The BBC Trust has rejected the SNP/Plaid Cymru appeal against their exclusion from the leaders' debate. And it looks like, at this late stage the two parties will not go to court over it.
I suspect that there may not be enough money for the fight, or at least that, with two debates down and one to go, the leadership of the two parties just don't feel that the game's worth the candle.
It's too late. The money could be better spent than keeping English barristers in port and stilton.
Forfar Loon has an excellent article here on the subject of the debates. It’s well worth the read.
Anyone, as he points out, who suggests that these debates were not significant should look at the 10 point rise in the polls of one of the parties, the rise that party from “also ran” to the status of challenger in their smug so-called two horse race.... and then repeat their assertion. The debates have indeed been ground breaking. They have completely shaken the whole political system in the UK in more ways than one.
Of course, the insult to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. All the debates were held in England, and participants had to live within a 30 mile radius of the debate location, ergo no one who is resident in Scotland was allowed to participate in this exercise in democracy. It was, therefore, an exercise in democracy in England. Can we then assume that the election is an English one? The Scots, Irish and Welsh matter so little that they have been excluded in more ways than that their Nationalist Parties’ leaders have been excluded from the debate platforms. They, themselves have been excluded from participation in the actual debates.
But the whole essence of it is wrong anyway. We do not elect Prime Ministers here. And, in any case, as the Loon points out, the assumption has been made that Cameron, Clegg and Brown will be re-elected. Oh, we know that are in safe seats, but surely our democracy can’t be taken for granted like that...or at least it shouldn’t.
It has been said that the pressure for these debates has been strong from the Press for decades and wiser prime ministers have resisted, seeing more problems that advantages in them... not just for themselves, but for the already dubious version of democracy that we have in the UK (with FPTP and whipping, an unelected chamber and hereditary head of state).
Wiser prime ministers said no. Then along came King Midas in reverse.
I suspect that there may not be enough money for the fight, or at least that, with two debates down and one to go, the leadership of the two parties just don't feel that the game's worth the candle.
It's too late. The money could be better spent than keeping English barristers in port and stilton.
Forfar Loon has an excellent article here on the subject of the debates. It’s well worth the read.
Anyone, as he points out, who suggests that these debates were not significant should look at the 10 point rise in the polls of one of the parties, the rise that party from “also ran” to the status of challenger in their smug so-called two horse race.... and then repeat their assertion. The debates have indeed been ground breaking. They have completely shaken the whole political system in the UK in more ways than one.
Of course, the insult to people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should not be underestimated. All the debates were held in England, and participants had to live within a 30 mile radius of the debate location, ergo no one who is resident in Scotland was allowed to participate in this exercise in democracy. It was, therefore, an exercise in democracy in England. Can we then assume that the election is an English one? The Scots, Irish and Welsh matter so little that they have been excluded in more ways than that their Nationalist Parties’ leaders have been excluded from the debate platforms. They, themselves have been excluded from participation in the actual debates.
But the whole essence of it is wrong anyway. We do not elect Prime Ministers here. And, in any case, as the Loon points out, the assumption has been made that Cameron, Clegg and Brown will be re-elected. Oh, we know that are in safe seats, but surely our democracy can’t be taken for granted like that...or at least it shouldn’t.
It has been said that the pressure for these debates has been strong from the Press for decades and wiser prime ministers have resisted, seeing more problems that advantages in them... not just for themselves, but for the already dubious version of democracy that we have in the UK (with FPTP and whipping, an unelected chamber and hereditary head of state).
Wiser prime ministers said no. Then along came King Midas in reverse.
I know what a laugh the Cyclops come out with it being a two horse race and what happens a week later. Oh dear it’s a three horse race after all. The Midas touch in reverse? No because that would imply that he touches gold and turns it back into something useful. Everything he touches withers and turns erm....brown!
ReplyDeleteIt was so boring and actually insulting to anyone with any intelligence. Billed as a debate on 'foreign affairs' and then bus passes were discussed? Couldn't believe it.
ReplyDeleteLOL Yeah Munguin. For60 years the Pope has been a revered figure. Brown gets the Queen to invite him on a state visit in some cynical ploy to get the Catholic vote and....guess what happens? The Pope become less popular than bubonic plague.
ReplyDeleteBrown's malign influences has even reached the back streets of the Vatican City State....
Ah Subrosa, maybe they are going to have foreign trips on bus passes, seeing as flights are a bit dodgy since Iceland decided to get its own back on Brown for branding them terrorists.
ReplyDeleteBrown weaves his magic the world over.
Well, I'm glad I missed it again. The highlights ( ha ha ha ha ha ha ha) are enough for me.
I forgot about the Nigeria thing this week and ended up watching Have I got News for You? Iain Hislop and Paul Merton. Side splittingly funny at times. Andy Hamilton was on and he's brilliant.
Is this the first ever UK wide England only general election
ReplyDeleteWell Anon. The broadcasters don't seem to think that we count in the Celtic nations.
ReplyDeleteGiven that there were three broadcasts, and three countries where the three parties are represented, and given that each broadcast only entertained contributions from locals to that area (therefore making size of countries' populations redundant), it wouldn't have been rocket science to hold one debate in each other the three participating states.
I accept that tv companies are rather metropolitan, many executives only ever having been outside capital cities in quick taxi rides to other capital cities, but surely David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown remembered that Scotland and Wales existed.
is this the first ever UK wide England only Anti Scottiah general election
ReplyDeleteNO
All elections in the UK are anti Scottish
Unionists
1 They know all the answers against Scotland but none of the answers for Scotland
2 Having you cake and eating it
You cannot belittle Scotland at home while at the same time using Scotland’s past historical greatness to enhance you own
3 The unionist idea of devolution
Continuing English solutions, making sure continuity in Scotland’s problems
4 The negativity that comes from a sneering hostile media who would not get their jobs at the BBC if they were not so anti Scottish
5 Unionists dependent on imported money from England
6 Barnet formulae falsely contrived as English charity
A grand soup kitchen advertising the benevolence of the donor
7 A unionists view foreign affluence native squalor
8 The most serious problem with addiction in Scotland
The addiction of unionist politicians to England’s benevolence to their own person England’s pimps kerb crawlers England’s paedophiles
9 We have been duped into voting for our own dictators
11 Gordon Browns desire for power in England is greater than any respect he has for Scotland
12 Unionists show us the savage hatred they exhibit towards anyone who dared to suggest the possibility of better things for the Scotland
13 Anglicized names equals slave terminology
is this the first ever UK wide England only Anti Scottiah general election
NO
All elections in the UK are anti Scottish
Unionists
1 They know all the answers against Scotland but none of the answers for Scotland
2 Having you cake and eating it
You cannot belittle Scotland at home while at the same time using Scotland’s past historical greatness to enhance you own
3 The unionist idea of devolution
Continuing English solutions, making sure continuity in Scotland’s problems
4 The negativity that comes from a sneering hostile media who would not get their jobs at the BBC if they were not so anti Scottish
5 Unionists dependent on imported money from England
6 Barnet formulae falsely contrived as English charity
A grand soup kitchen advertising the benevolence of the donor
7 A unionists view foreign affluence native squalor
8 The most serious problem with addiction in Scotland
The addiction of unionist politicians to England’s benevolence to their own person England’s pimps kerb crawlers England’s paedophiles
9 We have been duped into voting for our own dictators
11 Gordon Browns desire for power in England is greater than any respect he has for Scotland
12 Unionists show us the savage hatred they exhibit towards anyone who dared to suggest the possibility of better things for the Scotland
13 Anglicized names equals slave terminology
Aye Anon, there a deal in what you say there.
ReplyDeleteIf everyone voted for it, we could be out of this in a couple of years.
I think the SNP made a major mistake with these debates. They should have gone for an interdict from the start against Sky and ITV who come under section 6 (Elections and Referendums) of the OFCOM code and refused to take part in any Scottish debates. Simply by participating in the "regionals" they legitimised the UK debates.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC come under parts of the OFCOM code but not section 6 as they've got their own code for political "impartiality" but if the SNP had successfully stopped ITV and Sky under the OFCOM guidelines it would have been good precedent for also stopping the BBC.
If you look through the BBC's Editorial Guidelines and through the pdfs about Guidance for the 2010 election you'll find that PEB's are defined on a Scottish/English/Welsh/NI basis and that BBC Scotland is also required to give similar levels of coverage to all four main parties in Scotland but the participants in the "Debates" were decided on purely on the basis of:
In the context of a UK General Election, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are not UK-wide parties with substantial electoral support in the UK. They are not standing sufficient candidates to aspire to win a majority in the House of Commons. Nor are their leaders seeking to become the next Prime Minister of the UK.
Maybe someone should point out to the BBC that only the Conservatives are a UK wide party and only if you believe that their pact with the UUP make the Conservatives and and the UUP one party.
Because the BBC do not come under section 6 of OFCOM they can treat OFCOM's definition of the SNP as a major party in Scotland with the disdain that they believe upstart Jocks deserve.
Aye Doug. You're right. This seems to have been "allowed to happen" and I'm not sure why, when it is clearly against the codes.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is quite simply that there was no money for the lawyers and barristers? Is that likely?
Tris:
ReplyDeleteI think it was a political miscalculation. I assume that the SNP looked at the trade-off between the media in Scotland going for the throat and accusing the SNP of being, "undemocratic", if the SNP stopped the debates and the likely increase in votes the Labour party would get as a result of the debates with Gordon on the podium matched against any "sympathy" vote the SNP could get as a result of being excluded.
What happened of course is that the debates were much more newsworthy than was thought as the Lib-Dems got a big boost in their vote in England and because the "Scottish" media is controlled by England and focuses on English issues the SNP has fallen into a media black hole in Scotland.
I can't really see how going to a judge and getting an interdict to stop the debates would have been that expensive when compared with the money spent on a campaign which has been sandbagged by the lack of media coverage and which may well be wasted as a result.
Hindsight is always 20/20 vision but I would have supported any move to stop the debates before they were broadcast as the sidelining of the SNP in the media is what I feared and it has happened.