The news is through that there is to be not just one historic tv debate but three, screened on ITV, BBC and Sky.
Party positions are now fairly well entrenched with Brown hoping to overhaul the Tory polling lead, Cameron looking to consolidate it by sealing that elusive deal, Clegg is just delighted to have rare parity with the top two UK parties while Salmond and his Plaid Cymru counterpart are angry that Scottish and Welsh voters are not getting a representative enough view.
So, I have my instructions, here we go...
This is a disgrace to Scotland and voters deserve better etc etc (repeat to fade)
No,the truth is, although those frozen out of the debate clearly have the arguments and the rules on their side, not to mention a precedent when Newsnight was pulled at the last minute due to the unrepresentativeness of the show, I'm kind of looking forward to the events and so will most people.
Sometimes laws are best overlooked rather than adhered to though I am fully aware that such an argument won't stand up in a court (where this issue could very well end up, and should)
The SNP being represented in the post-debate analysis is a decent stab at addressing the inequality of the original plans but remains a shabby compromise.
Given there are to be three debates, I don't see why one couldn't be in Wales, one in England and a third in Scotland with all significant parties in each region represented.
But I won't complain too much. As I say, I'm still looking forward to these debates, despite their flaws.
Carla in bronze
3 minutes ago
30 comments:
Could I present a possible solution to this? Plaid, The SNP and the Greens should form an electoral pact based on the European Free Alliance –Green partnership in the European Parliament. Then claim a fourth spot sharing the debates between them. It is perhaps too late and with the Greens in Scotland being a separate party very difficult to arrange but such a pact would invigorate progressive voters in the next election and benefit al parties. How many times have progressive friends have lamented they could not vote for the Plaid or SNP?
Sharing the three debates around England, Scotland and Wales wouldn't work. The main point of having three debates is to stop Sky and ITV being able to claim an unfair disadvantage if they had been shown only on the BBC, and neither broadcaster would accept being limited to only Scotland or Wales (English audiences are unlikely to watch debates not focussed on English issues), so the very least we'd have is four debates (England-only ones for Sky and ITV, with Scottish and Welsh ones left to the BBC), when even three is arguably pushing the public interest to its limits.
The whole idea is flawed from the start, since we don't elect a Prime Minister directly. It may work in the presidential dichotomies of France and the US, but it simply doesn't make sense here.
But the main problem, and the reason this should not go ahead (or at least not be shown at prime-time in Scotland) is that the debate will centre around devolved issues such as education, health and justice. To show David Cameron claiming he is going to do this and this for schools would not only be irrelevant in Scotland, but would potentially mislead the public as to what they are voting for. You might as well have Angela Merkel telling us her policies for German schools. Not only that, but are Brown, Cameron and Clegg going to pontificate on what is likely to be the main issue for Scots in the election, namely increased powers and the Calman commission? I doubt it, which automatically renders the debates almost completely pointless.
Currently, there appear to be noises of Scottish and Welsh specific debates on the side, but these will not only fail to address the main issue of Scottish voters hearing English solutions to devolved matters, but you can bet your life savings on them featuring people like Jim Murphy and David Mundell rather than Brown and Cameron (they're not going to do five debates), which will merely serve to dilute their importance, as well as providing no challenge to the vastly more capable Salmond.
Some of the excuses on the BBC blogs for why the SNP should not be involved are absolute ignorance, and the whole debacle just shows what a mess UK politics is in.
I really can't see the SNP logic on this:
There is no arithmatical way in which Mr Salmond can become Prime Minister and furthermore he is not even a candidate in the General Election.
UKIP have a stronger argument for taking part, at least there is theoretical chance of Mr Farage being PM.
Thomas Docherty = CyberBrit
There is a theoretical chance of Angus Robertson becoming PM. Of course, it's never going to happen, but it's there as a theoretical possibility. Just in the same way that Mr Clegg will never be PM, but it's a theoretical possibility.
The problem is that these debates are being billed as 'Prime Ministerial Debates' which would be all well and good if we were having a Prime Ministerial Election, but we're not.
The bottom line is that such a high profile platform gives the Labour, Tories and LDs the chance to garner votes in Scotland and Wales while the SNP and PC are excluded from that same platform. That goes clearly against the rules.
The point many people are missing is that the UK political scene is nothing like the US scene, so there cannot and should not be any US-style leaders debate here.
Each nation of the UK has a different political landscape that cannot be covered by a leader debate involving only the leaders of the major parites in England but not elsewhere.
It's interesting how this issue is revealing the attitude that persists among unionists and people in England where Scotland and Wales are not regarded as countries with their own national political scenes but as regions like, say, East Anglia, which means we should all shut up and stop whinging and do as we're told.
Which is of course what far too many Scots and Welsh people do.
People in Scotland need to wake up to the fact that they don't live in a democracy like everyone else in western europe. Maybe this will do it, who knows.
Lara.
Thomas,
"There is no arithmatical way in which Mr Salmond can become Prime Minister"
Actually, there is.
If the SNP win enough seats in Scotland at a Westminster election, which is certainly possible, they then have a mandate for independence whereby Salmond would become the PM - of Scotland.
Salmond is effectively campaigning at the UK level in order to attain the position of Scottish PM, which he is entitled to do and which should not be prejudiced against by the unionist establishment who are trying to force this undemocratic "leaders" debate on us.
Lara
Alex Salmond to chair the debates and pose difficult questions would be an alternative.
"If the SNP win enough seats in Scotland at a Westminster election, which is certainly possible, they then have a mandate for independence whereby Salmond would become the PM - of Scotland."
But not in this election, for this Parliament, because he is not even standing!! I agree that Nick Clegg is not going to be Prime Minister, though he might have a ministerial role in propiing up the Tory Government that he wants. However it would be arrogant to exclude him just because every poll shows him languishing in a distant third.
"Given there are to be three debates, I don't see why one couldn't be in Wales, one in England and a third in Scotland with all significant parties in each region represented."
Actually Jeff, it IS a disgrace. I just don't buy the broadcasters "its all too difficult" argument and of course the unionist parties have been only too happy to agree to exclude the SNP and PC.
Calling Wales and Scotland "regions" is pretty suprising from someone like yourself so well tuned in to the power of words.
I know that is is how the BBC views it, but it also reflects the kind of casually arrogant/ignorant language I hear used by so many in England for the status of "the celtic fringe" as mere regions of England.
THE THREE LIARS
Gordon Brown is walking straight into a trap. Blinded by his current UK poll deficit and his inbred obsession with gaining tactical advantage over the SNP, he can't see that he is about to put everything that is unsustainable about the devolved settlement into full public glare just at the time he needs to close down such talk.
If this goes ahead then he will have done the SNP's major strategic job in the build up to the election for them - effectively providing a specificallly Scottish dimension to a UK-wide election and a dimension which Labour are clearly on the wrong side of at that.
Iain McWhirter is right - this will likely backfire badly on Labour in Scotland except in areas where they are reliant on the 'dunderheid' vote.
As for Cameron and Clegg, I'm sure they understand the implications but, the bottom line is, they simply don't care about the future of Scotland within the union because its continuance is, at best, neutral to their career prospects and, at worst, detrimental.
This highlights if it needed highlighting why the SNP are in power in Holyrood. The United Kingdom is not and has never been united.
It was established, as Jack Straw has said, for the sole purpose of Englands interests, and has existed in this condition since.
England by it's size and population dominates the UK Parliament in Westminster. If the Kingdom were truly united each consituent part would have equal representation in Westminster as is done in many federal states. It was never done so that Englands dominance has been maintained to the detriment of the other nations.
Yes there is resentment against England and it's superior position at Westminster. UK policy is formed on the basis of Englands interest. We can see that reflected in UK institutions such as the BBC and it's pathetic and weak sibling BBC Scotland.
The Westminster elite are scared witless of Scotlands SNP and our desire to break free of Englands dead hand. Bring on the election and lets get out now before we are dragged furhter under.
"If the SNP win enough seats in Scotland at a Westminster election, which is certainly possible, they then have a mandate for independence whereby Salmond would become the PM - of Scotland."
Hmm Lara so they aren't going to give us a vote as promised? Following the Irish Replublic model for freedom doesn't seem to be in the manifesto. If the SNP are planning on this approach I suggest they say so upfront and watch the anti-Labour but not pro-independence aspect of the vote collapse.
Why would you look forward to a debate which will be largely irrelevant to you?
Bearing in mind that England has no devolution, and Westminster legislates on those issues which Holyrood legislates on here, a large proportion, if not the majority of the debates contents, will mean nothing in Scotland, because Westminster is responsible for nothing on devolved matters except setting the budget.
Oh - but it will make the Labour Party look good, arguing the bit with the Tories over privatisation, public sector cuts, further erosion of the NHS etc - none of which the Scottish Government are proposing.
That is probably why the broadcasting regulations say that;
"Broadcasters transmitting constituency, or electoral areas, reports and debates must offer the chance to take part to candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or parties with evidence of significant current support."
I am quite surprised to see you giving up the pass so easily Jeff.
The SNP are going mental here for a reason, and a good one.
The Scots versions of BBC and ITV at least are able to broadcast alternative programming opted out from their networks. I hope and expect the courts to rule that is what should happen. Sky have an agenda of their own, though I may suggest if you are a nationalist you perhaps decline to renew your subscription in a sort of rent strike. They may be more amenable to the representation of the people if their pockets are hurt.
As to the debates, Clegg is the most likely to gain by being treated as a big fish rather than a minnow. Cameron has most to lose as he is in the lead in polls so doesn't really need the publicity, and besides, the BBC is a branch of Zanu is it not? Gordon is such an odious creep of a man with his inappropriate smiling and cadaverous look and those mannerisms. I suspect he is only doing it because he knows he's losing. What a sad and pathetic end to his career.
SNP SNP SNP
>>..I'm kind of looking forward to the events and so will most people.<<
How democratic of you from your Scottish region(sic) Actually naw, it is nauseating!
In a Parliamentry democracy we vote for parties. To have the largest party in the nation of Scotland ignored at a British wide general election only serves to underpin the spin coming from those democratic(sic) Unionist parties. That the SNP are an irrelevance.
In my view it is impossible for this debate to be shown terrestrial TV in Scotland without an SNP input. Get the lawyers ready.
This is Britain playing at being America, again.
They have a presidential debate so the UK has to have one too.
If this is a Prime Ministerial/Presidential Debate what (with respect) is Mr Clegg doing there?
What is the betting on him being Prime Minister?
Why do people in Scotland have to sit through hours of questions to the two Prime Ministerial candidates and the lad (for my money incidentally much better than either of them, but... just there to erm, make up the numbers, or something) talking about the health Service in England, the A level results, University funding, care of the elderly, English environment policies, English farming and fisheries, English transport, and law in England and Wales.
OK. Let's be honest, the Prime Minister won't have Alex Salmond there, but why not UKIP, or the Greens. They are English parties and a wide range of viewers will wish to hear what they would do about the major questions of the day.
No, the trouble is we are trying to do something America does. Without seeing the differences.
In America there are two candidates. Here there are two but......
In America they are looking for a President, while here we are looking for a Cabinet Government which is part of the parliament. Entirely different thing.
In America they have 50 states, all with equal powers, and a federal government with responsibility for all federal matters, whereas here we have a 2 kingdoms, one with a parliament and one that shares the “federal” parliament/government, a principality with no law making powers, and a province which doesn’t really take part in mainland politics at all... it having no representation in the major UK parties, and with more in common with its next door neighbour than with the UK, but with its own assembly.
A bit of a hodgepodge then, but what would you expect... Labour did it.
Jeff, your view is all very interesting but this isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact or, more precisely, law. Put simply, the SNP can prevent these debates from being broadcast should they choose to do so.
Couldn't leave a comment from my phone today otherwise I would have been on sooner.
Thomas - we don't have a presidential system where we're simply voting for a PM. You seem to be either deviously or naively looking over the fact that we have clear rules about how election campaigns are run and this arrangement, on the face of it, seems to contravene those rules.
We don't simply add up the number of PPCs and decide that's how big a spot you get on the telly.
Cruachan, what's wrong with calling Scotland a "region" for the UK elections? It clearly is, just as much as the North East and North West are.
I would agree with you that Scotland and Wales have a distinct set of issues that are worthy of a separate debate but let's not get all precious about calling Scotland something that it patently is in this context.
The numerous points that Scots will be watching chat on health, police and education etc that means little to them are key points. Disengagement north of the border will be higher than that down south I suspect.
And Cassius, I fully agree that opinion doesn't really come into it and it's the rules that count. Given I am not a judge however, that is all I can offer i'm afraid ;)
For me, the interesting question is not whether the SNP are entitled to block broadcast in Scotland (they clearly are) but whether the SNP wish to do so.
One the one hand, it is clearly damaging for the SNP for the three Unionist parties to be promoted by the media as the 'major' parties whilst the SNP are visibly sidelined.
On the other hand, Salmond may make himself unpopular with the Scottish electorate by blocking the debates.
I'd say that the first is more important than the second and that the SNP should ensure that the existing law is upheld.
Digressing slightly, legal watchers will have noticed some interesting little snippets coming out of this:-
1. Broadcast of the debates in Scotland is clearly unlawful - no-one has claimed otherwise. Yet the SNP are being castigated by the Unionist trio (including "the party of law and order") for even suggesting that existing electoral broadcasting laws are enforced.
2. Labour initially wanted the debates to happen prior to the writ for the GE being moved - a tacit admission that they would be unlawful under the OFCOM Regs during an election period. Obviously they've ultimately decided to ignore the rules.
3. Tavish is about to make a clown of himself again by threatening to 'counter-sue' the SNP....quite difficult when there is no scenario under which that would be conceivably possible.
CC
Jeff, your reference to Scotland as "a region" merely highlights your underlying UK mindset, hence why you have become the "acceptable" face of "moderate, civic Blog nationalism" in the British nationalist/unionist press. For the record Scotland and England are nations of the UK. Wales was annexed by England and although this will upset our friends in Plaid they are part of a greater England, constitionally and legally. The six (of the 9) counties of Ulster, known by unionists as Northern Ireland is a province, not a nation, depsite rugby references in the past to the "4 nations". The failure of the "UK" state broadcasters to give the SNP equal status simply shows that this "union", between Scotland and England is neither equal or fair. It is a de facto reflection of the subservient position Scotland has in this union. I would have thought you, as a supposed pro-independence backer, would understand that.
Westminster is responsible for nothing on devolved matters except setting the budget.
THEREFORE THEY CONTROL EVERYTHING IN SCOTLAND
The "UK" Leaders' debate will be the English debate, which is why the fight has started. What will be discussed, from my perspective?
Brown will talk about his Free Personal Care - we have that in Scotland already.
Cameron will harp on about giving more powers to the Councils and such - this is devolved.
Clegg will talk about free tuition fees - got them cheers!
Brown will want to mention his Crime and Security Bill - doesn't apply up here.
Cameron will want to show off his green credentials - which don't even closely match the Climate Change Bill already enacted by the Scottish Parliament.
Clegg will talk about his changes to the NHS - yup, you guessed it, Nicola Sturgeon will not be implementing them if becomes PM!
And so on, and so forth.
If they happen to mention something like Trident, or the benefits system then fair enough, it will apply to me - although there are further complications in this issue too (cf Attendence Allowance debate).
I would say 75% would be irrelevant to Scotland. The News Bulletins are a good example. I should really sit in the house and listen to an average weeks' worth, and just count how many of the political stories actually affect me directly. But to call for a Scottish Six O'Clock News is, apparently, "parochial".
The constitutional situation we have in this country is complex. The Devolution arrangements are assymetrical and confusing to folk who don't take a large interest. I don't think Alex Salmond and the rest should be included in the UK-wide debate, I don't think there SHOULD be a UK wide debate. It's just not sensible. Not unless they're just keep wee flags up whenever someone is talking to indicate to viewers which nations their policies will apply to. You'd be surprised by the distinct lack of Saltires!
There should be regional debates, including the people who are relevant there. This should be simple enough for the BBC and ITV to do, although I don't know enough about Sky's infrastructure.
Otherwise, what are the other possibilities? To have a debate only about Reserved matters? It would be a tad dull, not to mention odd, to have a debate about running the country without mentioning Education, Health, Crime...
I agree entirely with King Doug!
"Cruachan, what's wrong with calling Scotland a "region" for the UK elections? It clearly is, just as much as the North East and North West are.
I would agree with you that Scotland and Wales have a distinct set of issues that are worthy of a separate debate but let's not get all precious about calling Scotland something that it patently is in this context."
Jeff, it's not about being precious, it's about not falling into the default UK Unionist mindset and use of language.
Scotland is a nation in terms of broadcasting and all other respects (other than the little matter of reserved powers to Westminster - which we're working on!).
In fact, isn't the BBC motto something like "Nation shall talk unto nation"?
Having said that, this decision by the BBC/ITN/SKY/Westminster Establishment may just add a few more percentage votes towards the SNP from neutral/don't know elements of the electorate. They will see this for what it is, the calculated marginalisation of the troublesome parts of the Anglo-British state in the run up to an election.
Anyway, I'm off to boost my part of the UK economy by a few individual procurement decisions of my own.
I've enjoyed all the debates you've prompted on your blog this year Jeff. Christmas peace and joy to you and yours.
"I would have thought you, as a supposed pro-independence backer, would understand that."
Heh.
I don't worry so much that Scots will be bored as misled. The ballot fiasco of 2007 showed that people cannot understand very simple instructions which have been broadcast to them, shown on posters, have been told to them by the officials at the polling stations and are even written on the paper. All this and thousands of people still got it wrong.
If people can make these mistakes with all the information more than readily available, how can anyone be confident that a Scot or a Welshman/woman will not think "Oh, Mr. Brown/ Cameron/ Clegg has a good idea about this policy" and vote accordingly? The bye-election in Glasgow North East are a good example - or even better, Glenrothes, when Labour ran a Westminster campaign on council issues. One could even ask how many seats the SSP would have won in 2003 if they had not stood on the anti-war platform which Holyrood can't control.
People in general simply do not understand which powers are controlled by Holyrood, Westminster, Brussles or the local council, and this debate will only muddy the waters and mislead people who don't know.
Spot on Tulloch. This will ahve huge influence on anyone who can manage to sit through it without falling asleep or throwing a Nokia at their telly.
It's like the BBC news... Just this morning when Mr Mandleson announced 2 year degrees and vast funding cuts. The talk all day is how we are going to reduce 4 year degrees to 2 year.
Of course we're not, but the BBC neglected to mention it, and most people had forgotten that we are allowed to run our own universities in this country.
I think we should demand a flashing yellow diamond on the screen that says NOT IN SCOTLAND, as appropriate
"So, I have my instructions, here we go...
This is a disgrace to Scotland and voters deserve better etc etc (repeat to fade)"
Jeff that's pretty poor from an independence supporter.
It reads like David Maddox.
Post a Comment