David Maddox: The great debate... Barnes v Maddox (2)
Unlike Gordon Brown and a succession of previous Prime Ministers (or even Alex Salmond on St Andrew's Day), I am not one to shirk when the challenge is laid down for a debate, even if this one is taking place over the cyberspace rather than on people's TV screens.
But as I have the greatest respect for Eddie Barnes, who as The Scotsman group's political editor is after all my line manager, I thought I should take his central point over the great TV debate debate seriously.
Eddie stated that to exclude Alex Salmond or another SNP politician from a general election TV debate aired in Scotland is "anti democratic."
As this is a complex matter it perhaps deserves a complex solution because including the SNP would bring into play several other parties with equal or greater demands for inclusion.
I think it is unlikely that the broadcasters and main party leaders will go for regionalised debates so we need a solution which recognises the proportion of support for parties across the UK as a whole.
On this basis I have decided to look at a "fair and proportionate" way of running a UK-wide TV debate. To do this I have gone back to the last serious test of political opinion in the UK - the European Parliament election in June this year.
My calculation on who to include and how much time to give them is based on the following rules:
1. To be included in the debate a party will have to have won a European seat.
2. The time allocated is mostly based on the percentage of votes received in June, with alterations detailed below.
3. As Labour are the biggest party in Westminster but only came third in June and the Conservatives are the biggest party in the European election I have added up their June 2009 percentages and given them half each of the combined 43.4%.
4. As UKIP came second in June but have no seats in Westminster, while the Lib Dems came fourth in June but are clearly the third party in Westminster I have added their percentages together and given them half each of the combined 30.6%.
5. I have topped up the English Greens with the Scottish Green vote, even though strictly speaking they are separate parties. Perhaps Scotland's Patrick Harvie could replace England's Caroline Lucas in one of the debates.
6. I suggest that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are represented as a single Celtic block with the SNP providing speakers for two of the three debates and Plaid the other. I have also topped up their vote with the 0.1 per cent given to Cornish Nationalists Mebyon Kernow, who out polled Labour in Cornwall.
7. I have excluded Northern Ireland which could have its own debate because essentially it has its own political parties, even if the former Ulster Unionists have joined the Tories.
This means for a two hour debate the following time allocations would be provided to the parties as a percentage of the total 120 minutes:
Conservatives: 26 minutes 3 seconds (21.7%)
Labour: 26 minutes 3 seconds (21.7%)
Liberal Democrats: 18 minutes 22 seconds (15.3%)
UKIP: 18 minutes 22 seconds (15.3%)
Greens: 10 minutes 56 seconds (9.1%)
BNP: 7 minutes 27 seconds (6.2%)
SNP/ Plaid: 3 minutes 36 seconds (3%)
The rest of the time ( 9 minutes 11 seconds) would go to adverts, the presenter and maybe the audience.
Seems over complicated?
Well this is what you get by trying to be strictly "fair and proportionate". I suspect that it would have little value to the parties, the broadcasters and most of all the voters.
How much better it would be to simply recognise that this proposed debate is a part of the growing presidential style of UK general elections and would focus on which individual we would rather see as Prime Minister. That cannot be Alex Salmond, even if the law may be on his and others' side when it comes to who should be given air time.
What would really be best is a simple, straight fight of Cameron v Brown.
Over to you Eddie.
But as I have the greatest respect for Eddie Barnes, who as The Scotsman group's political editor is after all my line manager, I thought I should take his central point over the great TV debate debate seriously.
Eddie stated that to exclude Alex Salmond or another SNP politician from a general election TV debate aired in Scotland is "anti democratic."
As this is a complex matter it perhaps deserves a complex solution because including the SNP would bring into play several other parties with equal or greater demands for inclusion.
I think it is unlikely that the broadcasters and main party leaders will go for regionalised debates so we need a solution which recognises the proportion of support for parties across the UK as a whole.
On this basis I have decided to look at a "fair and proportionate" way of running a UK-wide TV debate. To do this I have gone back to the last serious test of political opinion in the UK - the European Parliament election in June this year.
My calculation on who to include and how much time to give them is based on the following rules:
1. To be included in the debate a party will have to have won a European seat.
2. The time allocated is mostly based on the percentage of votes received in June, with alterations detailed below.
3. As Labour are the biggest party in Westminster but only came third in June and the Conservatives are the biggest party in the European election I have added up their June 2009 percentages and given them half each of the combined 43.4%.
4. As UKIP came second in June but have no seats in Westminster, while the Lib Dems came fourth in June but are clearly the third party in Westminster I have added their percentages together and given them half each of the combined 30.6%.
5. I have topped up the English Greens with the Scottish Green vote, even though strictly speaking they are separate parties. Perhaps Scotland's Patrick Harvie could replace England's Caroline Lucas in one of the debates.
6. I suggest that the SNP and Plaid Cymru are represented as a single Celtic block with the SNP providing speakers for two of the three debates and Plaid the other. I have also topped up their vote with the 0.1 per cent given to Cornish Nationalists Mebyon Kernow, who out polled Labour in Cornwall.
7. I have excluded Northern Ireland which could have its own debate because essentially it has its own political parties, even if the former Ulster Unionists have joined the Tories.
This means for a two hour debate the following time allocations would be provided to the parties as a percentage of the total 120 minutes:
Conservatives: 26 minutes 3 seconds (21.7%)
Labour: 26 minutes 3 seconds (21.7%)
Liberal Democrats: 18 minutes 22 seconds (15.3%)
UKIP: 18 minutes 22 seconds (15.3%)
Greens: 10 minutes 56 seconds (9.1%)
BNP: 7 minutes 27 seconds (6.2%)
SNP/ Plaid: 3 minutes 36 seconds (3%)
The rest of the time ( 9 minutes 11 seconds) would go to adverts, the presenter and maybe the audience.
Seems over complicated?
Well this is what you get by trying to be strictly "fair and proportionate". I suspect that it would have little value to the parties, the broadcasters and most of all the voters.
How much better it would be to simply recognise that this proposed debate is a part of the growing presidential style of UK general elections and would focus on which individual we would rather see as Prime Minister. That cannot be Alex Salmond, even if the law may be on his and others' side when it comes to who should be given air time.
What would really be best is a simple, straight fight of Cameron v Brown.
Over to you Eddie.
Labels: David Maddox, election debate, television
posted by Administrator at
19:16
5 Comments:
Strait jacket's on its way.
Simpler solution since the sexes are almost split 50 -50 why not have one of each and they can show it on CBBC then the rest of us can get back to the real World.
David
Once more, Our Prime Minister is not the Head of State, no matter how the media portay him or her.
Let's look at how the latest incumbent was elected.
He received a majority of votes in his Fife constituency in 2005 when he was Chancellor, and was subsequently voted PM, by his own party. We, the voters hardly had a say in that election. And nor should we, unless of course we wish to move to a federal republic with a directly-voted President, campaigning on reserved (federal) matters only.
And that brings me onto my next point. Do the voters of Scotland want to be confused and annoyed by irrelevant policies on English health, education, law, etc.. Very important to voters in England, but totally useless in Scotland.
The SNP is classed as a 'main' party in Scotland. So no, "including the SNP" wouldn't "bring into play several other parties." We have a top class public broadcasting service which allows English football to be shown in the English regions, and other stuff to be shown in Scotland. I'm sure BBC Scotland could cope with a political debating scenario.
However, this is not a debate on Scotland-only policies. That can be held a year later! Strictly speaking, this could be sorted out quite easily. There's no need to exaggerate and over-complicate things to embellish your strange point David. Four debates, one each in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Reserved-only policy debates in the latter three, the full monty in England. In fact, let's make it even easier. Hold one debate and televise the reserved-only policy in the Celtic nations and the entire debate in England. This of course doesn't include the SNP. But it would be fair.
Not really that hard to work out. Unless of course, you wish to make a particular point to somehow marginalise the largest party in Scotland. Surely you wouldn't do that David?
I think it is unlikely that the broadcasters and main party leaders will not go for regionalised debates...
A sentence with a double negative. I think the sense David trying to convey here is that the broadcasters and the Lib-Dems, Labour and the Conservatives won't want regional debates.
Their preferences don't count. What will count will be the opinion of the courts on the relevant legislation, which looks increasingly likely to be the final outcome of the whole affair. In my posts in both previous articles on this topic I've referred to the legislation which makes it illegal to exclude the SNP from a broadcast in Scotland which only includes three of the four main parties in Scotland. The four main parties being the SNP, Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems and these four are defined as the four main parties in Scotland within the OFCOM guidelines.
Eddie stated that to exclude Alex Salmond or another SNP politician from a general election TV debate aired in Scotland is "anti democratic."
The issue is not that it is, "anti-democratic", but that it would be both anti-democratic and illegal.
How much better it would be to simply recognise that this proposed debate is a part of the growing presidential style of UK general elections and would focus on which individual we would rather see as Prime Minister. That cannot be Alex Salmond, even if the law may be on his and others' side when it comes to who should be given air time.(my bold)
It seems it has finally got through to David that the issue will not come down to the broadcasters refusing Wee Eck a place on the platform or graciously allowing him a pretendy wee debate with the two regional managers and the office manager the Lib-Dems, Conservatives and Labour keep in Scotland, a debate on Westminster topics which are only in the competence of Wee Eck as a party leader to discuss, but it will come down to the courts. In the courts the SNP have the backing of the legislation either to get on the platform with the other three of the four defined main parties in Scotland or to convert the debate to a regional England only one.
This whole stramash about the right of the SNP to appear on any multi-party party political broadcast in Scotland has really got the smack of London parochialism about it. Those who don't want to the SNP to appear don't regard them as "proper" to appear on a TV debate with the "real" parties and despite all the sound and fury not one of the commentators actually looked at the legislation and guidelines for election broadcasting before grandly offering their opinions on the matter.
If you want ignorant parochialism have a look at a video clip of Annabel Goldie broadcast on STV where as a regional party manager she shows her abysmal ignorance of both the issues and legislation involved.
"Unlike Gordon Brown and a succession of previous Prime Ministers (or even Alex Salmond on St Andrew's Day), I am not one to shirk when the challenge is laid down for a debate"
Yeah, Alex Salmond's got such a track record of shirking debate. I remember him not being in the Usher Hall to debate Donald Dewr before the 1992 election, and not going head-to-head with George Robertson in the 1995 Great Debate (sponsored by.....oooh, what newspaper again?) about devolution.
Also memorable was how he refused to appear in a whole series of leader's debates before the 2007 election. I also remember him not debating against Douglas Alexander to mark the 300th anniversary of the treaty of union in a special edition of Newsnicht.
What a shirker! What is he afraid of?
Mighty:
Alex Salmond wiped the floor with the opposition in a debate in January 1992 in the Usher Hall. Is the Dewar debate something else?
1995? George and Alex were there at Royal High School, Edinburgh, it was Ian Lang who was missing. Georgie got the customary kicking.
2007? Alex was on them all.
Dougie Alexander? Can't remember as he's a waste of precious oxygen.
You've got very poor recall and the wrong end of the stick as a a lot of people have Mighty. Media conditioning is powerful. Alex doesn't want to stop the party leaders' debate being broadcast in Scotland, he wants to be on it.
Post a Comment
<< Home