David Maddox: The great debate - Barnes v Maddox (4)
Eddie, we are at one over the legal technicalities. I believe the Scottish precedent was set in 1995 courtesy of a successful Labour/ Lib Dem challenge to the screening of an interview with John Major the week before an election in Scotland.
However, I think the logical conclusion of your position now is that we should simply not have the debates thus denying voters the chance of seeing the main contenders to be Prime Minister go up against one another. This may happen now as a result of the SNP challenge, ironically letting Gordon Brown off the hook.
Several posters have commented on the Steamie that opposing the SNP's supposed right to be part of these debates shows a lack of understanding of devolution. I would say it is the opposite. This is a UK election for Westminster not a Scottish devolved one for Holyrood and therefore needs to be seen in a UK context.
You also have to look at other practicalities. For example, I am not sure that Sky is able let alone willing to broadcast separate regional debates for Scotland as has been suggested by some. I also do not see why the SNP has any greater claim to participating in a UK-wide debate than UKIP, the Greens or even, unfortunately, the BNP. They all attracted many more votes in the last national election (the European Parliament one in June this year).
In our inquiries, which Eddie referred to, it may be that there are ways of getting around this such as the broadcasters offering a "minor" parties debate along with Scottish and Welsh only ones. This certainly would not make Alex Salmond and the SNP or probably even Eddie happy, but it could potentially nullify a legal challenge.
However, I think the logical conclusion of your position now is that we should simply not have the debates thus denying voters the chance of seeing the main contenders to be Prime Minister go up against one another. This may happen now as a result of the SNP challenge, ironically letting Gordon Brown off the hook.
Several posters have commented on the Steamie that opposing the SNP's supposed right to be part of these debates shows a lack of understanding of devolution. I would say it is the opposite. This is a UK election for Westminster not a Scottish devolved one for Holyrood and therefore needs to be seen in a UK context.
You also have to look at other practicalities. For example, I am not sure that Sky is able let alone willing to broadcast separate regional debates for Scotland as has been suggested by some. I also do not see why the SNP has any greater claim to participating in a UK-wide debate than UKIP, the Greens or even, unfortunately, the BNP. They all attracted many more votes in the last national election (the European Parliament one in June this year).
In our inquiries, which Eddie referred to, it may be that there are ways of getting around this such as the broadcasters offering a "minor" parties debate along with Scottish and Welsh only ones. This certainly would not make Alex Salmond and the SNP or probably even Eddie happy, but it could potentially nullify a legal challenge.
Labels: David Maddox, tv debate
posted by Administrator at
21:53
11 Comments:
Having this kind of debate here makes the media itself more accountable, I think. Good work.
Let us know what the answer is when you're done, and so long as you can get plenty of Patrick Harvie and/or Caroline Lucas into it I'll offer you my principled support.
James - Glad to see you are paying attention.
Just a word of warning the next debate may be on your interesting blog re carbon capture.
- David
To which I believe the time-honoured response is Bring It On!
You keep on using the word regional. If you look at the reality of the situation then you will see that regional is not the appropriate word. Yorkshire and Humberside, the South East, the other English regions, do not have their own Parliaments which legislate on such issues as health, education, housing, local government including social work, policing, equal opportunities legislation, and a myriad of other factors which are liable to form some of the major bones of the debate.
You are still using the numbers game and making the assumption that the UKIP has just as much validity as the SNP because of their popularity in a country which numbers ten to our one million. The UKIP are not in Government.
I don't think you do ''get'' devolution. That is about trying to give equal say to all the people in the various component countries which currently make up the UK.
Your position will deny that. You are proposing a debate which is entirely Anglo-centric, because they have the greater numbers, and Scotland, Wales, and NI don't matter.
That's actually fine by me because you are demonstrating that devolution is a half-way house that throws up more questions than answers.
David,
This is a UK election for Westminster not a Scottish devolved one for Holyrood and therefore needs to be seen in a UK context.
In principle, that is correct. But whatever way you look at it, the UK is no longer a centralised state and devolution plays a large part in the politics of the state now.
There's another issue to consider too: if a question is raised about a devolved issue, in what way can Brown, Cameron and Clegg's answer relate to the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Malc
I agree that the UK is no longer a centralised state in the way it was and that is a good thing.
But whatever way you look at it, this is a UK-wide election we are talking about not a devolved one.
In terms of issues raised on devolved matters I would suggest that could be more than compensated for with special Scotland debates involving the Scottish party spokespeople.
- David
David,
I don't deny that this is a UK-wide election and that it should be seen in that context. I just think that devolved politics play a large role in UK politics - even at Westminster level.
Your suggestion of a Scotland-only debate works to an extent (and, I suspect, is largely how it will be dealt with) but it doesn't deal with the flaw in the debate: While Brown, Cameron and Clegg can discuss issues like health, education and police numbers, those issues are relevant only to the English audience as they have no control over them in Scotland or Wales (to a lesser extent).
I should point out I'm not convinced Salmond should be in the "Big boys" debate, but I recognise his claim and the problems it causes. My point is simply that a TV debate with UK leaders fails to take account of the changed (devolved) nature of UK politics in the 21st Century.
However, I think the logical conclusion of your position now is that we should simply not have the debates thus denying voters the chance of seeing the main contenders to be Prime Minister go up against one another.
The logical conclusion is that the broadcasters failed to read any of the legislation and guidelines which apply to political broadcasting during an election which would have informed them that Scotland, Wales and NI are covered by separate requirements.
This may happen now as a result of the SNP challenge, ironically letting Gordon Brown off the hook.
Only if the Lib-Dems, the Conservatives and Labour take the hump about having to stand on the same platform as Alex Salmond. The SNP don't want to stop the debate they want to take part as is their legal right in Scotland.
Several posters have commented on the Steamie that opposing the SNP's supposed right to be part of these debates shows a lack of understanding of devolution.
It doesn't show a lack of understanding of devolution it shows a lack of understanding about the legislation and guidelines which apply to political broadcasting during an election in Scotland and it's not a, "supposed right", it's a right.
You also have to look at other practicalities. For example, I am not sure that Sky is able let alone willing to broadcast separate regional debates for Scotland as has been suggested by some.
The BBC can do regional broadcasting as can ITV. If some mastermind at Sky thought up a UK wide political debate at election time without getting a company lawyer to run an eye across the legislation they've got nobody to blame but themselves.
I also do not see why the SNP has any greater claim to participating in a UK-wide debate than UKIP, the Greens or even, unfortunately, the BNP. They all attracted many more votes in the last national election (the European Parliament one in June this year).
You are quite right. The SNP don't have, "any greater claim to participating in a UK-wide debate", than parties such as UKIP or the Greens or even the BNP. What they do have is a legal claim to participate in a debate which is broadcast in Scotland. How long is it going to take before these three little words, "broadcast in Scotland", get through? The claim to participate in a debate with the other party leaders' is in the context of Scotland and the legislation which applies to Scotland.
In our inquiries, which Eddie referred to, it may be that there are ways of getting around this such as the broadcasters offering a "minor" parties debate along with Scottish and Welsh only ones. This certainly would not make Alex Salmond and the SNP or probably even Eddie happy, but it could potentially nullify a legal challenge.
Who would participate in a, "Scottish", debate? Alex Salmond is leader of the SNP. Goldie, Scott and Gray are not party leaders. There are no Scottish Conservative, Scottish Labour or Scottish Lib-Dem parties and non-parties can't have leaders. Have a look in the Electoral Commission's register of political parties. You won't find them. Unlike Alex Salmond they have no authority over their parties' MP's in Westminster. Alex Salmond debating with Goldie, Scott and Gray would be pointless in a Westminster election as none of the three non-party leaders have any authority outside the Scottish Parliament and the devolved powers given to it.
If there is a party leaders' debate held in Scotland which contains only three of the four main parties in Scotland as defined by OFCOM it will be illegal. Additional pointless minor debates don't come into it.
You say it will be a UK wide election and not a Scottish devolved one for Holyrood and therefore needs to be seen in a UK context.
OK but they will be talking about issues which are devolved to Scotland.
How can you get round it unless you run a visual at the bottom of the screen saying 'Does not apply in Scotland' ?
"have the debates thus denying voters the chance of seeing the main contenders to be Prime Minister go up against one another"
Since when did the UK cease to be a parliamentary democracy where party's's put forward proposals and the prime minister like every other representative stood for election in his own constituency.
That basis of your argument is that these are 'primeminster' debates..... that is a media fantasy.
Why not simply have a series of debates based on the key policy areas of the Uk Government and have representatives from each party above a certain threshold appear.
I'll tell you why, it's not 'glam' enough for the media.
They are making this a contest of personality, not a contest of ideas.
David
I agree with Indy.
Since last year after the BBC Trust's Scottish survey and recommendations, the BBC have been careful to tell viewers whether their news report is about English, English & Welsh, Scottish, or Northern Irish policy. Or indeed UK policy.
If they are consistent with this approach, and there is no reason to doubt not, then they will apply this same principle to any TV debate. So the only way to deal with this would be to subtitle a disclaimer stating that the political leaders are debating English-only policy, or persistently make reference to whether the debate is about policy in England or indeed about reserved policy.
This would surely undermine any such debate, alienate different nations within the UK, thus taking the gameshow glam off the event.
Post a Comment
<< Home