graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,246
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 14:15:46 GMT
Post by graham on Jun 14, 2024 14:15:46 GMT
Those parties all have a record of winning seats in Parliament and local councils. Reform has none at all. But one should not become fixated on winning seats as the sole arbiter of 'worth', 'usefulness' or being deserving of recognition for inclusion to hustings programmes'. Polls do have some significance (and I speak as one who generally is a disparager of polls) and raw hard votes are for me more indicative than seats as to popular support. The SNP can generate a lot of seats from a small niche very efficient use of a mere 2.5-4% of the whole. If Reform can get to second place in the polls on about 20% or more then it would be a minor scandal to omit them from the discussion; and a serious error as they would turn it into an issue of itself and wring perhaps another 3% from it (as much as the SNP habitually get!). But surely Ofcom rules should be adhered to and when Broadcasters fail to do so they should face consequences.
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jun 14, 2024 14:21:06 GMT
But one should not become fixated on winning seats as the sole arbiter of 'worth', 'usefulness' or being deserving of recognition for inclusion to hustings programmes'. Polls do have some significance (and I speak as one who generally is a disparager of polls) and raw hard votes are for me more indicative than seats as to popular support. The SNP can generate a lot of seats from a small niche very efficient use of a mere 2.5-4% of the whole. If Reform can get to second place in the polls on about 20% or more then it would be a minor scandal to omit them from the discussion; and a serious error as they would turn it into an issue of itself and wring perhaps another 3% from it (as much as the SNP habitually get!). But surely Ofcom rules should be adhered to and when Broadcasters fail to do so they should face consequences. Do you have a link to the rules?
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 49,467
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 14:22:18 GMT
Post by carlton43 on Jun 14, 2024 14:22:18 GMT
But one should not become fixated on winning seats as the sole arbiter of 'worth', 'usefulness' or being deserving of recognition for inclusion to hustings programmes'. Polls do have some significance (and I speak as one who generally is a disparager of polls) and raw hard votes are for me more indicative than seats as to popular support. The SNP can generate a lot of seats from a small niche very efficient use of a mere 2.5-4% of the whole. If Reform can get to second place in the polls on about 20% or more then it would be a minor scandal to omit them from the discussion; and a serious error as they would turn it into an issue of itself and wring perhaps another 3% from it (as much as the SNP habitually get!). But surely Ofcom rules should be adhered to and when Broadcasters fail to do so they should face consequences. Arrant nonsense and uber anti-democratic as well. Damn silly rules that should all be shredded.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,246
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 14:42:58 GMT
Post by graham on Jun 14, 2024 14:42:58 GMT
But surely Ofcom rules should be adhered to and when Broadcasters fail to do so they should face consequences. Do you have a link to the rules? www.ofcom.org.uk - Ofcom's role in a General Election
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 14:51:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by carolus on Jun 14, 2024 14:51:38 GMT
Do you have a link to the rules? www.ofcom.org.uk - Ofcom's role in a General Election But this doesn't give specific definitions of what significant support menas, just some documents summarising historic and current support for parties in order to assist broadcasters in making a judgement. One of the sets of data is current polling, and another is the 2019 European elections. Of course there are other considerations as well, which is why it would be inappropriate to treat them in the same way as certain other parties. But they're clearly more significant than SDP or WPB or whatever.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,246
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 14:58:20 GMT
Post by graham on Jun 14, 2024 14:58:20 GMT
But this doesn't give specific definitions of what significant support menas, just some documents summarising historic and current support for parties in order to assist broadcasters in making a judgement. One of the sets of data is current polling, and another is the 2019 European elections. Of course there are other considerations as well, which is why it would be inappropriate to treat them in the same way as certain other parties. But they're clearly more significant than SDP or WPB or whatever. To be fair , it was not as helpful as I had hoped. In particular, it failed to define 'Major' and 'Minor' parties.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,026
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 15:07:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by J.G.Harston on Jun 14, 2024 15:07:18 GMT
I am very critical of the media for having included Farage in the Debates at all - and am surprised that Galloway has not made a big fuss of this. Reform has todate had no MPs elected under its label and has but two councillors. Galloway has a stronger case for inclusion.I think the Broadcasters are at some risk of the major players - particularly the Tories - seeking to make a legal intervention to restrict his coverage. Have the broadcasters published their rules for inclusion? It does seem that every attempt to rule out Reform would rule out eg Plaid and Greens.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,246
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 15:12:01 GMT
Post by graham on Jun 14, 2024 15:12:01 GMT
I am very critical of the media for having included Farage in the Debates at all - and am surprised that Galloway has not made a big fuss of this. Reform has todate had no MPs elected under its label and has but two councillors. Galloway has a stronger case for inclusion.I think the Broadcasters are at some risk of the major players - particularly the Tories - seeking to make a legal intervention to restrict his coverage. Have the broadcasters published their rules for inclusion? It does seem that every attempt to rule out Reform would rule out eg Plaid and Greens. Plaid and the Greens both have elected MPs - and many councillors!
|
|
CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,609
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jun 14, 2024 15:34:34 GMT
I have heard Michael Howard on the airwaves a couple of times today. Things are really getting desperate for the Tories when it takes a long retired former Tory leader, and even longer ago Home Secretary, to be the one taking on the Reform Party, encouraging optimism, , and sounding competent when challenging Labour. The paucity of the Government front bench in terms of talent is quite striking, and a sign of the mess the factionalism and constant change of PMs has caused. Don't get me wrong, Labour's aren't too great either, but we haven't. as yet, rolled out John Reid to campaign for us.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 16:15:26 GMT
Post by Benevolent Dictator / Tsar on Jun 14, 2024 16:15:26 GMT
Have the broadcasters published their rules for inclusion? It does seem that every attempt to rule out Reform would rule out eg Plaid and Greens. Plaid and the Greens both have elected MPs - and many councillors! I understand you want establishment parties only. No variation. No argument. Just let the establishment get on with it.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jun 14, 2024 16:26:07 GMT
Plaid and the Greens both have elected MPs - and many councillors! I understand you want establishment parties only. No variation. No argument. Just let the establishment get on with it. I think describing the Greens as an 'establishment party' is a bit of a stretch tbh.
|
|
|
Post by Benevolent Dictator / Tsar on Jun 14, 2024 18:07:14 GMT
I understand you want establishment parties only. No variation. No argument. Just let the establishment get on with it. I think describing the Greens as an 'establishment party' is a bit of a stretch tbh. It isn't, net zero is establishment policy. Maybe establishment is the wrong word, but they are a status quo party.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 20:29:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by observer on Jun 14, 2024 20:29:05 GMT
I think describing the Greens as an 'establishment party' is a bit of a stretch tbh. It isn't, net zero is establishment policy. Maybe establishment is the wrong word, but they are a status quo party. No, they are establishment. They are the public face of the billionaire globalist class. They didn't intend to become that. But they are
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 14, 2024 23:06:39 GMT
I think describing the Greens as an 'establishment party' is a bit of a stretch tbh. It isn't, net zero is establishment policy. Maybe establishment is the wrong word, but they are a status quo party. Establishment policy on climate change is to talk about net zero and put in some token policies towards getting there (sometimes at the same time as putting in policies that make it more difficult). There are anti-establishment approaches on both sides of the issue. And our economic policies are obviously not status quo.
It isn't, net zero is establishment policy. Maybe establishment is the wrong word, but they are a status quo party. No, they are establishment. They are the public face of the billionaire globalist class. They didn't intend to become that. But they are If we were the public face of the billionaire globalist class then they'd be giving us lots of money. And we wouldn't be pushing the most socialist economic policy out of any of the parties that has measurable levels of support in the polls.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 14, 2024 23:13:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by observer on Jun 14, 2024 23:13:51 GMT
It isn't, net zero is establishment policy. Maybe establishment is the wrong word, but they are a status quo party. Establishment policy on climate change is to talk about net zero and put in some token policies towards getting there (sometimes at the same time as putting in policies that make it more difficult). There are anti-establishment approaches on both sides of the issue. And our economic policies are obviously not status quo.
No, they are establishment. They are the public face of the billionaire globalist class. They didn't intend to become that. But they are If we were the public face of the billionaire globalist class then they'd be giving us lots of money. And we wouldn't be pushing the most socialist economic policy out of any of the parties that has measurable levels of support in the polls. Hmm, well the globalists are corporatists and, as such, they're backing the whole 'climate change' thing
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 6:40:11 GMT
Post by Benevolent Dictator / Tsar on Jun 15, 2024 6:40:11 GMT
It isn't, net zero is establishment policy. Maybe establishment is the wrong word, but they are a status quo party. Establishment policy on climate change is to talk about net zero and put in some token policies towards getting there (sometimes at the same time as putting in policies that make it more difficult). There are anti-establishment approaches on both sides of the issue. And our economic policies are obviously not status quo.
No, they are establishment. They are the public face of the billionaire globalist class. They didn't intend to become that. But they are If we were the public face of the billionaire globalist class then they'd be giving us lots of money. And we wouldn't be pushing the most socialist economic policy out of any of the parties that has measurable levels of support in the polls. This really is the wrong thread for this discussion. Generic Green policies are now establishment captured. They may no longer truly Green as you or I would define it, but generic Green policies are establishment norm. Green policies as establishment norm, are about human survival, and making money, but they are still Green policies. The Green Party in the UK is not establishment captured like its German counterpart, that's true, rather it has become the dustbin for the malcontents of other parties. Which is why the Green Party UK generally only succeeds amongst the middle classes with too much time on their hands. Personally I don't see the either establishment Green policies or Green Party UK policies as Green. This is because they are both ultimately about protecting the human species, which is the least Green thing possible. The best thing for the planet is for us to make ourselves extinct and for evolution to replace us, but I think that is a step too far to be a policy of any Green Party anywhere.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 6:40:29 GMT
Post by Kristofer Keane on Jun 15, 2024 6:40:29 GMT
There is this debate every election. If we're going to have debates, and personally I doubt their worth, then at some point, outside of the actual election period, there needs to be clear and transparent criteria for inclusion set down. Personally I think standing in say more than 80% of seats is a far stronger case than opinion polling... but if it's clear and set out in advance at least everyone knows where they stand. 80% of any constituent nation perhaps, otherwise you're eliminating the SNP and Plaid.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 6:52:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 15, 2024 6:52:23 GMT
There is this debate every election. If we're going to have debates, and personally I doubt their worth, then at some point, outside of the actual election period, there needs to be clear and transparent criteria for inclusion set down. Personally I think standing in say more than 80% of seats is a far stronger case than opinion polling... but if it's clear and set out in advance at least everyone knows where they stand. 80% of any constituent nation perhaps, otherwise you're eliminating the SNP and Plaid. Sensible, but polling should be taken into account too. Otherwise several well organised and funded pressure groups could easily expect an invite. Also Northern Ireland wants a word.
|
|
|
Post by london(ex)tory on Jun 15, 2024 7:34:06 GMT
There is this debate every election. If we're going to have debates, and personally I doubt their worth, then at some point, outside of the actual election period, there needs to be clear and transparent criteria for inclusion set down. Personally I think standing in say more than 80% of seats is a far stronger case than opinion polling... but if it's clear and set out in advance at least everyone knows where they stand. 80% of any constituent nation perhaps, otherwise you're eliminating the SNP and Plaid. Having SNP and Plaid in the *national* debates is ridiculous anyway. They *should* be eliminated. Or do you think DUP / SF etc should be included too? National debate(s) should include only those parties with enough candidates to theoretically form a government, and who are polling above a certain level. And then have separate debates for Scotland / Wales / Northern Ireland.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jun 15, 2024 8:53:16 GMT
There is this debate every election. If we're going to have debates, and personally I doubt their worth, then at some point, outside of the actual election period, there needs to be clear and transparent criteria for inclusion set down. Personally I think standing in say more than 80% of seats is a far stronger case than opinion polling... but if it's clear and set out in advance at least everyone knows where they stand. 80% of any constituent nation perhaps, otherwise you're eliminating the SNP and Plaid. You *should* eliminate SNP and PC. They should take part in debates in those countries. If I were the broadcasting authority, I would include all “main” parties. A main party is a party which has, or has a reasonable prospect of getting, a substantial share of the votes in a substantial number of constituencies. Thus I would include Con Lab LD Reform Green. I would not include WPB because it’s got minimal support beyong just George Galloway and maybe one or two other seats. I wouldn’t include a party just because it has lots of candidates (q.v. Natural Law Party, which had 300 candidates and 200 votes each). I would have included the BNP when they got 6% in the European election, and when they had dozens of councillors.
|
|