence, simply by the imprimatur of being included at all. We'd end up with a "leader's" debate with a cast list of hundreds.

Surely there has to be a metric to differentiate minor and major parties (and there currently is) and someone to apply it (currently OfCom).

And currently, apparently, UKIP qualify and Greens don't.

The potential if "smaller" parties are included is that it could ge way more than 6 or 7 included. Not just the ones in the options above, but the DUP, Sinn Fein, English Democrats, Monster Raving Loony, and many more.

Is not the point of leader's debates to hear policy platforms discussed by those either with a chance of being PM, or in this shiny new coalition world, being a part of the government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

'I'm a politician, get me out of here.' instead.

---

This. If it *must* be televised (and the party political broadcasts are bad enough) then it needs to be something utterly terrible like this. I have no desire for our politics to be even more about who presents the slickest image, I care for policy and how that policy would be enacted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splash

This. If it *must* be televised (and the party political broadcasts are bad enough) then it needs to be something utterly terrible like this. I have no desire for our politics to be even more about who presents the slickest image, I care for policy and how that policy would be enacted.

---

That's why, if we must have them, I'd want to see the rules relaxed so they are an actual debate, not a series of pre-scripted unchallenged statements. I'd like to see each leader seriously pushed, especially by members of the public, to argue and defend their views and positions, precisely to see beyond to polished, pre-canned party-line speeches. Would it work? Dunno. But it might, if the environment was something like a blend of an Oxford Union debate, and Question Time.

But a repeat of last time would, IMHO, be a sheer waste of airtime.

If they happen at all. I've got doubts that they will. Shame. ;) :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

'I'm a politician, get me out of here.' instead.

---

do we get to vote on who gets left in the jungle after the show ends and everyone has left? preferrably about 500 miles from civilisation....

I've never really understood the debate thing. Its basically a case of oneupmanship and usually deteriorates into a slanging match. Politicians spend their time arguing with each other with absolutely no intention of swaying their opponents view, but with the sole purpose of making a better impression on their audience, usually achieved by blaming the opponent for every bad thing to happen when their party was in office. I would have a lot more faith in politicians if I felt they worked together for the good of the country and not just to line their own pockets

We could do hunger games/the testing/divergent I guess. Perhaps instead of fighting they could be made to solve puzzles like how to convince a tabloid reading population that immigration isn't the great evil etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

We could do hunger games/the testing/divergent I guess. Perhaps instead of fighting they could be made to solve puzzles like how to convince a tabloid reading population that immigration isn't the great evil etc.

---

Test 1

Bacon sandwich test.......

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/d...elwynv2jpg.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Is not the point of leader's debates to hear policy platforms discussed by those either with a chance of being PM, or in this shiny new coalition world, being a part of the government?

---

But we're not really in shiny new coalition world. The electoral system is still first past the post, thanks to stupid moron voters. Bashing Clegg in the referendum to get back at him for Tory policies. So in the UK coalitions will continue to be relatively uncommon.

The debates are for people of below average intelligence, which is unfortunately half the population.

It occurs to me, mainly because I recall some whiny woman on TV last time, that the requirements for being involved in any combined debate should be related to the share of the votes cast in the last election.

The share doesnt represent current MPs, nor does it directly represent big parties, just those that people want to vote for.

In 2010, the Tories got 306 seats based on 10.7million votes, where as the LibDems got 57 seats from 6.8million (you can see why they wanted PR voting).

Now, the Greens got 1 seat from a bit over 250,000 votes, apparently 0.9% of the votes.

But those are just winning figures, it doesnt include all the votes for losing candidates, so presumably the numbers might be a lot higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobF64

It occurs to me, mainly because I recall some whiny woman on TV last time, that the requirements for being involved in any combined debate should be related to the share of the votes cast in the last election.

The share doesnt represent current MPs, nor does it directly represent big parties, just those that people want to vote for.

....

---

The actual methodology used is more nuanced than that. It considers all available evidence, including but far from limited to Parliamentary presence. Numbers of MPs is a factor, but there's much more than that. It also includes previous electoral performance, including an analysis of share of vote alongside seats won .... and
current opinion polling data.

And, it relates to the type, and geographical nature, of the election. The SNP meet (obviously) the criteria in Scotland, but not in England and Wales, or the UK. Plaid meet the criteria in Wales, but not elections for the rest of the UK.

The initial, and I stress 'initial' as it's not yet final, determination for the next UK General election is that the list of "major"parties remains as before, except that UKIP now qualify, based on two recent by-election wins, current polling, the overall 1st place at the last national election (the Euro) and previous local elections. The Greens, currently, don't qualify.

And broasting rules are complex but MUST give broadly balanxed coverage to "major" parties, and must "consider" non-major parties, in context, where they have a relevant policy or platform. As I understand it, including the Greens, at least in some leader debates, isn't ruled out, but including them might lead to legal challenges, on the broadcasters, from others, say the SNP, if they aren't also included, on the basis of whether doing so is fair and "broadly balanced".

And including the Greens and SNP may then lead to challenges on broadcasters from yet more, like Plaid, the DUP, etc.

Ultimately, OfCom determine what is or isn't a "major party" but broadcasters have to determine, within legally defined rules, what level of coverage does or doesn't comply with the law. A LOT of that is, therefore, editorial discretion, but subject to legal challenges for non-compliance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

We could do hunger games/the testing/divergent I guess. Perhaps instead of fighting they could be made to solve puzzles like how to convince a tabloid reading population that immigration isn't the great evil etc.

---

Do you think we could do "Politician Crystal Maze"? With Richard O'Brien, of course. And they all end up locked in.

Lib Dems ... who are they again ?
Next election will be won by Conservatives and UKIP. I would rather have them two showing off each other's power.
Labour - no one wants to vote for them after what they did to our country. They thought only 13,000 East Europeans would come every year. Now, 200,000 come! And, how they made us bankrupt. Milliband also seems so weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

Labour - no one wants to vote for them after what they did to our country. They thought only 13,000 East Europeans would come every year. Now, 200,000 come! And, how they made us bankrupt. Milliband also seems so weak.

---

Youd think, wouldnt you. But for the same reason people voted Yes in Scotland, people will vote Labour without remembering how we got up to our necks in the first place.

Traditionally, some peoole vote Labour almost out of habit. Perhaps because they couldn't conceive of voting Tory, and there was no other credible alternative for actually forming a government. Well, not under FPTP, anyway.

And some vote Tory, for a mirror image of the same logic.

A third group bleed off to "minor" parties, including the LDs, and all sorts of other groups.

And then there was the floaters, which was typically what determuned who won elections.

But, things have changed. Increasing numbers have moved away from those "safe" traditional votes for the big two, either out of sheer disenchantment, or because the convergence of the parties has meant there's much less, idealogically, to differentiate them, or even because a single issue, be it the EU, Scottish nationalism or the Green agenda. And I rather think the breakdown of large chunks of that 'traditional' vote is now permanently non-traditional, and will pick with more discrimination on party platforms .... and hopefully on policy grounds, not personality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

Lib Dems ... who are they again ?
Next election will be won by Conservatives and UKIP. I would rather have them two showing off each other's power.
Labour - no one wants to vote for them after what they did to our country. They thought only 13,000 East Europeans would come every year. Now, 200,000 come! And, how they made us bankrupt. Milliband also seems so weak.

---

Keeping politics out of it, as per the original post...

I went through a few changes. 1st, only the 'main 3' parties, then hmm, UKIP are building a power base, regardless of what I think of their policies, then, well they've got 2 MPs, the greens only have 1, they should be in. Then I thought about whether I'd watch it, regardless of who is in. The answer is no. I'm feeling complete apathy towards all politics of all colours at the moment. So I'd rather watch something entertaining.

for me its NO TV DEBATE AT ALL

it bears no relationship to what occurs before or afterwards... to be cornered by a great speaker and then have him/her win and then the economy collapse and all promises fall foul of a money drought helps not one jot. To get lucky on a good sentence.. and to look like you've won.. doesn't actually run the country.

Does Vince Cable know how to add up? Damn right? Was it right for him to be secretly taped in his surgery talking like a tit? Nope.. the man can still add up. Shall we get him up on another round of financial debates? nope.. let him add up.

lets be fair.. it's TV for TV's sake.. it's just entertainment and I for one fancy the idea of politicians doing their job and not being on telly arguing over who got the best training.

Would I have wanted Churchill stood up there for an hour in the middle of the BoB? Would I hell.
Would he have done any good? Probabnly would have alienated more people, while drinking, than done any good.

Let politics occur... and let boxing matches occur.. and let them not be the same

We have roughly 47 million registered voters in the UK and of course any TV thing like this will have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Easy to say they should stand by their principles in the debate. Trouble is, not winning means the opposition get in.

Not that it matters much - nowadays they're mostly just talking heads implementing laws made in Europe.

None of them... our political system is different to the American system:

Over here we should only be concerned with our local MP and what he/she can do for us... the leader doesn't matter (or shouldn't matter)

I hate this Americanisation of our political system.

They are all just celebrities anyhow these days with nothing to say but soundbites.

So by the above approach, perhaps basically we should be having local debates, consisting of the candidates up for election in our own constituencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kalniel

So by the above approach, perhaps basically we should be having local debates, consisting of the candidates up for election in our own constituencies.

---

god no... that's worse

read what they want to do... vote... dont let them stand on soap boxes and rant in the market square!

As the political spectrum becomes more fragmented and the polls persistently point to a hung parliament of some sort, the chances of one or more of the smaller parties doing a deal with one of the two main parties to support them rises. Consequently, it's really quite likely that UKIP or the Greens or the UDP or Plaid or the SNP, or any mix of them, may be in a position to negotiate the price for their support. To my mind that makes the need to expose all parties to equal scrutiny so much more important. I'd certainly want to see Sturgeon saying what she'd want Labour to give her for SNP support, Farage saying what he'd like in exchange from the Tories etc. The leader debates would be a good way to do that, but yes, as long as they were strongly and fairly chaired.

The leadership debates, whilst being potentially stage managed and 'presidential', will still engage many people who wouldn't otherwise want to look up from Strictly, BGT, Facebook etc. That can only be a good thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobbieRoy

As the political spectrum becomes more fragmented and the polls persistently point to a hung parliament of some sort, the chances of one or more of the smaller parties doing a deal with one of the two main parties to support them rises. Consequently, it's really quite likely that UKIP or the Greens or the UDP or Plaid or the SNP, or any mix of them, may be in a position to negotiate the price for their support. To my mind that makes the need to expose all parties to equal scrutiny so much more important. I'd certainly want to see Sturgeon saying what she'd want Labour to give her for SNP support, Farage saying what he'd like in exchange from the Tories etc. The leader debates would be a good way to do that, but yes, as long as they were strongly and fairly chaired.

The leadership debates, whilst being potentially stage managed and 'presidential', will still engage many people who wouldn't otherwise want to look up from Strictly, BGT, Facebook etc. That can only be a good thing.

---

For any party to be the lesser party in part of a deal. They would still need a good number of seats. Which would mean that the Lib Dems and UKIP are the only people nessesary to take part.
What are the chances of the Greens getting more than 1 seat? The only thing you need to know from them is what are they going to do in Brighton apart from not pay for the bins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy3536

For any party to be the lesser party in part of a deal. They would still need a good number of seats. Which would mean that the Lib Dems and UKIP are the only people nessesary to take part.
What are the chances of the Greens getting more than 1 seat? The only thing you need to know from them is what are they going to do in Brighton apart from not pay for the bins.

---

Erm, no, not necessarily. If current polling is to be believed, the SNP could be about to relieve Labour of 30-ish seats in Scotland. We may well end up in the position where IF the SNP back Labour, that combination may have a government-forming majority, whereas without it, the Tories (oerhaps with UKIP, DUP or both) may form the next government.

No doubt, the SNP will demand a quid-pro-quo for that support, should the numbers work out that way. But then, Labour have the nuclear option of pointing out to the SNP that if they're too greedy in their demands, instead of getting some of what they want, they may end up with Cameron/Farage as PM and Deputy, which no doubt will make Sturgeon misty-eyed over the 'good old days' of Cam/Clegg.

There are any number of ways any number of small(-ish) parties may have sway way in excess of their national mandate, and so, their party's platform could be relevant.

Oh, it's worth noting too that under OfCom's methodology, after the next election, if current polling is correct, the 'Big 3' might just the Tory, Labour and UKIP. The LDs may not qualify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

Oh, it's worth noting too that under OfCom's methodology, after the next election, if current polling is correct, the 'Big 3' might just the Tory, Labour and UKIP. The LDs may not qualify.

---

And as the BBC Trust has said today - they will treat UKIP as one of the four main parties...