UKC

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29616904

I can't see any alternative to voting green, yet I am told otherwise. What am I missing?

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Who is telling you that you can't vote Green? Being part of the TV debate is a different issue. Decide who you vote for based on the information that you seek - if you only want to seek from certain media outlets then so be it.

Personally I think that who is in the debate should be based on the current number of MP's not on projections. So either yes to Greens and UKIP or no to both. SNP should have a presence if that is where the cut off is but they should be way before UKIP or the Greens. Sorry but I am not sure where the NI or Welsh parties lie but the principle is the same - the cut off should be based on current MPs

In reply to Baron Weasel:

It isn't the BBC though is it, it's all the media, BBC, ITV and SKY, with no doubt lots of pressure from the 4 parties that have got a place.

To be honest they need to seriously rethink the format. TV debate works best as a two header, it certainly doesn't work with 4 any better than with 5.

In reply to Baron Weasel:


I thought about voting Green once so I looked up their general policies. They make Arthur Scargill (representing his Socialist Labour Party) look like a Country Gent Tory.

In reply to ByEek:


No they don't, they are a genuinely left of centre party, but are no more left wing than Labour pre-1994.

Personally, I wouldn't want them to form a government, but greater representation in local government, parliament and Europe would be no bad thing.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Caroline Lucas told Andrew Neil that the idea of four white middle-aged men in grey suits reflecting the diversity of Britain was "a bit of a mockery"

If that's all she's got she's not worth the airtime.

In reply to winhill:

How misogynist
.
I don't imagine "Its all she's got" but it sounds a perfectly reasonable opinion to voice

In reply to Baron Weasel:

Unfortunately, unlike the with the Greens, the Beeb has had a bit of a creepy love affair with Farage and co. from the outset. After months of talking up UKIP we'll beyond their actual importance, the BBC can now point at opinion polls to include them in these debates. A self-fulfilling prophecy if their ever was one. Minutes after the Scottish referendum result, who was the first politician interviewed on Radio 4? Yup, Nigel Farage. I keep finding myself screaming "He's not even a f*cking MP!"

I'm waiting for any Westminster figure or journalist of note to publicly challenge UKIP to explain and defend their policies, but the race to the bottom is already underway.

In reply to The New NickB:

Perhaps - and when you read their mini manifesto it makes encouraging reading
- Oppose austerity
- Scrap tuition fees
- Scrap welfare cap
- Reduce pay gap
- Nationalise the railways
- Build affordable homes

All great stuff. But who is going to pay for it all? It seems like a wish list. You know like when you were a kid and you used to circle more or less every cool toy you would never get in the Argos catalogue.

In reply to Baron Weasel:


The BBC is pretty much pro-Labour and pro-London. They don't say it out loud but that is their natural position based on who is attracted to working for a state broadcaster, where their senior management live and the fact that the Tories are more likely to scrap the license fee.

Giving UKIP airtime serves two purposes: it makes it harder for the Tories to argue the BBC has a left wing bias and splits the Tory vote. Not giving the Greens airtime also makes it harder to argue the BCC has a left wing bias while reducing splits in the Labour vote. Having a single debate for the whole UK and showing it in Scotland gives the BBC the ability to exclude the SNP as not being a national party which serves their unionist agenda and helps Labour in Scotland.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Please tell me you genuinely don't believe there are a committee of people in the BBC who plot stuff like that?

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I've been pretty impressed how much the move to Salford docks has changed the balance of BBC reporting actually.

I agree that it's still too London centric though.

The BBC undoubtedly develops a party line, that they think we should be fed for our own good (EG the BBC Trust held a seminar entitled ‘Climate Change - the Challenge to Broadcasting’, which shaped their reporting of Climate change in a particular way)

So ByEek - I think there actually may be a committee of people in the BBC who plot stuff like that

In reply to blurty:


The agenda is online and seems a reasonable one to me. Wouldn't you expect the BBC to consider how to report on such major topics?



Going from that to committees plotting political machinations is tin-foil that territory. Sure, a London focus and a self-referential group will tend to certain assumptions in reporting and the BBC may be guilty of this. But that is very different to deliberate plotting.

Regarding the OP, presidential-style debates don't really work, I think, when you have more than 3 significant parties likely to be elected. Maybe several election-focussed Question-time style events with various combinations of representatives would be better.

In reply to ByEek:


I never said anything about committees or plots. I said there was a natural bias based on the politics of people attracted to working for a state broadcaster, the fact that senior people are invested in London and therefore have an interest in preserving London's power and the fact that the Tories are less sympathetic to their funding model.

There was something on R4s 'Feedback' a week or two ago about how the BBC decided on which parties should be represented in debates - might be worth hunting out for a listen, if it's still there

In reply to MG:


exactly, we dont need these stupid debates as we dont have a president! if they want leader debates then just have all the party leaders on question time (one in each country so plaid, SNP etc have a legitimate platform on which to be involved)

the format of question time with audience participation etc is far better than the stuffy presidential debates, and its already not uncommon to have 5 or 6 pannelists

In reply to ByEek:


Have you not heard of them? The Inebriati... - youtube.com/watch?v=lIv96reVlAE&

In reply to Babika:

How was that misogynist?

In reply to Doghouse:


Dunno, but the original quote about middle aged white men was pretty misandrist.

In reply to Baron Weasel: you can argue if it's misogynistic but it was rude and unnecessarily dismissive. It struck me as a rather odd reaction