"Four-fifths of public want Green party in TV leaders’ debates"

[WhistlingPot]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/17/poll-green-party-leaders-election-debates

Seems reasonable to me!

I quite like the Independents take on why they shouldn't be allowed though.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/let-me-list-the-reasons-that-the-green-party-should-definitely-not-be-allowed-into-the-tv-election-debates-9873964.html

Independent's sorry (for the pendants)

Of course the UK want every political party represented in the Leader Debate party, we are nice inclusive people, but I'm not sure soundbite or 1 minute answers on fairly complex issues INFORMS anyone.

In fact, I 'd suggest it would be more informative to allocate/divide all the time devoted to the leaders debate between each party to put their own case forward.

As an example, on the economy what is going to happen, there will be a Conservative view and everyone else will line up to say they'll cut less and stack up more debt - and Green populist quotes like this just totally mislead.

“They are well aware that austerity has failed even in its own terms while it has made the poor, the disabled, disadvantaged and the young pay for the fraud, corruption and mismanagement of the bankers."

Bankers and if we allowed banks/deposits to crash or not, in 2010, we had a £160 billion a year overspend, much of it through fat, inefficient government; forget the Welfare/benefit bill has gone up, the deficit would have been much smaller now if huge tax cuts to help bring the poor out of tax, a better state pensions formula to make up for the derisory previous increases and tax cuts to businesses helping to create over 1.8 million new jobs etc etc HAD NOT been made by the coalition.

If one sided soundbites is all we are going to see X 5 Leaders, what really is the informative point?

I'd like to see them in a TV debate. They get just a fraction of the attention that UKIP gets.

I don't see why we can't have both tbh Isitmebut. I guess we have party political broadcasts to enable cases to be stated, but it can be hit and miss as to whether the each get seen ime.

I would prefer to see the main parties across the spectrum from right to left given equal time to state their case and take part in some form of debate.

halfdrunk .... I agree it is not fair for UKIP to get more media attention than the Greens, the problem is that after every numb-nut decision by the EU, TV common tators no longer wonder what 'the government opposition' is going to say, they exclaim in a 'just wait until your father gets home' tone - 'just WHAT is UKIP going to say about THAT'...aaaaaaaaaaaaaagh.

And one could say (and I would be no doubt corrected) with carbon based energy prices now as cheap as chips, for the next year at least, the EU will be more of a hot political issue than Green issues.

But even ideologically, I'd have to say that personally (and for the good of parliamentary democratic and common sense balance) I'd prefer a Green MP to a home grown UKIP MP, any day of the week.

Whistlingpot .... I warm to your 'every party state case, then debate' view based for the reason you gave, even if it is clear that people NOW WANT to know more about smaller party policies - and closer to a General Election they were more likely to 'switch on' to their Party Political Broadcasts.

The left to right format I dunno, as those on the left proven clueless how to deliver it after several parliaments of trying, will say 'we are for fairness for all, no higher taxes, only common sense cuts, the accumulating/interest bearing £1,500,000,000,000 Nation Debt will look after itself, we can snap our fingers to help 'the cost of living crisis' and the UK have a god given right to jobs and prosperity' - and the people will go 'ooooh, I like the sound of all that'.

The problem (for me) being that it is economically and socially IMPOSSIBLE to achieve all that - so unless political leader get real, the 2015 debate will be as informatively useful to the real choices/direction available to the UK electorate, as the one in 2010 - and think along a chocolate tea pot lines.

Oh and don't start me on the SNP wanting to participate in the leader debate based on their Party Membership (an old UKIP ploy) and 3%(?) of the UK population voting for it.

How about, any party with at least one seat gets to appear?

Are you trying to pre-empt a Leadership Debate entitlement claim from the Monster Raving Loony Party? lol

Here's a radical idea. How about parties with the highest number of votes nationally and at least one seat????

Perhaps we should have a two element voting system. Tick one box for the party you most want to see lead the country, and another for who you would vote tactically for locally. That would be very interesting!

With so many political parties in the General Election mix, any attempt at 'tactical voting' could come back and bite constituencies on the bum.

On that note, why not have another box for the most butt-ugliest leader, in some kind of sympathy vote? lol

Right you are.

Tactical voting is endemic in certain areas - it is the only viable choice available to unseat your least favourite MP for many! Or at least we would be able to accurately assess this if the data were available.

Just look at your statement: I'd prefer a Green MP to a home grown UKIP MP, any day of the week. You'd have to be a completely numpty to think people won't vote tactically when faced with these kinds of choices under the current system.

Perhaps we should have an X-factor style census to find out. Lol.

Whistling..... re MY quote, I was talking parliament in general, the contribution of a bright Green MP versus a UKIP "lunatic" - and I'm guessing most tactical voting would be to oust a three largest party MP or contender - personally I'm a small party NIMBY, but I suspect you realize that. lol
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873508/Ukip-official-charge-vetting-candidates-admits-spends-half-time-weeding-lunatics.html

So there doesn't seem to be anyone who thinks the beeb/ITV etc are right to exclude the Green Party from leadership debates in the way they are doing?

I wonder how much longer they can justify this standpoint?

UKIP has more party members than the Greens.

Are both those two parties going to contest every seat in the next General Election? If not, how many for each?

Lib Dems are barely ahead of them, so one answer could also be to exclude them, rather than invite more.

Lib Dems are barely ahead of them, so one answer could also be to exclude them, rather than invite more.

Yes Edith, in a way I agree. The grounds for the argument in maintaining the status quo is wearing thin.

I think the role of our media in the run up to an election should be to inform voters factually on what is out there, not cherry pick to get the most viewers.

"Exclude the Lib Dems"????

Since when have Party Members and current Polls, been Westminster seats and measures of achievement?

At the last election, the Lib Dems had 57 seats, 6.9 million voters, and 23%of the vote.

If since 2010 we did not have a coalition, and we had to rely on the 'oppose everything in Westminster and Hollyrood Labour Party', nothing would have got done in parliament and we'd have called out the IMF, EU, European Central Bank and possibly Simon Cowell, to bail the UK out.

I am no fan of the Lib Dem sandal wearing tree huggers, but credit where credit due, peeps.

Exactly Isitmebut. It would be ridiculous.

It's the same kind of logic that's being applied to excluse the greens.

The logic behind what our media is trying to do is skewed, and clearly four fifths of the public currently agree.

So, it looks like the Greens WILL be included, as putting aside the expensive benefit of being a previous face within the Oxbridge Debating Society experience, with current primary school level accusations of "chicken", all that has to happen is the Greens are accepted, for the debates to go ahead.

The 2015 Leaders Debate was already going to be like the Chimps Tea Party, as those campaigning for a mythical 'different approach' and for this whole parliament has called the cutting of a £157 billion annual overspend "austerity" - are NOT going to be any more financially honest with the electorate than they were in 2010, using both failed and economically impractical ideological mantras, to promise what they can't deliver.

At the end of the day there will be ONE OF TWO approaches; one of which will NOT address the budget deficit and will tell you that they have 'a cunning plan' to create better wages to alleviate the 'cost of living crisis'.

Yet their ideology based on their RECORD IN POWER, be it the hand over to Conservatives in 1979 and/or 2010 a record of PUTTING UP TAXES they never told the electorate about before hand.

Pretending their fat inefficient governments give a shit about the vulnerable i.e. from 1997 to 2010 under Labour, did the State Pension go up 110% like the Council Tax and Darlings pre 2010 General Election increase on company and individuals National Insurance, how was A TAX ON JOBS ever going to help create private sector jobs and help companies pay higher salaries.

So instead of hearing failed social ideology promises/lies in stereo (Labour and the Lib Dems), lets have EVERYONE IN, the Scottish SNP, the Welsh Plaid Cm, who STILL think a fairer Poll Tax of 30-years ago (rather than a 110% plus socialist increase in Council Tax), is PROOF the Conservatives can't run an economy, despite the FACTS their administrations hand back a better economy than what they inherited.

Rant over. lol

I think that the Greens should be given a chance, but having 5 leaders in a debate will make it hard. Actually we should have the SNP and plaid cymru and maybe the BNP for entertainment.

I would like to put the leaders in a jungle and make them do stupid things like eating insects and reptiles. (But not each other!) We could have vote on who we vote out each week and who is the most annoying. We could even vote on forfits for the most annoying politican.

Or maybe wife swap between the two runners up. If the green party leader wins then they will have her partner. We could have them argue over a cup of coffee about their experiences.

Fair Trade coffee, of course. lol

I think that you have hit the nail on the head; this leadership debate should be labelled "entertainment", with a Government Truth Health Warning, as these debates will have less factual content than Celebrity Big Brother - and that voters should use them as a confirmation of who is lying, AFTER they have done their own political research on a party's record/policies.

Seeing Ed Miliband today on the BBC’s Andrew Marr’s hour, I reiterate my Leader Debate ‘what is the point’ question.

Similar to the pre 2010 election media questions/debates, despite repeatedly questioned on Labour’s post general election Deficit Reduction, Spend and TAX plans, his party is just as vague, trying to use ideological ‘fairer’ mantras to fool the public - and then opposing EVERY deficit reduction measure.

Also, confirming the inability of his party to form joined-up-policy-thinking, he repeated his Energy policy, where the energy regulator should be given new powers to force firms to cut bills when wholesale prices in gas and oil fall.

A great soundbite populist policy for debates, but as Ed Miliband was our last Labour Energy Minister, overseeing an energy policy in crisis, needing several new nuclear energy reactors RELYING ON ENERGY COMPANIES TO PAY FOR THEM at around £10 billion each – why of all people can he expect that to happen, with the heavy anti business hand of the State, dictating to them their revenues in an environment where some energy companies are ALREADY cutting investment e.g North Sea oil?

Not a problem if the State is going to pick up the building of reactors bill and stop our light going out over the next few years, but as we still have a (greatly reduced) budget deficit economy, WILL LABOUR INCREASE THE DEFICIT OR TAXES to pay for it?

Unless Leader Debates are going to get into the detail nitty gritty, how can the electorate chose ‘what is in it for me’, which tends to be why the majority votes?

Are you sure you're not feeling a bit chicken Isitmebut?

But seriously, I tend to agree with your last sentence. I think the leader debate could be really effective, but have doubts as to whether it will really deliver what is needed.

We need a better way to educate people around what they are voting for, independently. It's a stab in the dark for a lot of people, I am sure.

Yes. They should be there so people can hear there daft policies such as reducing military spending, no limits on immigration, amnesty for illegal immigrants. the only thing I agree with them about is leaving the EU - if they still believe that