|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 10:12:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by mattbewilson on Jun 15, 2024 10:12:42 GMT
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. the problem is that the SNP are the third largest party and in a hung parliament would be king makers.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 49,402
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 10:23:30 GMT
Post by carlton43 on Jun 15, 2024 10:23:30 GMT
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.
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. The evolution to a new less damaging state is already happening Much more infertility in western developed states Drastic fall off in seemen count Transgender nonsense Homosexuality Drastic fall in desire for children Easy access to birth control Abortion on demand Narcissistic Eloi approach to life Steep fall in birth rates Acute risk averseness Poorer immune systems It is all progressing very nicely anyway.
|
|
Raddy
Non-Aligned
Posts: 54
|
Post by Raddy on Jun 15, 2024 10:40:30 GMT
The thing that amuses me around this debate is the assumption/article of faith amongst many Conservatives that the party cannot win if it leaves the centre ground of liberal/social democracy, and that the centre left of the party will leave if it does.
In contrast it seems to completely ignore the reality that the Conservative Party can't win without the UKIP/Reform social conservative minded voting for it, and actually assumes it is somehow their duty to do so.
I don't know whether it is arrogance or stupidity that creates this belief that the right should be happy to be held as hostages to fortune to allow to enable the Conservative Party to win power, and then accept the promotion and legislating of social and liberal democratic policy.
The truth is the Conservative Party cannot win on its own whilst promoting its centrist/leftist policies anymore, so why does it not accept that reality, and work to build a broad church party of left of centre conservatives, liberal democrats, social democrats and right of centre socialists.
After the election if Reform do moderately well, I doubt they will disappear. It seems obvious they will continue on their current path, embracing any Conservatives of the right who might jump ship, whilst altering it's current target to the socially conservative traditional voters of Labour. The idea it would merge into a one nation rump is for the birds.
|
|
carlton43
Non-Aligned
Posts: 49,402
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jun 15, 2024 10:42:16 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. As far as the Media is concerned this is entirely entertainment and about viewing figures. It is not about politics, informing the public or being fair or creating a platform for discussion. It never will be. These are difficult to present, chair or moderate. More than two contestants causes confusion and over talking and jockeying for position. They will always be fraught, superheated and pretty well pointless. The format should be rigid and firmly controlled by an autocratic presenter with charisma rather than a weak, simpering Julie Etchingham style person. The public should be absent. The questions formed by a professional team and fed to the presenter's earpiece. This is 'an event', an occasion and pregnant with drama and the hope for a meltdown, tears and a total car crash by at least one contender. It is gladiatorial and close to a blood sport and should be treated as such. As with all knife fights, there are NO rules and cannot be rules. Rules spoil most things. Let the broadcasting professionals hold as many or as few as they wish. Let them invite and leave out who they wish. This is a show and not politics at all.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 37,491
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 11:08:17 GMT
Post by The Bishop on Jun 15, 2024 11:08:17 GMT
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. NI really is sui generis and thus should (and does) have its own debates.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 11:16:38 GMT
Post by matureleft on Jun 15, 2024 11:16:38 GMT
The thing that amuses me around this debate is the assumption/article of faith amongst many Conservatives that the party cannot win if it leaves the centre ground of liberal/social democracy, and that the centre left of the party will leave if it does. In contrast it seems to completely ignore the reality that the Conservative Party can't win without the UKIP/Reform social conservative minded voting for it, and actually assumes it is somehow their duty to do so. I don't know whether it is arrogance or stupidity that creates this belief that the right should be happy to be held as hostages to fortune to allow to enable the Conservative Party to win power, and then accept the promotion and legislating of social and liberal democratic policy. The truth is the Conservative Party cannot win on its own whilst promoting its centrist/leftist policies anymore, so why does it not accept that reality, and work to build a broad church party of left of centre conservatives, liberal democrats, social democrats and right of centre socialists. After the election if Reform do moderately well, I doubt they will disappear. It seems obvious they will continue on their current path, embracing any Conservatives of the right who might jump ship, whilst altering its current target to the socially conservative traditional voters of Labour. The idea it would merge into a one nation rump is for the birds. There is a rational alternative to compelling people to form ‘big tent’ (and obviously uncomfortable) coalitions. That’s to adopt a more proportional system of election that permits greater nuance of choice with genuine chances to elect someone reflecting those choices. Someone has already suggested that we might see a wider support for electoral reform from the right of the spectrum after this. That would be welcome. Excluding significant segments of opinion from representation is a recipe for alienation.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,143
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 11:24:40 GMT
Post by islington on Jun 15, 2024 11:24:40 GMT
The thing that amuses me around this debate is the assumption/article of faith amongst many Conservatives that the party cannot win if it leaves the centre ground of liberal/social democracy, and that the centre left of the party will leave if it does. In contrast it seems to completely ignore the reality that the Conservative Party can't win without the UKIP/Reform social conservative minded voting for it, and actually assumes it is somehow their duty to do so. I don't know whether it is arrogance or stupidity that creates this belief that the right should be happy to be held as hostages to fortune to allow to enable the Conservative Party to win power, and then accept the promotion and legislating of social and liberal democratic policy. The truth is the Conservative Party cannot win on its own whilst promoting its centrist/leftist policies anymore, so why does it not accept that reality, and work to build a broad church party of left of centre conservatives, liberal democrats, social democrats and right of centre socialists. After the election if Reform do moderately well, I doubt they will disappear. It seems obvious they will continue on their current path, embracing any Conservatives of the right who might jump ship, whilst altering it's current target to the socially conservative traditional voters of Labour. The idea it would merge into a one nation rump is for the birds. Even if Reform does disappear, the sentiments it has tapped into certainly won't, and you're correct to say that the main right-of-centre party needs to respond accordingly.
The same is true in the US. All the focus is on Donald Trump, as if his removal from the political scene would mean the disappearance of the voters whose outlook he expresses.
Not just in the UK and US but in democracies world-wide, mainstream right-of-centre parties, by their refusal to recognize this reality, bear the responsibility for creating a political vacuum that has been eagerly filled by irresponsible and dangerous demagogues. So it can be argued that Reform, if it succeeds in forcing the Tories to face political facts and address a more faragiste agenda (perhaps alongside, rather than to the exclusion of, more conventional Tory policies), will actually have done British democracy a service. Likewise Republican politicians who, although not necessarily besotted with Trump the man, are nevertheless aligning themselves and their party with key elements of his agenda.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,143
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 11:30:12 GMT
Post by islington on Jun 15, 2024 11:30:12 GMT
The thing that amuses me around this debate is the assumption/article of faith amongst many Conservatives that the party cannot win if it leaves the centre ground of liberal/social democracy, and that the centre left of the party will leave if it does. In contrast it seems to completely ignore the reality that the Conservative Party can't win without the UKIP/Reform social conservative minded voting for it, and actually assumes it is somehow their duty to do so. I don't know whether it is arrogance or stupidity that creates this belief that the right should be happy to be held as hostages to fortune to allow to enable the Conservative Party to win power, and then accept the promotion and legislating of social and liberal democratic policy. The truth is the Conservative Party cannot win on its own whilst promoting its centrist/leftist policies anymore, so why does it not accept that reality, and work to build a broad church party of left of centre conservatives, liberal democrats, social democrats and right of centre socialists. After the election if Reform do moderately well, I doubt they will disappear. It seems obvious they will continue on their current path, embracing any Conservatives of the right who might jump ship, whilst altering its current target to the socially conservative traditional voters of Labour. The idea it would merge into a one nation rump is for the birds. There is a rational alternative to compelling people to form ‘big tent’ (and obviously uncomfortable) coalitions. That’s to adopt a more proportional system of election that permits greater nuance of choice with genuine chances to elect someone reflecting those choices. Someone has already suggested that we might see a wider support for electoral reform from the right of the spectrum after this. That would be welcome. Excluding significant segments of opinion from representation is a recipe for alienation. I agree with your last sentence but in my view PR isn't the best way of achieving it. It's better to have political parties that are 'big tent' coalitions and if they are uncomfortable, so be it. It forces politicians who don't especially like each other to work together and find what common ground they can, and that's a good thing.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 37,491
Member is Online
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 11:39:49 GMT
Post by The Bishop on Jun 15, 2024 11:39:49 GMT
Though as with the Tories, the voting profile of Reform is quite age heavy (I realise that isn't always the case with the populist right on the continent) And we shouldn't imagine that governments are doing nothing about such concerns - most have become more immigration sceptical in the past decade and are taking measures to toughen up on it. But some will always want simple solutions to complex problems, and demagogues like Farage will exploit that.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 11:46:42 GMT
Post by matureleft on Jun 15, 2024 11:46:42 GMT
There is a rational alternative to compelling people to form ‘big tent’ (and obviously uncomfortable) coalitions. That’s to adopt a more proportional system of election that permits greater nuance of choice with genuine chances to elect someone reflecting those choices. Someone has already suggested that we might see a wider support for electoral reform from the right of the spectrum after this. That would be welcome. Excluding significant segments of opinion from representation is a recipe for alienation. I agree with your last sentence but in my view PR isn't the best way of achieving it. It's better to have political parties that are 'big tent' coalitions and if they are uncomfortable, so be it. It forces politicians who don't especially like each other to work together and find what common ground they can, and that's a good thing. Well of course a proportional system inevitably produces the effect you seek - single party rule would be unlikely. In my youth big tents worked okay. Class identification was strong, diversity was pretty small. The (still recent) wartime experience of coalition and shared experience helped. Social institutions thrived. We have now a much more fragmented society. We’re less natural joiners and collective socialisers (the decline of pubs and clubs, and most unions, is an indicator). We need a system that reflects these differences. I wouldn’t be a member but we should have a party of the clear left, and a nativist right wing party. Anyway, not really this thread!
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,284
|
Post by Jack on Jun 15, 2024 12:54:37 GMT
80% of any constituent nation perhaps, otherwise you're eliminating the SNP and Plaid. As far as the Media is concerned this is entirely entertainment and about viewing figures. It is not about politics, informing the public or being fair or creating a platform for discussion. It never will be. These are difficult to present, chair or moderate. More than two contestants causes confusion and over talking and jockeying for position. They will always be fraught, superheated and pretty well pointless. The format should be rigid and firmly controlled by an autocratic presenter with charisma rather than a weak, simpering Julie Etchingham style person. The public should be absent. The questions formed by a professional team and fed to the presenter's earpiece. This is 'an event', an occasion and pregnant with drama and the hope for a meltdown, tears and a total car crash by at least one contender. It is gladiatorial and close to a blood sport and should be treated as such. As with all knife fights, there are NO rules and cannot be rules. Rules spoil most things. Let the broadcasting professionals hold as many or as few as they wish. Let them invite and leave out who they wish. This is a show and not politics at all. One of the main problems with these debates, and even political interviews nowadays, is that they've been dumbed down for the social media age. It's all about trying for a "gotcha" moment, which can be posted online in a short clip to get hits and likes. As a result, we get the party representatives trying to goad others into saying something silly that they can use against them, or the political interviewer will just ask daft questions that no one can really answer properly (such as "are you promising not to raise taxes in the next parliament?", as if anyone could possibly know what the economy is going to look like in five years time), and nothing useful is gained.
|
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,239
|
Post by graham on Jun 15, 2024 13:25:11 GMT
Far better to get rid of the debates entirely, and return to the mass meetings we saw in cities across the country at election time back in the 1960s/70s/80s.We then saw gatherings of 1000 - 1500 people with voters able to see the leaders in action. Interruptions and heckling was a part of the interaction , and some leaders - Harold Wilson comes to mind - were brilliant at dealing with that. Today's politicians are not in the same league as most campaigning now comes across as contrived and insincere.They fail to connect with the public in the way that was true of their predecessors.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,574
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 15, 2024 14:18:31 GMT
The SNP/PC issue is a conundrum - really they have no place in UK-wide debates, but as in all their seats they are fighting the UK-wide parties, their argument that this places them at an unfair disadvantage is clearly valid. My solution would probably be to scrap the debates altogether...
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 14:47:37 GMT
Post by Kristofer Keane on Jun 15, 2024 14:47:37 GMT
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. The only way to really make that fair is to have no British-level debates and have debates for each constituent nation - so you'd have an English debate but that could only be shown in England, etc. Otherwise at the Scottish level you'd end up seeing Scottish and British debates and the SNP would be underrepresented for a Scottish audience.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,728
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 15:21:48 GMT
Post by johng on Jun 15, 2024 15:21:48 GMT
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.
The current system we have is nonsense and is in no way fair. It would be much better to have it like in America with clear objective criteria.
For UK wide debates, for example, a) standing in enough seats across the UK to win a majority and b) polling an average of least 10% in polls conducted by BPC members in the 14 days prior to the debate. Then have national opt outs after the event for regional/ minor parties to give a response with the time divided by their polling average.
Scotland/ NI/ Wales debates could be held in each country based on similar criteria. There could also be 'children's' UK-wide debates for the likes of the Greens and SNP on news channels/ BBC4.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,574
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 15:35:05 GMT
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 15, 2024 15:35:05 GMT
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. The current system we have is nonsense and is in no way fair. It would be much better to have it like in America with clear objective criteria.
For UK wide debates, for example, a) standing in enough seats across the UK to win a majority and b) polling an average of least 10% in polls conducted by BPC members in the 14 days prior to the debate. Then have national opt outs after the event for regional/ minor parties to give a response with the time divided by their polling average.
Scotland/ NI/ Wales debates could be held in each country based on similar criteria. There could also be 'children's' UK-wide debates for the likes of the Greens and SNP on news channels/ BBC4.
In this year's election that could possibly (I'm not sure of what the exact average for the Lib Dems would have been, but it would certainly have been hit and miss whether they made 10%) have led to a 3-way debate with Con-Lab-Reform. Now admittedly that's probably Labour's dream scenario, but I'm not sure it actually makes sense.
|
|
|
YouGov
Jun 15, 2024 15:50:05 GMT
Post by Benevolent Dictator / Tsar on Jun 15, 2024 15:50:05 GMT
The current system we have is nonsense and is in no way fair. It would be much better to have it like in America with clear objective criteria.
For UK wide debates, for example, a) standing in enough seats across the UK to win a majority and b) polling an average of least 10% in polls conducted by BPC members in the 14 days prior to the debate. Then have national opt outs after the event for regional/ minor parties to give a response with the time divided by their polling average.
Scotland/ NI/ Wales debates could be held in each country based on similar criteria. There could also be 'children's' UK-wide debates for the likes of the Greens and SNP on news channels/ BBC4.
In this year's election that could possibly (I'm not sure of what the exact average for the Lib Dems would have been, but it would certainly have been hit and miss whether they made 10%) have led to a 3-way debate with Con-Lab-Reform. Now admittedly that's probably Labour's dream scenario, but I'm not sure it actually makes sense. It makes sense in that it protects incumbent parties. What many Labour and Conservative supporters is a US situation where there only 2 parties, hence making rules towards this end. They don't want what is good for the nation just what is good for them in their parties. Please note I say many not all.
|
|
Tony Otim
Green
Suffering from Brexistential Despair
Posts: 11,574
|
Post by Tony Otim on Jun 15, 2024 15:54:40 GMT
The other thing I would be wary of is transferring rules from a presidential election - where the whole country votes for one position - to a parliamentary one, where there can be significant variations between constituencies to which parties are relevant. That to me does seem to favour the established parties.
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 15,530
Member is Online
|
Post by Sibboleth on Jun 15, 2024 16:06:39 GMT
But then placing smaller parties on an equal footing with larger ones favours the smaller parties, doesn't it. The silly part is that debates mostly don't matter. About the only countries where they can still move electoral mountains are those with unusually weak parties where people genuinely do watch the debates to work out who to vote for: the Netherlands is a good example. But that's not us.
|
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,728
|
Post by johng on Jun 15, 2024 16:24:41 GMT
In this year's election that could possibly (I'm not sure of what the exact average for the Lib Dems would have been, but it would certainly have been hit and miss whether they made 10%) have led to a 3-way debate with Con-Lab-Reform. Now admittedly that's probably Labour's dream scenario, but I'm not sure it actually makes sense. It makes sense in that it protects incumbent parties. What many Labour and Conservative supporters is a US situation where there only 2 parties, hence making rules towards this end. They don't want what is good for the nation just what is good for them in their parties. Please note I say many not all. Not really.
ReformUK has not had a single MP elected, but would be at the debate under those hypothetical conditions. The Lib Dems wouldn't when the election was called, but are above the hypothetical 10% now.
If anything, having the Greens and Plaid next to the Labour/ Tory leader is incredibly unfair as it favours the small parties.
|
|