Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Party Leader Televised Election Debates
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Other Discussions
Pages: 1, 2
Kemedian
By arguing for representation in the UK-wide televised debate in the run-up to next year's Westminster General Election, is the SNP accepting that, as the Referendum found no majority public support for its belief in Scottish Independence, its role and status in the debate would be to challenge the UK Parties as an essentially British institution?

Or should the SNP by denying it is essentially a minority Party in British Politics have to content itself with a debate televised only in Scotland, where of course here in general it commands a popular majority of public support?

From the Broadcaster's perspective, is the BBC right to invite only the main pro-UK Political Parties to the UK Political debate, and instead ask the SNP to take part in another debate televised for the Scottish audience involving the Party Leaders from Holyrood?

Or should British Broadcasting embrace change and break the mold, by throwing all the mainstream Parties from around the UK into the mix and trusting the discerning acumen of the UK audience at large?

Personally, I'd like to see the overall change that would make it possible for the SNP as well as other minority but mainstream Parties from around the UK to participate constructively and positively in the UK-wide televised debate. But I don't know if the Parties and the Broadcaster are ready to come to such an arrangement quite yet, which I think is a shame because the change would do us all good.
john.mcn
UKIP at the moment only has one MP, while i think they will go on to grab a lot of votes and more MP's they have no chance of winning an election, neither does the LibDems, but it does show the London centric attitude of the media that the parties from the other three regions dont get a look in.
Kemedian
I too am disappointed in the broadcaster, yet I am trying to understand its position and be fair in my criticism of its preliminary decision.

Should the BBC expect the SNP to lay aside its Independence aspirations (having just had by all accounts a very successful Independence Referendum) and debate the issues facing the UK that will decide the election?

Is the SNP perhaps playing hard-to-get and, dare I say it, playing to the gallery, or do you argue that it is essentially an Independence Party and right to defend this position and expect the BBC to respect that?

Or do you view the situation entirely differently? Have I got it wrong in my assessment? Is there really nothing more to this than a predisposed broadcaster; no room for manoeuvre on either side of the camera?
ktv
ukip are a minority of 1 in uk politics.

while parties with more mps get ignored.

bbc biased lead by a right wing government...nothing else

john.mcn
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 18th Oct 2014, 12:20pm) *
I too am disappointed in the broadcaster, yet I am trying to understand its position and be fair in my criticism of its preliminary decision.


It's position is that the parties in the smaller regions are just little upstarts and should know their place leaving the main 'national' channels to the 'real' parties

QUOTE
.

Should the BBC expect the SNP to lay aside its Independence aspirations (having just had by all accounts a very successful Independence Referendum) and debate the issues facing the UK that will decide the election?

Not everything the SNP stand for is about Indy, if you've seen salmond give interviews in front of audiences down south you would hear him getting plenty of applause from the public and the discussion wasn't about Independence.

QUOTE
Is the SNP perhaps playing hard-to-get and, dare I say it, playing to the gallery, or do you argue that it is essentially an Independence Party and right to defend this position and expect the BBC to respect that?

Playing hard to get?? Are they simply not wanting equality and to be treated the same as a party that only has one very recent MP, and lets face it even if the Tory didn't jump ship and force a by election Farage would still be invited.
Are UKIP only an anti EU party?

QUOTE
Or do you view the situation entirely differently? Have I got it wrong in my assessment? Is there really nothing more to this than a predisposed broadcaster; no room for manoeuvre on either side of the camera?


What is underlying this is whats always underlying it, if you haven't seen this by now then i guess you never will.
fourbytwo
thumbup.gif of course the SNP have every right to be part of the "public-paid-for BBC", its only a policy down at BBC hQ to try to 'load' programming with Tory and other Eotn schoolboys types, so that these self-inflated shirt-lifters can remain in positions of power.
UKip.....just another English snobbery set..!
As long as the SNP...do not have to wear a kilt....should they drop a pen or whatever, the others would shame themselves on public TV....!
Betsy2009
Fourbytwo - that language shames you.
Kemedian
QUOTE (john.mcn @ 18th Oct 2014, 02:40pm) *
Not everything the SNP stand for is about Indy, if you've seen salmond give interviews in front of audiences down south you would hear him getting plenty of applause from the public and the discussion wasn't about Independence.

Playing hard to get?? Are they simply not wanting equality and to be treated the same as a party that only has one very recent MP, and lets face it even if the Tory didn't jump ship and force a by election Farage would still be invited.
Are UKIP only an anti EU party?

What is underlying this is whats always underlying it, if you haven't seen this by now then i guess you never will.

I sincerely hope you're right on your last point, and that I never achieve your level of cynicism.

I agree. If UKIP warrant a voice in the UK-wide debate, then so do all mainstream minority (in a UK context) Parties.

It's not like us to agree, so let's dig a little deeper to find out how much we really do. It's interesting that you use the word "equal", because I wanted to, but opted for "essentially (the same as)". To what extent would you expect the SNP to act in a manner, for the purpose of debating the General Election, that would be in-keeping with the spirit of the occasion? In other words, in order to be treated as an 'equal', could the SNP become an equal?

I think you are also saying that the SNP, at least in the shape of Salmond, could hold its own without mentioning the 'I' word, but do you agree with me that this time (given the chance) it should?
john.mcn
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 18th Oct 2014, 09:32pm) *
I sincerely hope you're right on your last point, and that I never achieve your level of cynicism.
You're young, give it time wink.gif
QUOTE
I agree. If UKIP warrant a voice in the UK-wide debate, then so do all mainstream minority (in a UK context) Parties.


The problem with their attitude is that as the, as you call them, 'minority' parties are based in either Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and the media are coming across as UK election = only the English count, and even then only the ones we deem important enough.

QUOTE
It's not like us to agree, so let's dig a little deeper to find out how much we really do. It's interesting that you use the word "equal", because I wanted to, but opted for "essentially (the same as)". To what extent would you expect the SNP to act in a manner, for the purpose of debating the General Election, that would be in-keeping with the spirit of the occasion? In other words, in order to be treated as an 'equal', could the SNP become an equal?


They are a registered political party and people vote for them, thats enough for them to demand equality. That they are the political party with the most members in Scotland and then you wonder why they should even have to demand equality. That they are the party that have the most members in the devolved parliament the demand then should become a demand for an apology for neglecting them in the first place

QUOTE
I think you are also saying that the SNP, at least in the shape of Salmond, could hold its own without mentioning the 'I' word, but do you agree with me that this time (given the chance) it should?



Quite often it is the others who cant help themselves mentioning it.


PS the Greens also have an MP and 3 MEP's, did they get an invite?
Kemedian
Unbelievably, I think we agree on something at last, at least in principle.

Where we appear to differ is in the nuance. You say Sturgeon could avoid the 'I' word, I think she should, and given that she has about as much chance as Farage of becoming our next PM I believe the SNP merit a place in the same debate that UKIP has been invited to attend, along with the Leaders of at least one mainstream minority (in a UK context) Party from both Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas you probably would like to have the SNP present at all the debates.
john.mcn
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 19th Oct 2014, 12:46pm) *
Unbelievably, I think we agree on something at last, at least in principle.

Where we appear to differ is in the nuance. You say Sturgeon could avoid the 'I' word, I think she should, and given that she has about as much chance as Farage of becoming our next PM I believe the SNP merit a place in the same debate that UKIP has been invited to attend, along with the Leaders of at least one mainstream minority (in a UK context) Party from both Wales and Northern Ireland, whereas you probably would like to have the SNP present at all the debates.


You say should but then the other party leaders should also refrain from bringing up that subject, the referendum or future ones. Sturgeon like her soon to be predecessor does not have the power to limit the policies of the party when they are not leaders.
I think that if Scotland is not to become an equal country with others in the world the least it can expect is to have equality within the union. Westminster is not fit for purpose while it only serves the interests of it's main shareholders. If each main region of the UK had their own parliament serving the people within their borders then i think it would be nuts to think the SNP, Plaid Cymru, SDLP/UUP/DUP would debate in areas where they dont stand for election, but while we are in this out of date political car crash they are perfectly entitled to demand a seat in any debate relevant to their constituents.
Alex Saville
If we are to accept that, after the 'NO' vote, this is a United Kingdom and all parts equally and totally make up the parts of the whole state, then logically all the political parties with MP's should be treated the same.

I don't accept the argument one of the panel on the recent Question Time programme made that although the Greens have one MP they don't represent the amount of people who voted for UKIP, therefore Farage is entitled to a place in the BBC debates along with Cameron, Clegg & Milliband.
The SNP is the third largest political party in the UK and represent more people than UKIP or the Lib-Dems.
Either it's a United Kingdom or it's not. It's not a 'Regional' Election, it's a General Election for a national parliament, not the local council!
The organisation called the British Broadcasting Corporation should recognise that and act accordingly on behalf of all parties represented at Westminster, not just the one's that suit them.
Alex
Kemedian
I strongly believe that the BBC are wrong not to invite the SNP along to the same debate that UKIP have been invited to attend, especially now of all times, when the 'car crash' you refer to is in the process of being updated. The latest stage of Scottish Devolution, the Smith Commission, is of huge importance to the UK as a whole and is more than likely to be an issue in the UK-wide debate. By participating in the Smith Commission, the SNP has surely proven that for now at least it wants to play an equal part in UK Politics. If we have a British Independence (from Europe) Referendum (and I confidently predict that we would all vote to remain a member), it would then be up to UKIP to show how serious a Party in UK Politics it really is!
john.mcn
The referendum is over kem and it's back to business for the 'establishment', which the BBC is part of.
The only updates to car crashes are more cars pile into them, thats what will happen if the 'extensions' to powers are not great enough or if Westminster forgets the Union is supposed to be one of equals. It isn't off to the greatest start with in fighting between the Better Together partners and even some Labourites in Scotland suggesting breaking away from London Labour, it seems the United has become untied and all in public.
Kemedian
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scot...litics-29862071

smile.gif
Fingers crossed!
ktv
the snp are the third biggest party in the uk (members wise) so theres not much of a "minority" about them
Kemedian
QUOTE
Commenting on the news David Cameron has refused to participate in television debates if the Greens are excluded, SNP Westminster Leader Angus Robertson said: "As the UK's third largest political party, David Cameron should also recognise the democratic deficit in excluding the SNP from television debates.

"The Greens have one MP, and we are extremely sympathetic to their case and definitely agree they should be included, but the SNP already have six times that. If David Cameron is arguing for the Greens to be included, he has no case against the SNP.

"Broadcasters have a duty to be impartial in their election coverage and it would be a gross failure in those democratic duties if the SNP were excluded."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-30713513

Well said, Mr Robertson. thumbup.gif

http://media.ofcom.org.uk/news/2015/major-...s-consultation/

Let's hope Ofcom adds the SNP to its list of major British Political Parties, so that we may have a proper UK televised election debate. It is due to publish its final list by early March.
serabash
I wouldn't hold my breath.
Kemedian
Progress at last?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30935369
john.mcn


Progress?? They've been shamed into doing it, the 'big 3' (for now anyway) were willing to share a platform with Farage, who at that time only had one MP, but they didn't want to give the other parties a voice. I hate saying it but Cameron once again showed up Milblunt by refusing to have a debate without the Greens. The excuses given that the 'small' parties weren't UK wide was garbage as non of them stand for election in Northern Ireland.
Kemedian
Most progress is least expected. In other words, you don't see it coming. smile.gif

Election 2015: Seven-party TV debate plan announced

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30955379

Click to view attachment


Even George Galloway wants in on it now. laugh.gif
Kemedian
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30997410

7 down 1 to go.

With so many parties represented, it's shaping up to be something of a sporting event, where supporters will be cheering on their own leader and floating voters keeping the score.

Whether Cameron expected to get his way or not, I think he has called it right and taught the broadcasters a lesson in democracy.

I think the new and improved format is suited to the minority of committed enthusiasts among us, and let's hope that it can persuade more people to get voting.

I hear some people would like the politicians to throw off the shackles of diplomacy and tell it like it is, whereas others fear that approach would bring it down to a clash of personality not policy and so do I. There is going to be two debates, so perhaps both styles could be accommodated to broaden the appeal.

As a floating voter, I'm definitely in favour of this expanded format and I'll be watching with interest. UK Politics in general needs a shake-up, which by all accounts the voters are intent on delivering to the detriment of the main parties.

Who will crack and who will shine for their party under the pressure, we shall see. biggrin.gif
JAGZ1876
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 27th Jan 2015, 12:18pm) *
As a floating voter, I'm definitely in favour of this expanded format and I'll be watching with interest.


And yet last night at 10.39pm on the independence thread you claimed, "I will vote SNP in May if the party can prove that it is ready and willing to govern constructively in the interests of voters at Westminster".

Once again you contradict yourself, so are you a floating voter or will you be voting SNP?
ktv
if farage is there (with only 1mp) then every other party with the same or more should be there too.

theyl been about 20 seat to get all those independents in too
bilbo.s
QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 27th Jan 2015, 02:32pm) *
.

Once again you contradict yourself,



He's just cutting out the middle-man ! laugh.gif
ktv
QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 27th Jan 2015, 01:32pm) *
Once again you contradict yourself, so are you a floating voter or will you be voting SNP?


im sure he said he'd be voting for a snp/lab coalition

ive no idea how that's possible though laugh.gif
Kemedian
QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 27th Jan 2015, 01:32pm) *
And yet last night at 10.39pm on the independence thread you claimed, "I will vote SNP in May if the party can prove that it is ready and willing to govern constructively in the interests of voters at Westminster".

Once again you contradict yourself, so are you a floating voter or will you be voting SNP?

Notice the word ' if ' .
JAGZ1876
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 27th Jan 2015, 05:04pm) *
Notice the word ' if ' .


I did, hardly floating along though, is it? laugh.gif
Kemedian
Cometh the hour...

Click to view attachment


QUOTE
I would say to the House, as I said to those who have joined this Government, I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many long months of toil and struggle.

You ask what is our policy. I will say, it is to wage war with all our might, with all the strength that God can give us, to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however long and hard the road may be. For without victory there is no survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=85114...QDOu1Sgbbo#t=19


Churchill's first speech as Prime Minister set the tone of his leadership in Britain's biggest ever battle. Today, 50 years after laying him to rest, we are contemplating which Party leader to elect as our 13th Prime Minister since our most famous choice. In 1940 my great-grandparent's generation really must have feared the worst for their country, but in their hour of need they stumbled upon a rock that would secure the liberty we exercise today.

Whoever we choose in May can count their luck that the task of fighting not only for Britain but also the fate of the World was won for us, by the great Sir Winston Churchill.
JAGZ1876
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 30th Jan 2015, 03:54pm) *
In 1940 my great-grandparent's generation really must have feared the worst for their country, but in their hour of need they stumbled upon a rock that would secure the liberty we exercise today.

Whoever we choose in May can count their luck that the task of fighting not only for Britain but also the fate of the World was won for us, by the great Sir Winston Churchill.


Which was why the great British public got shot of him pronto in the 1945 general election.

Don't fall for the hype kem, i've yet to meet an old soldier who had a good word for him.
Kemedian
QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 30th Jan 2015, 04:13pm) *
Which was why the great British public got shot of him pronto in the 1945 general election.

Don't fall for the hype kem, i've yet to meet an old soldier who had a good word for him.

He was re-elected in 1951, remember.

QUOTE
Although an Englishman, it was in Scotland I found the three best things in my life - my wife, my constituency and my Regiment.
- Sir Winston Churchill
http://rhf.org.uk/rhf/index.php?option=com...8&Itemid=62


Granted, he does divide opinion today www.heraldscotland.com/comment.... However, crucially in his time he united us digital.nls.uk/churchill....
JAGZ1876
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 30th Jan 2015, 06:51pm) *
However, crucially in his time he united us


It was the threat of fascism that united the free world, not any one man.
ktv
he did coin the phrase "KBO" right enough. ohmy.gif

though its a phrase ive never used lol
Kemedian
QUOTE (JAGZ1876 @ 31st Jan 2015, 10:25am) *
It was the threat of fascism that united the free world, not any one man.

You're not wrong.

Of course, it could be argued, and rightly it is most probably true to say, that anyone could have led Britain at that time and forever have been linked with the victorious outcome of the war. No one person could ever take more than a fair share of credit. This week we marked the 50th anniversary of Churchill's funeral, but so many who died fighting far from home lie still where they fell in unknown graves, who deserve a different kind of honour.

As this thread is about the upcoming leader's debates, by reflecting the moment of the anniversary I am contrasting the seriousness of the matters that today's candidates for the top job will be discussing (much of which can be found here on GG, and which we could all probably more-or-less script before it happens) with the challenges of the job when Churchill took it.

Prime Ministers are elected for particular reasons, and I would suggest that the threat of world war in 1940 was the dominant factor in the British electorate choosing Churchill. I am not making the argument here that somehow his election as Prime Minister determined in any significant way the course of history. I am suggesting that in Churchill Britain chose a war leader who had his flaws and made mistakes but who rose to the almighty challenge for which he was elected, leading the free world as you say (and as ktv says, buggering on laugh.gif) to victory, and the significance of that to the nature of the job, both nationally and globally, that every British Prime Minister has been expected to carry out since is undeniable.

Much is expected of every Prime Minister, and of Churchill arguably most of all.
john.mcn


The 'British' public do not elect the prime minister.
Kemedian
QUOTE (john.mcn @ 1st Feb 2015, 01:15am) *
The 'British' public do not elect the prime minister.

OK thumbup.gif
john.mcn
QUOTE (Kemedian @ 1st Feb 2015, 01:49pm) *
OK thumbup.gif



LOL how long were you googling before you realised that i was right.

If the Hol were abolished it would be interesting if the lower house selected the PM and the upper house the head of state, once ole liz leaves this mortal realm and the public get sick of the hangers on..Would make for interesting TV debates for sure
Kemedian
QUOTE (john.mcn @ 1st Feb 2015, 02:16pm) *
LOL how long were you googling before you realised that i was right.

You assume too much.
Kemedian
A widely unexpected (just read this thread) and welcome u-turn by the broadcasters has confirmed my well-placed faith in a political system that refuses, to this day (with big name politicians still getting caught on hidden camera falling flat on their faces under the journalistic pretence of 'cash for access' rolleyes.gif), to learn the easy way from its out-of-date practices.

Let's hope the two televised political debates between the leaders of seven of our main parties now scheduled across the networks for April (according to the BBC) do something to lessen public cynicism. These do offer something new, and I'll be looking for each party to reveal its intentions to offer us an enhanced and clear range of choices on how we would like our countries to be governed over the next five years.

Here in Scotland - where I believe we will also be presented with a televised debate between the main Scottish parties - there is heightened tension following the Referendum, as we await to see if our level of interest in politics can be maintained. In particular, the SNP is keeping its cards close to its chest, as good results in pre-election polls suggest that it could possibly rock the 'established' boat by seizing the balance of power at Westminster - who would have thought!

As always, we will need total transparency from the candidates if we are to make up our minds. It's my belief that these timely debates on our small screens offer our political leaders this chance to persuade many more of us than usual to get out and vote and hopefully make a big difference; by collectively holding the party that wins our vote to its word. biggrin.gif

QUOTE (BBC Scotland LIVE @ 23rd February, 10:52am)
General election debates

The order of the party leaders' televised general election debates has been announced.

They are: 2 April: ITV - Debate between the party leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green party and Plaid Cymru.

16 April: BBC - Debate between the party leaders of the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the SNP, the Green party and Plaid Cymru.

30 April: Sky and Channel 4 - Head-to-head debate between the leader of the Conservative Party and the leader of the Labour party.
ktv
there isn't seven MAIN parties

the media only give the time of day to one minor party and ignore the rest.
Kemedian
QUOTE (ktv @ 23rd Feb 2015, 02:57pm) *
there isn't seven MAIN parties

the media only give the time of day to one minor party and ignore the rest.

I'm proud of the fact that last year Scotland's 85% turnout and huge participation in the Referendum debate showed the rest of the UK how politics should be done, and I hope that we continue to lead the change. There was justifiable scepticism among members on here - yourself included - about the willingness of the BBC to change its policy, but the common sense argument has prevailed.

I do wonder, however, if some on here could ever be convinced of the current trend and seeming political imperative of national governments forming coalitions?

The cynics will say (don't I know it!) that ...

... If other countries do it, why can't we?

The answer to that, thankfully and frankly out of necessity, from the powers-that-be, is increasingly...

... We can! biggrin.gif
ktv
what common sense prevailed when you claim theres seven major parties being represented when there not seven major parties whatsoever.

so your common sense would be to invent major players and invite them along purely to water down the debate from those liable to be in power.

yip that's whats called normal for you lol

oh and ps theres 3 televised debates not 2 (you even listed the 3 of them lol)
Kemedian
QUOTE (ktv @ 23rd Feb 2015, 03:52pm) *
what common sense prevailed when you claim theres seven major parties being represented when there not seven major parties whatsoever.

so your common sense would be to invent major players and invite them along purely to water down the debate from those liable to be in power.

yip that's whats called normal for you lol

oh and ps theres 3 televised debates not 2 (you even listed the 3 of them lol)

I didn't miss that last point. The third debate will be more to your liking, going by what you're saying, as it only features what you are terming the "major players".

But, as usual, you are missing the point, as well as contradicting yourself from earlier. laugh.gif

QUOTE (ktv @ 2nd Nov 2014, 01:31am) *
the snp are the third biggest party in the uk (members wise) so theres not much of a "minority" about them
ktv
im not you so don't tend to contradict myself in every other post.

the snp IS a major player so therefor should be involved in the debates from the beginning ...that's the point you fail to understand

ukip are not but where included from the offset.

understand now?

since your so excited about it can you show me what "policy" the bbc have changed?
Kemedian
QUOTE (ktv @ 23rd Feb 2015, 04:19pm) *
im not you so don't tend to contradict myself in every other post.

the snp IS a major player so therefor should be involved in the debates from the beginning ...that's the point you fail to understand

ukip are not but where included from the offset.

understand now?

since your so excited about it can you show me what "policy" the bbc have changed?

The point here surely is that the historically 'lesser' parties are rightly and helpfully gaining more widespread and merited media and public recognition?

As for the BBC, before it was forced by the weight of both political and public opinion to consult on its policy, it had chosen to take the advice of the regulator and exclude the likes of the SNP and the Green Party from the show. See my link in Post #15. yes.gif
ktv
let me explain for the hard of thinking...ie you

the point was that some SMALL parties where invited while LARGER ones where not.

there is not now or has there ever been a BBC policy on such events and the sole and only reason they changed their mind is because Cameron refused to do it unless they invited the greens

all very simple...no need for context or graphs or massive rants on what you think.
Kemedian
QUOTE (ktv @ 24th Feb 2015, 08:44am) *
  1. the point was that some small parties were invited while larger ones where not.
  2. there is not now or has there ever been a BBC policy on such events
  3. the sole and only reason they changed their mind is because Cameron refused to do it unless they invited the greens

  1. Regardless of size, that was indeed the issue.
  2. You can have that one, if you like. Essentially, you are arguing over my use of language and, as I am saying, thereby missing the bigger story here. Let me then call it a change of 'proposals', as referred to in the following media statements from the BBC from 13th October last year and 23rd January this year, which truly reflect the impact made by both the public and political opinion sought during the interim consultation conducted by the corporation on the format of the debates.
  3. Quote from the second statement...
    QUOTE (BBC Media Centre @ 23rd January 2015, 2:00pm)
    Since October the broadcasters have together and individually had a number of meetings and conversations with the parties invited to take part, the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and UKIP, and also discussions and correspondence with the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party. All these discussions have been constructive and useful in informing our thinking about the debates.

    Over the three months since the original proposal was put forward, the broadcasters have also continued to monitor the electoral landscape, as we promised to do, taking into account the polling evidence, and the expressions of public support for the debates to go ahead and for a wider range of parties to be included in the debates.


So, as I see it, this is the victory for democracy and common sense that everyone on here - including yourself - was arguing for, but not unanimously expecting would happen. biggrin.gif

The only recent piece of news that I highlighted yesterday was this.
ktv
1. yet you kept going on about "the major parties" so your contradicting yourself again

2. so you've realised there is no "policy" like the one you've repeatedly said their was.

3. democracy had nothing to do with it....the only reason they changed their minds was because Cameron said he wouldn't do it otherwise. end of.

you just believe any old rubbish in a vain attempt to get some warped point across...the bbc publicity machine said it was bla bla bla and that fits your ramblings so that good enough for you.

I agree that the only factual bit about your posts where the link to the dates and channel. well done you

laugh.gif clap.gif
Kemedian
QUOTE (ktv @ 24th Feb 2015, 03:43pm) *
1. yet you kept going on about "the major parties" so your contradicting yourself again

From my opening post...

QUOTE (Kemedian @ 17th Oct 2014, 08:17pm) *
I'd like to see the overall change that would make it possible for the SNP as well as other minority but mainstream Parties from around the UK to participate constructively and positively in the UK-wide televised debate. But I don't know if the Parties and the Broadcaster are ready to come to such an arrangement quite yet, which I think is a shame because the change would do us all good.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think we are all glad on here (or should be, I'd say) that the broadcasters woke up and relented, to belatedly invite the rest of the main UK parties. My opening posts concentrated on the question of whether or not the SNP could/should be considered as a UK party, and not on its current dominance of Scottish politics, which without contradiction I readily acknowledge.

QUOTE (ktv @ 24th Feb 2015, 03:43pm) *
2. so you've realised there is no "policy" like the one you've repeatedly said their was.

I stand linguistically corrected. But that's beside the point!

QUOTE (ktv @ 24th Feb 2015, 03:43pm) *
3. democracy had nothing to do with it....the only reason they changed their minds was because Cameron said he wouldn't do it otherwise. end of.

Whatever his much debated motivation, you're quite right; Cameron can take much of the credit for his stance. The BBC appeared to be behind-the-times in its thinking. The mood of the electorate had overtaken the broadcaster's position. In fact, I'm shocked that you are missing this opportunity to point out the weak contribution of Labour to the general consensus behind the change, about which you are wrong because it is absolutely positive for democracy.

QUOTE (ktv @ 24th Feb 2015, 03:43pm) *
you just believe any old rubbish in a vain attempt to get some warped point across...the bbc publicity machine said it was bla bla bla and that fits your ramblings so that good enough for you.

The "rubbish" from the BBC, that I have consistently referred to, underwent a significant rethink, that for reasons given I consider good for everybody.

QUOTE (ktv @ 24th Feb 2015, 03:43pm) *
I agree that the only factual bit about your posts where the link to the dates and channel. well done you

Did your keyboard survive this reluctant reflection of the rare hope that this news actually brings to the situation? laugh.gif
ktv
QUOTE
I'd like to see the overall change that would make it possible for the SNP as well as other minority but mainstream Parties from around the UK


so you've now contradicted your contradiction?

the SNP aren't a "minority" party and should have been considered well before parties with less membership or mps.

QUOTE
I stand linguistically corrected. But that's beside the point!


the point is and always has been there is no such "policy" so you repeatedly saying there is was a fabrication.

QUOTE
Whatever his much debated motivation, you're quite right; Cameron can take much of the credit for his stance. The BBC appeared to be behind-the-times in its thinking. The mood of the electorate had overtaken the broadcaster's position. In fact, I'm shocked that you are missing this opportunity to point out the weak contribution of Labour to the general consensus behind the change, about which you are wrong because it is absolutely positive for democracy.


the electorate where never asked *full stop* so can stop the "win for democracy" nonsense you day dreaming about..... labour have nothing to do with this discussion so unlike you I can stick to the topic at hand.

QUOTE
Did your keyboard survive this reluctant reflection of the rare hope that this news actually brings to the situation?

it was an even greater surprise that for the first time ever you said something that was actually correct and on topic, even if you did just copy and paste it from another site.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.