David Maddox: The great TV debate debate (again!)
There was an air of predictable inevitability over the announcement on the election debate and its consequences.
The broadcasters were never going to countenance having Alex Salmond et al joining the big three, or rather the big two (Brown and Cameron) and medium sized one (Clegg). I gather that they were reluctant even to include Clegg but could not get away with it.
And, of course, apparently in the name of democracy we are to get legal challenges from the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales. But as I predicted in my Steamie debate with my colleague Eddie Barnes virtually every other minor party in British terms is also demanding a place in the debates - UKIP and the Greens have already said so. Maybe they will try legal challenges too.
However, I stand by my earlier comments that I cannot see a democratic justification for stopping Scots, or Welsh for that matter, watching a debate between the men contending to be prime minister.
These debates are nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with the presidential style of election we now have, like or hate it. In that sense Alex Salmond and his Welsh counterpart stand no chance of being PM and their value in them is limited at best.
The issues of constitutional nature, which is what they stand for, can be dealt with in separate Scottish and Welsh debates, which should deal with the legal issues too.
The only down side is that discussions on health and education or anything else devolved will be of little interest to those of us north of the Border. However, the defence and economy debates should be fascinating and will be worth broadcasting in Scotland for that reason alone.
Economically especially we are on the verge of a new era and this election will decide whether it will be a future of far less public spending or more taxation. The two main contenders appear to offer very different futures and Scots should not be excluded from that.
The broadcasters were never going to countenance having Alex Salmond et al joining the big three, or rather the big two (Brown and Cameron) and medium sized one (Clegg). I gather that they were reluctant even to include Clegg but could not get away with it.
And, of course, apparently in the name of democracy we are to get legal challenges from the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales. But as I predicted in my Steamie debate with my colleague Eddie Barnes virtually every other minor party in British terms is also demanding a place in the debates - UKIP and the Greens have already said so. Maybe they will try legal challenges too.
However, I stand by my earlier comments that I cannot see a democratic justification for stopping Scots, or Welsh for that matter, watching a debate between the men contending to be prime minister.
These debates are nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with the presidential style of election we now have, like or hate it. In that sense Alex Salmond and his Welsh counterpart stand no chance of being PM and their value in them is limited at best.
The issues of constitutional nature, which is what they stand for, can be dealt with in separate Scottish and Welsh debates, which should deal with the legal issues too.
The only down side is that discussions on health and education or anything else devolved will be of little interest to those of us north of the Border. However, the defence and economy debates should be fascinating and will be worth broadcasting in Scotland for that reason alone.
Economically especially we are on the verge of a new era and this election will decide whether it will be a future of far less public spending or more taxation. The two main contenders appear to offer very different futures and Scots should not be excluded from that.
Labels: David Maddox, general election, TV debates
posted by Administrator at
19:05
14 Comments:
David, I'd be curious to know in precisely what way Brown and Cameron offer "very different futures". My experience of Tory and Labour governments over the last thirty years has seemed relatively seamless.
"like or hate it"
More to the point David, who voted for it?
Another cas eof the media thinking they speak for us, you don't.
The broadcasters were never going to countenance having Alex Salmond et al joining the big three...I gather that they were reluctant even to include Clegg but could not get away with it.
The problem the broadcasters are going to hit with a hard thump is that they are applying the rules on political impartiality that apply in England to a broadcast going out over the UK. They couldn't get rid of Clegg because the Lib-Dems along with Labour and the Conservatives are defined as major parties in England. They have ignored the SNP and Alex Salmond but in Scotland the SNP are also defined as a major party as are Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Democratic Unionist Party, Sinn Fein, Social Democratic and Labour Party, and the Ulster Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. If they included the Lib-Dems because of their major party status then they can't argue against the SNP getting on the platform for anything broadcast in Scotland.
And, of course, apparently in the name of democracy we are to get legal challenges from the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales.
It is in the name of democracy not "apparently". The broadcasters want to censor the views of the other major parties in Scotland and Wales and the SNP and PC are complaining and demanding representation.
But as I predicted...virtually every other minor party in British terms is also demanding a place in the debates - UKIP and the Greens have already said so. Maybe they will try legal challenges too.
They might, but they are not defined as major parties in Scotland, Wales or NI in the OFCOM guidelines so their chances of winning that challenge is not high, unlike the SNP and PC.
However, I stand by my earlier comments that I cannot see a democratic justification for stopping Scots, or Welsh for that matter, watching a debate between the men contending to be prime minister. These debates are nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with the presidential style of election we now have, like or hate it. In that sense Alex Salmond and his Welsh counterpart stand no chance of being PM and their value in them is limited at best.
So why is Nick Clegg there? What we have is a mish-mash of a presidential style debate which has been slavishly and inappropriately copied from the US with a nod to the broadcasting laws on impartiality in England. When Alex Salmond asks to be on the platform he can't because it's a presidential style debate for PM but Nick Clegg is there because it's not fair under the guidelines which apply to England even if he's not got a snowball's chance in hell to become PM. It's one law for Salmond but another for Clegg.
The only down side is that discussions on health and education or anything else devolved will be of little interest to those of us north of the Border. However, the defence and economy debates should be fascinating and will be worth broadcasting in Scotland for that reason alone.
The idea is that the debates will probably be themed around the economy; Britain in the world; and crime, health, and schools. So one debate will be completely superfluous in Scotland and the other two will exclude the party running Scotland at the moment. Separate Scottish and Welsh debates are a non-runner as a sop to impartiality. The Lib-Dems, Labour and the Conservatives get exposure on three debates screened in Scotland with another Scottish one making it four in total. The SNP get one debate. I can't see any Judge wearing that one as far as political impartiality goes.
The two main contenders appear to offer very different futures and Scots should not be excluded from that.
I think us Scots should should go off on our own and make our own future. However since Alex Salmond is censored and not permitted to be on that platform with Brown, Clegg and Cameron it's not an option that these three will have to explain why they oppose to a Scots audience.
In October you described the SNP as sinsiter and said: "It never looks good for a party to try to stifle the electorate's access to political debate to serve its own purposes."
So well put. So why should the voice of the SNP be stifled in the UK when Scotland’s independence will greatly affect England?
In the words of Gavin McCrone in his report kept secret by the Westminster elite:
" What is quite clear is that the balance of payments gain from North Sea oil would easily swamp the existing deficit whatever its size and transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus.”
Note the chronic surplus.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccronereport.pdf
I would suggest to you that in light of that report and the desire of Westminster to suppress it, that England is about to have a very large fiscal problem when Scotland’s independence is finalised.
For that reason it will be seen as a democratic deficit to not have the SNP and Plaid present on all these debates, as the future of the UK which England dominates and benefits hugely from is about to change forever.
You do your best Mr Maddox but the voice of Scotland is being heard loud and clear despite your best efforts.
typo: Sinister not sinsiter.
These 'Big 3' are not presidential candidates. They could be replaced shortly after a General Election by their party, indeed Blair was, so why do we need to listen to their individual political rhetoric? We may as well read their party manifestos. And worse still, we have to watch them try and score points over one another on issues which don't even affect us!
This is purely a commercial opportunity for the media, and just like the Champions' League attracts the biggest audiences for contests between the likes of Man Utd and Barca, the small fry SNP will make very little money for the media.
With a bit of publicity, this could backfire on (Scottish) Gordon Brown in Scotland as he debates English policy on really very important areas like health and education. It will merely highlight the inequity of the UK constitutional set-up.
Presidential style politics had an outing during the last Scottish elections - 'Alex Salmond for First Minster'anyone?- and was one factor in the confusion that engulfed that process.
Will the debates be interesting? Course they will, i'll probably watch them as will most sad politicos. They will generate headlines, determine the narrative for the election campaign and define the collective view (media view) of how each of the candidates for No 10 have performed during the election.
Will it engage more people in the process? I doubt it.
How about sub natioanl debates on the issues rather than the personalities. The Scotsman,Herald and P&J could come together to arrange three internet and STV broadcast debates with each of the parties spokespeople on the Economy, Foreign Affairs and social justice. These debates would help shape the election debate here in Scotland and would be about issues not whose tie colour was the best choice
Excellent post from DougtheDug.
Of course, apart from the electoral advantage in terms of air time & credibility that the London parties seek to gain from the debate, the Unionist dog whistle here is a subliminal message that Westminster is the big boys club compared to the barely tolerated 'parish council' in Edinburgh.
London Labour has form when it comes to attacking democracy - Iraq? ID cards? - but their hubris & indifference will be their undoing with this issue.
An interesting comment from a journo who has nailed his colours firmly to the mast.
Certainly your comments appear to be severely at odds with articles appearing under your name in the Scotsman. You quote Ian McMillan as saying
"SCOTLAND'S most prominent business leader has attacked the SNP's record in government, warning ministers that they must change direction in 2010 to meet their key economic target."
And yet in this blog you state "However, the defence and economy debates should be fascinating and will be worth broadcasting in Scotland for that reason alone."
So you would have the Scottish economy debated without representation by the Scottish Government. And on the subject of defence, how about the fact that Holyrood overwhelmingly voted for the binning of Trident. Where would their voice be in this 'English' debate.
No problem restricting the debates to the big three, however I wish that the debates might consider the removal of devolution. Then we might get somewhere.
Patrick, you are out of time & on the wrong side of history.
Indeed, it is the anti-democratic and anti-Scottish impulses displayed by those seeking to muzzle the SNP that will indeed result in the 'removal' of devolution when the Scottish people vote to get their country back.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Either Scotland counts in the UK setup or we don't. If the SNP are not included then it shows Scotland and our unique politics can be completely ignored in favour of parties which are (like it or not) owned in England. That is a damning indictment of our supposedly 'equal' union.
Post a Comment
<< Home