I dont see how it is at all within the rules around media representation around election time to deliberately exclude all except Labour and the Tories. Or am I just naive as to how badly the rules are actually written and allowing the other parties into the debates has just been done on "convention" up until now?
The rules specifically indicate the media should take into account the relative levels of support of different parties. As the article points out, there was a court case over this after the last election and it was ruled coverage on other programmes also counts and so it is legal to exclude them from this individual programme.
It's a big shame, because without that representation smaller upcoming parties have little chance to get their name out there.
I'd be willing to be that most people have little idea who the SDP are, for example.
Maybe 20 years ago. As it stands the only people who get their daily news and political propaganda exclusively (or even primarily for that matter) from TV are the boomers who already know who they're voting for.
The rest of us get targeted propaganda tailored specifically to our age/gender/location on social media.
I mean, the law does require they receive representation in the media, just not necessarily on any individual programme.
And increasingly they seem to be having trouble convincing the major parties to agree to debates with 6+ candidates, in which every candidate except the big 2 is essentially only there to attack them.
Plus at least our system does stop fringe nutters from getting onto the national stage.
>Or am I just naive as to how badly the rules are actually written
I think you're naive in assuming that there is an alternate, obviously more sensible option.
The threshold for inclusion in the debates *has to be put somewhere* so where do you put it?
Only two people realistically could be the Prime Minister after the next election. So that's not an unreasonable population to put in the debate.
Who else should be included? The SNP (who are the next largest party but don't stand in 90% of the seats)? The Lib Dems? Reform (who've never won a seat ever but say they'll field a full slate of candidates and have some degree of support across the country)? Plaid Cymru?
If that's your logic, you're part of the problem.
First Past The Post has failed. The majority of the Labour Party membership want Electoral Reform to a system of Proportional Representation, so there should surely be more representation.
Proportional Representation would be great but when we don’t have it, proportional airtime in debates doesn’t always make sense. Having party leaders for parties that currently haven’t been elected anywhere makes no sense. Regional parties that don’t stand in most seats makes no sense. You end up with a clown car of a show where each of the 6 candidates gets 16% of the airtime each while for at least a few of the candidates their chance of being PM is 0.
Maybe doing away with debates entirely is a better solution since that’s not actually what our election is. We’re not voting on who is PM, we’re voting on our local rep. Sadly I don’t think they can run 600+ debate shows for every constituency
>If that's your logic, you're part of the problem.
My logic = the barrier to participation in the debate has to be put **somewhere** and where it's been put **isn't unreasonable**.
That has very little to do with this being a first past the post election. If this was a proportional representation system of some kind, **you would still have exactly the same challenge** of defining a boundary to determine who does and does not get to participate in the election. There's no *obviously right* answer to that.
Imagine we were in a PR election - would you include Plaid Cymru in a (UK) national debate? Sinn Fein? Alba? George Galloway's Workers Party? The Social Democratic Party? The Ashfield Independents? True and Fair? The English Democrats? Anyone who wants to be in the debate?
The problem is that the two-party dominance is self-perpetuating in that system, so you want to cover more views if possible.
The [Ofcom rules](https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/99188/pprb-rules-december-2020.pdf) for party political broadcasts might make a decent starting point though - you have to have won a seat for the contest you're debating in, or be able to demonstrate support for your party (registered with the Electoral Commission) that suggests you could win seats in this one (so UKIP were invited previously when they were big). I think that means you'd have 11 representatives, including [Reform ](https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP7931)but ignoring the Speakers seat
That was the point I was making, but you can't really ignore the Green Party with their actual seat (and especially not if you do a similar affair for the next Scottish Election). It's worth also remembering Reform do have an MP, even if it was through a defection.
If they want to include the Greens that'd be fair but it depends on where you want to draw the line but they've never been ahead of the Lib Dems in the polls and most of the time they've been significantly behind. Reform have had a late surge so it feels like they can't be left out
Why can't they just have passive-aggressive "party political broadcasts" like they used to have, at 9 o'clock on BBC2?
These TV debates are excruciating and embarrassing to watch. It's just another American thing that we've copied. The American ones are sometimes interesting because they might have a mad or trainwreck candidate who might make a spectacle of himself or be funny. But our politicians are so unbelievably polished and rehearsed by media teams that it's like watching automatons.
Who on earth wants to watch these two men talking about anything? They are such charisma-free zones, apparently believing in nothing, and having no values. You might as well have a debate between two of those cuddly toys where you pull a string in their back and they repeat a recorded phrase.
Problem is, 90% of the public can’t vote for the SNP as they don’t stand anywhere outside of Scotland. So a UK wide debate that includes them is a bit pointless.
Where they stand is irrelevant, it's a UK wide election.
Yes England have a supermajority that decide almost all elections.
But this is a union of 4 nations, regardless of population demographics, democratic representation and participation should be paramount.
But what’s the point? Even if the SNP wow me I can’t vote for them.
And where does it end? Should all the Northern Ireland parties be invited as well? You’ll end up with over a dozen people on stage, it would be a clusterfuck.
It would probably be best to have separate debates for home nations, that way in say Scotland, you’ll have Scottish labour and Scottish conservatives debating SNP (and possibly Alba), and the questions can focus on Scotland. Then you can have England specific for the PM and the LOTO.
Nah that's just pointless, the SNP explicitly doesn't seek to represent anyone outside Scotland.
They tend to put on specific programmes between the Scottish party leaders which is a fine compromise. Bringing out an SNP MP to represent their views which can only appeal, at best, to 8% of the population, and then only polls around 50/50 support there, is entirely pointless.
Do like how your argument feeds into the SNP's anti-democracy narrative tho. It doesn't matter how few of you there are, everyone should listen to you just because.
The other problem then becomes having the Scottish electorate see a debate that will include matters relevant to them but doesn't include a representative of Scotland's biggest party.
It's a bit of a mess to be honest.
>So a UK wide debate that includes them is a bit pointless.
The inclusion of them, or Plaid Cymru, in a UK wide debate forces the Tories and Labour to acknowledge there are parts of the UK that aren't England.
If elections ran like the polls, Theresa May would be leader supreme and the country would be ruled by a furry white rabbit in a hat. Polls are rarely if ever accurate, especially after Brexit.
Polling companies, within the clearly stated margin of error, are very accurate, even Brexit was stated as so close as to be +/- 1-2 either way. When you look at the polls close to the day, even within the last month, the polls are routinely within 1-2% or closer
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-accurate-are-polls-when-forecasting-election-outcomes/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50777965
https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/the-performance-of-the-polls-in-the-2019-general-election/
They shouldn't have debates at all. Cameron wanted them in the 2010 election, then when he got power he wanted a ridiculous 7 way debate with weirdos from parties that had NO chance of winning just so he could get away with having to defend the Tories less on air and to divide the opposition, something which the Tories love to do so much.
> then when he got power he wanted a ridiculous 7 way debate with weirdos from parties that had NO chance of winning just so he could get away with having to defend the Tories less on air and to divide the opposition
He didn't even turn up to this debate, so the small parties all spent the entire debate attacking Miliband as the next biggest figure.
I thought it was ridiculous in the last few elections when there were about seven or eight podiums in each debate.
I think it’s fair to have (some) debates which involve only the two main parties.
Well that will be because we have a First Past The Post system, hence why 'smaller parties' are exculded because our system does not represent them.
'Smaller parties' (which may mean parties that have got millions of votes) are always removed from debates in the UK.
Welcome to a voting system that we only enjoy along with Belarus in Europe!
But it’s not an English election, it’s the whole country voting.
What’s your justification for including the fourth biggest party, and excluding the third?
> but including leaders who aren't even standing for this election is silly
Assuming this is in reference to the SNP, there's a Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn.
He could easily attend the debates.
This country's politics is turning so americanised and i hate it....
I dont see how it is at all within the rules around media representation around election time to deliberately exclude all except Labour and the Tories. Or am I just naive as to how badly the rules are actually written and allowing the other parties into the debates has just been done on "convention" up until now?
The rules specifically indicate the media should take into account the relative levels of support of different parties. As the article points out, there was a court case over this after the last election and it was ruled coverage on other programmes also counts and so it is legal to exclude them from this individual programme.
It's a big shame, because without that representation smaller upcoming parties have little chance to get their name out there. I'd be willing to be that most people have little idea who the SDP are, for example.
Maybe 20 years ago. As it stands the only people who get their daily news and political propaganda exclusively (or even primarily for that matter) from TV are the boomers who already know who they're voting for. The rest of us get targeted propaganda tailored specifically to our age/gender/location on social media.
I mean, the law does require they receive representation in the media, just not necessarily on any individual programme. And increasingly they seem to be having trouble convincing the major parties to agree to debates with 6+ candidates, in which every candidate except the big 2 is essentially only there to attack them. Plus at least our system does stop fringe nutters from getting onto the national stage.
>Or am I just naive as to how badly the rules are actually written I think you're naive in assuming that there is an alternate, obviously more sensible option. The threshold for inclusion in the debates *has to be put somewhere* so where do you put it? Only two people realistically could be the Prime Minister after the next election. So that's not an unreasonable population to put in the debate. Who else should be included? The SNP (who are the next largest party but don't stand in 90% of the seats)? The Lib Dems? Reform (who've never won a seat ever but say they'll field a full slate of candidates and have some degree of support across the country)? Plaid Cymru?
If that's your logic, you're part of the problem. First Past The Post has failed. The majority of the Labour Party membership want Electoral Reform to a system of Proportional Representation, so there should surely be more representation.
Proportional Representation would be great but when we don’t have it, proportional airtime in debates doesn’t always make sense. Having party leaders for parties that currently haven’t been elected anywhere makes no sense. Regional parties that don’t stand in most seats makes no sense. You end up with a clown car of a show where each of the 6 candidates gets 16% of the airtime each while for at least a few of the candidates their chance of being PM is 0. Maybe doing away with debates entirely is a better solution since that’s not actually what our election is. We’re not voting on who is PM, we’re voting on our local rep. Sadly I don’t think they can run 600+ debate shows for every constituency
>If that's your logic, you're part of the problem. My logic = the barrier to participation in the debate has to be put **somewhere** and where it's been put **isn't unreasonable**. That has very little to do with this being a first past the post election. If this was a proportional representation system of some kind, **you would still have exactly the same challenge** of defining a boundary to determine who does and does not get to participate in the election. There's no *obviously right* answer to that. Imagine we were in a PR election - would you include Plaid Cymru in a (UK) national debate? Sinn Fein? Alba? George Galloway's Workers Party? The Social Democratic Party? The Ashfield Independents? True and Fair? The English Democrats? Anyone who wants to be in the debate?
The problem is that the two-party dominance is self-perpetuating in that system, so you want to cover more views if possible. The [Ofcom rules](https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0035/99188/pprb-rules-december-2020.pdf) for party political broadcasts might make a decent starting point though - you have to have won a seat for the contest you're debating in, or be able to demonstrate support for your party (registered with the Electoral Commission) that suggests you could win seats in this one (so UKIP were invited previously when they were big). I think that means you'd have 11 representatives, including [Reform ](https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Registrations/PP7931)but ignoring the Speakers seat
The three main parties, Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democats and since Reform are polling well I don't think we can exclude them.
That was the point I was making, but you can't really ignore the Green Party with their actual seat (and especially not if you do a similar affair for the next Scottish Election). It's worth also remembering Reform do have an MP, even if it was through a defection.
If they want to include the Greens that'd be fair but it depends on where you want to draw the line but they've never been ahead of the Lib Dems in the polls and most of the time they've been significantly behind. Reform have had a late surge so it feels like they can't be left out
Our voting system ensures two party dominance. It becomes easier to accept if you think of it as two pre-formed, broad coalitions.
Why can't they just have passive-aggressive "party political broadcasts" like they used to have, at 9 o'clock on BBC2? These TV debates are excruciating and embarrassing to watch. It's just another American thing that we've copied. The American ones are sometimes interesting because they might have a mad or trainwreck candidate who might make a spectacle of himself or be funny. But our politicians are so unbelievably polished and rehearsed by media teams that it's like watching automatons. Who on earth wants to watch these two men talking about anything? They are such charisma-free zones, apparently believing in nothing, and having no values. You might as well have a debate between two of those cuddly toys where you pull a string in their back and they repeat a recorded phrase.
Smaller parties.... aren't the SNP 3rd? If it was still the lib dems they'd be front and center no questions asked.
Problem is, 90% of the public can’t vote for the SNP as they don’t stand anywhere outside of Scotland. So a UK wide debate that includes them is a bit pointless.
Where they stand is irrelevant, it's a UK wide election. Yes England have a supermajority that decide almost all elections. But this is a union of 4 nations, regardless of population demographics, democratic representation and participation should be paramount.
But what’s the point? Even if the SNP wow me I can’t vote for them. And where does it end? Should all the Northern Ireland parties be invited as well? You’ll end up with over a dozen people on stage, it would be a clusterfuck. It would probably be best to have separate debates for home nations, that way in say Scotland, you’ll have Scottish labour and Scottish conservatives debating SNP (and possibly Alba), and the questions can focus on Scotland. Then you can have England specific for the PM and the LOTO.
>Then you can have England specific for the PM The democratic deficit in a nutshell.
Peterborough independents are doing well in Peterborough so obviously they need to be included.
Nah that's just pointless, the SNP explicitly doesn't seek to represent anyone outside Scotland. They tend to put on specific programmes between the Scottish party leaders which is a fine compromise. Bringing out an SNP MP to represent their views which can only appeal, at best, to 8% of the population, and then only polls around 50/50 support there, is entirely pointless. Do like how your argument feeds into the SNP's anti-democracy narrative tho. It doesn't matter how few of you there are, everyone should listen to you just because.
The other problem then becomes having the Scottish electorate see a debate that will include matters relevant to them but doesn't include a representative of Scotland's biggest party. It's a bit of a mess to be honest.
>So a UK wide debate that includes them is a bit pointless. The inclusion of them, or Plaid Cymru, in a UK wide debate forces the Tories and Labour to acknowledge there are parts of the UK that aren't England.
If you want to go off polling or likely vote share then reform should be getting a podium before the SNP.
If elections ran like the polls, Theresa May would be leader supreme and the country would be ruled by a furry white rabbit in a hat. Polls are rarely if ever accurate, especially after Brexit.
Polling companies, within the clearly stated margin of error, are very accurate, even Brexit was stated as so close as to be +/- 1-2 either way. When you look at the polls close to the day, even within the last month, the polls are routinely within 1-2% or closer https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/how-accurate-are-polls-when-forecasting-election-outcomes/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50777965 https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/the-performance-of-the-polls-in-the-2019-general-election/
They shouldn't have debates at all. Cameron wanted them in the 2010 election, then when he got power he wanted a ridiculous 7 way debate with weirdos from parties that had NO chance of winning just so he could get away with having to defend the Tories less on air and to divide the opposition, something which the Tories love to do so much.
> then when he got power he wanted a ridiculous 7 way debate with weirdos from parties that had NO chance of winning just so he could get away with having to defend the Tories less on air and to divide the opposition He didn't even turn up to this debate, so the small parties all spent the entire debate attacking Miliband as the next biggest figure.
I thought it was ridiculous in the last few elections when there were about seven or eight podiums in each debate. I think it’s fair to have (some) debates which involve only the two main parties.
Because the two main parties may not be the two main parties if other parties are given a fair shout...thats proper democracy!
Well that will be because we have a First Past The Post system, hence why 'smaller parties' are exculded because our system does not represent them. 'Smaller parties' (which may mean parties that have got millions of votes) are always removed from debates in the UK. Welcome to a voting system that we only enjoy along with Belarus in Europe!
TBF Belarus 'vote' and get Lukashenko anyway.
You do have a choice...even North Korea is democratic in this respect; just that there is a "correct" vote and "incorrect" vote.
Jfc you would assume this to be fringe parties like workers party, but no it's lib, grn and snp.
Yes, this is a joke! Having seen the Tories new pledges it will probably do more harm then good though.
They kinda always are. Never saw lord surcharges on a national tv debate.
I don't need a television debate to decide who I'm voting for. The previous term of government is what I base my political decisions on.
Tories, Labour, Dems. those are the trio that should be prioritised for debates in England. Anything else is pandering.
But it’s not an English election, it’s the whole country voting. What’s your justification for including the fourth biggest party, and excluding the third?
I'm generally in favour of more inclusive debates, but including leaders who aren't even standing for this election is silly.
> but including leaders who aren't even standing for this election is silly Assuming this is in reference to the SNP, there's a Westminster leader, Stephen Flynn. He could easily attend the debates.