This evening, Patrick Harvie will make history as the first Green MSP to take part in the BBC’s flagship Politics Show – Question Time. Whether ‘HarvMania’ will be unleashed as a direct result or the longed for appearance will be a damp squib remains to be seen but any belief that the Greens have ‘arrived’ as a main party in Scotland can quickly be dispelled with the mere fact that Patrick has been frozen out of the Holyrood leader debates, as blogged by James yesterday.
I hold a particularly strong belief that this is an unacceptable situation, and not just because Alex, Iain, Tavish and Annabel should be given their fair chance to say ‘I agree with Patrick’ over and over again.
An arbitrary selection of party leaders should not get a free electoral leg-up from the media. We saw last year with Nick Clegg the electrifying impact that a good performance at these debates can have on a campaign but what we don’t see so clearly is the unfair detrimental impact that exclusion causes to those who are unfairly left out. So, I have decided to see if good old-fashioned people power can result in a fifth podium being added to the BBC and STV stages.
I urge anyone that agrees with me that it is unfair for the Greens to be excluded from these debates, irrespective of the strength of that feeling, to sign this petition calling for Patrick Harvie to be included.
There is no reason why this should be a partisan issue either. Those that disagree with the Green party’s policies would, I am sure, respect their validity and the contribution that they provide to the overall pre-election debate. There is simply no reasonable explanation that I can think of to excuse keeping a current leader of the current Scottish Parliament outside of the leader debates in advance of the election for the next parliamentary term.
Almost a year ago the SNP asked its members and non-member sympathisers to fund a legal challenge to what Alex Salmond called an “outrage“ when the Nationalists were not included in the UK leader debate broadcasts. This time around the microphone is on the other lapel, it is the SNP who have made the cut along with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives and it is the Scottish Green Party that is unfairly frozen out. I’m sure no-one will be mounting a legal challenge this time around but that same call for fairness is just as valid.
The Green slogan at the Westminster election was ‘Fair is worth fighting for’. That applies as much today with this petition as it did then.
Sign the petition, spread the word, tweet, join the campaign on Facebook and/or blog about it, put the pressure on the BBC and STV and let’s give Scotland the full political debate that we deserve.
#1 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 7:19 am
By making the issue about the Greens and Patrick you are making this a partisan issue. My problem is that parties that are putting up a similar number of candidates to the Greens are excluded from your petition.
I was against the SNP taking part in the debates last year due to the fact that they were not standing in every Westminster seat. To me that is a valid point to which create a cut-off between participation and non-participation. I dont think that separating those parties offering a candidate on every ballot paper from those who are not is arbitrary.
#2 by James on March 10, 2011 - 7:57 am
So anyone who can find £36,500 and 73 volunteers to stand in every constituency should be in a debate, no matter how unelectable? They would have a better call to be in the debates than a party which has been elected to Holyrood since 1999 and is currently polling not far behind the Lib Dems?
#3 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:18 am
Douglas – I don’t think it is specifically about the Greens though. You made the comment yesterday that “if the Greens are fighting everywhere, they should have a podium”. They are – every single person in Scotland who is eligible to vote will be able to vote for a Green candidate.
That that will be on the regional element and not in constituency balloting is irrelevant – the outcome of both results in MSPs who do the same job.
I’d be happy to see other parties who are standing only on lists get a podium too… but, much as I hate them, we probably have to go with opinion polls here: and on that score, the Greens are way ahead of anyone else.
#4 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:21 am
Also, Douglas – I may be completely off here, and so apologies if I’m mis-interpreting your position entirely – but is there perhaps a small fear for you that if the Greens get more publicity, they’ll get more votes, and those votes are likely to come from your party?
Like I say, I’m assigning motive based on interpretation, so I might be well off – and I apologise if I’m entirely wrong. But sometimes principle wanes in the face of practise. I’ll be especially interested to see how much support this gets from the SNP…
#5 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:35 am
With all due respect I have to say that you are well off target there. I think that Patrick should get a question every week in Parliament FMQ as he is a party leader. I think that they should have been on QT before now.
I am adopting the same position as I took with the SNP and am viewing participation from the perspective of intent.
#6 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:40 am
That’s fine – and you’ll note my pre-post apologies. And I’ll add my post-comment ones now too!
But the intent thing seems a little, well, weak, if you don’t mind my saying. I’ve pointed out to you that the Tories never had any intention of forming the government last time around and yet they were included. The Greens DO have intentions of being in government (as witnessed by comments made in several newspapers). That fact that that would be in coalition with another party seems, to me, irrelevant, since that is logical outcome of the party and electoral system that we currently have.
#7 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:27 am
I also said that they should be on every ballot and they are not. I wasn’t clear when I wrote that line about fighting everywhere. I did mean wanting to set up a constituency office in the constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale. Not just somewhere in the South of Scotland.
This time the Greens are in a strong position but what about next time or the time after that? If we based on being in parliament we are closing the door on new participants. Which is unfair. If we base it on polls we risk have parties in the Parliament being excluded. Lets have a list party debate instead.
#8 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:32 am
Let me be clear then.
At this election, the Greens are in Parliament, and are polling well enough that it looks like they might (potentially) be part of the next government. I don’t believe that Labour are on 59 seats, but if that’s good enough for newspapers to report then we should also use it as our measuring stick. So – by your reasoning, whether the party are standing across constituencies or not – they do go into the election as a potential party of government, with the intention of implementing their policies in government.
At the next election, we can evaluate whether that situation is the same, or whether the rump of the SSP is still going, whether the BNP are taking over, whether we have the SSCUP back in Parliament. If any of those things are true, then I think they should merit involvement in debate next time. But this time… you can see that logic, right?
#9 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:19 am
Basically yes.
Why not allow the SSP to take part – after all they had representation from 99 to 07 or 2/3rds of devolution?
But I dont think currently being in parliament or even polling position is the important thing. If it was, then that makes participation based on past performance rather than political intent which is, frankly, not exactly an open approach to democratic engagement. If Patrick is given a place this time due to being in Parliament, what happens if in 2016 there is a list only party polling the same as the Greens prior to the debates but, following the rules you have set out, are barred from taking part in a debate and the Greens pull ahead due to the debate? Would this other party not feel aggrieved as the Greens feel aggrieved just now.
There has to be a consideration of intent. What is the intent of the political party? By standing in the list only, there is no intent to be largest party, no intent to be First Minister and no intent to deliver all of the policies being put forward in a manifesto as, not matter how strongly a party holds onto its principles there will need to be a compromise when it comes to a coalition. Or not even deliver any manifesto commitment by not compromising and not entering a coalition.
Now, the Lib Dems and the Torys have that to lead Scotland, to be First Minister and want to deliver their entire manifesto. Yes, that is laughable. Yes it is very very unlikely to happen. But that is the intent that should govern participation in debates.
I would welcome a list party only debate where parties can state why they are worth that ‘2nd vote’.
#10 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:24 am
I accept that position to an extent Douglas. But the Tories in 2007 specifically said they WOULD NOT enter into the government, whatever the outcome – so should they have been excluded on your basis? The third most popular (going by Scottish Parliament voting from 2007) party in Scotland being excluded from the debate?
#11 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:28 am
What, even if they had won? As unlikely as that is.
Why were they even taking part in the election?
#12 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:34 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6516651.stm
4 weeks before the election, Annabel Goldie ruled out coalition.
Your thoughts on whether that should have ruled her out of the debate?
#13 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:40 am
Am I not being clear or something? If you remember, the Lib Dems said that they wouldn’t enter a coalition with the SNP if a referendum was on the table (which I thought was a stupid position anyway).
But, and no matter how unlikely it was, the Tories and Lib Dems both in 2007 and 2011 both put forward enough candidates to theoretically form the next Scottish Government. If, the day before polling day, they were asked do you want to have a majority in the parliament both Tavish and Annabel would have been able to say yes. And will be able to give the same answer in Mat. The Greens cannot. That is the point I am trying to make. It was the position I took with the SNP and the debates last year and it is the position I am trying (and possibly failing) to take this year.
#14 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:41 am
Ah – that’s clearer then. Intent is based on standing, not on ACTUAL intentions!
#15 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:51 am
The intent can be thought of as offering the people of Scotland a party and a leader that is seeking to be the largest party in the parliament, perhaps even with a majority.
The Greens are not offering the people of Scotland the same thing as the Tories, SNP, Lib Dems and Labour in terms of overall desire.
#16 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:56 am
I’m going to disagree Douglas, though I do accept your position. I mean, I agree with your interpretation of your own concept of intent, but I disagree that they are not offering the same thing.
Because of the system we have, no party can govern independently of others. The SNP have found that, even with minority single-party administration – they are still dependent on other parties. So, with the system we have, any parties intentions to govern are intentions to govern in coalition – and that, for me, includes the Greens.
In theory, your position is acceptable. But I don’t know that it is consistent with the system we have in practice.
#17 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 9:14 am
We can agree to disagree 🙂
If I am honest I am disappointed that the Greens are not standing in every seat. It some respects to shows a slight lack of ambition.
#18 by James on March 10, 2011 - 8:27 am
The SSP don’t meet any of my suggested criteria for participation.
I suspect Malc’s right about the motivation.
#19 by Stuart on March 10, 2011 - 7:52 am
If the BBC can accommodate 6 speakers at Question Time this week, then surely they can accommodate 5 at their Holyrood debates.
There are 5 parties in the Scottish Parliament, and 5 should be represented in these debates. Partisan? Maybe, but that’s just because there’s only 1 party being excluded.
#20 by Doug Daniel on March 10, 2011 - 8:31 am
Signed. However, I do wonder where it would be acceptable to draw the line. Someone mentioned on yesterday’s thread that Malcolm’s recent thread on the voting system would see a multitude of smaller parties represented in Holyrood. Looking back at 2007, the outgoing parliament had representatives from the SNP, Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, SSP, Greens and SSCUP – 7 parties. Surely it’s unrealistic to expect a TV debate between 7 parties? I suggested yesterday that representation should mean more than one MSP, but that only rules out the SSCUP there.
At what point would it be acceptable to say “okay, there’s too many people now, we need to have extra rules – 6, 7, 8 leaders? What could those extra rules be? I ask because I can’t think of any that don’t involve using some arbitrary number, which is clearly what’s already happening.
#21 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:37 am
That’s a fair point. But I suppose the best thing is to think of some of the early US primary election debates. They regularly have 8/9 candidates there, and as polling shifts and candidates drop out, the later ones are just the remaining candidates.
My thread was one an imagined system though – its not the one we have. And as rightly pointed out, the BBC’s Question Time regularly has 5 panellists on it. This would just be the same.
See elsewhere for thoughts on rules, but I’ll point out again – in my view, this is just for this election. We reassess situation for next one.
#22 by Doug Daniel on March 10, 2011 - 8:51 am
Good point – politics changes (well, some might argue it doesn’t change at all), so it’s probably futile to try and define the parameters for all future debates based on today’s standings.
It’s fun to try though…!
#23 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 8:54 am
It is a memory of how the parliament looked in 2003-2007 that causes me concern about how we implement participation in the debates at this election. I think a list party debate would be a viable way forward (and the other four parties wouldnt take part).
#24 by James on March 10, 2011 - 8:57 am
So you’d have a debate that puts Labour, the SNP, the Tories and the Lib Dems in as equals, then a debate that puts the Greens in as equals with the BNP, the Christian Alliance, the Adam Lyall’s Witchery Tour Party if they stand in all eight regions?
#25 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 9:07 am
And the SSP, the SSCUP and UKIP.
If it helps, Patrick Harvie would win any debate hands down and show how effective a second vote for a credible candidate would be. As you want it to be, Patrick would be debating for second votes against people who are asking for both votes.
#26 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 9:14 am
That’s a bit of a scabby point surely Douglas. Once the votes are counted all MSPs are equal.
Patrick won’t be appealing for regional votes and Salmond etc constituency votes. They’ll be appealing for votes full stop.
Where to draw the line is a fair question but one has to think that it is at least at the door of the Scottish Parliament if a party already has MSPs in place, particularly parties that have already taken part in coalition discussions before.
#27 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 9:33 am
Scabby? Perhaps, and I apologise.
However, Patrick will have to make it very clear during the debates that he is seeking the second vote only. If only because some element of tactical voting is bound to come up in the debates.
But why then not include parties that have been represented in parliament before? Being in parliament ‘now’ is a dangerous criteria to use because, despite the best of intentions, it can easily become the barrier to getting into parliament.
#28 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 9:48 am
I’m sure he would be only too happy to make that distinction if he was allowed to participate.
#29 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 10:57 am
“Patrick will have to make it very clear during the debates that he is seeking the second vote only”
Why? I simply do not follow your logic. What has tactical voting got to do with anything?
I wouldn’t be against the Socialists being involved but beyond that is, I think, too far. I accept that it is not an easy line to draw and all one can do is shout as loud as they can their thoughts on the matter which this petition will allow people to do if they think the cutoff should be five parties.
#30 by Doug Daniel on March 10, 2011 - 11:11 am
Definitely have some sympathy for your position here, Douglas. However, I don’t think it’s too unreasonable to suggest that if a party’s vote has collapsed so much that they have ceased to exist as representatives in Holyrood, there are very good reasons for it. SSP are a perfect example – yes, they had 6 MSPs in 2003-2007, but since then they have completely imploded, and until the differences on the left are sorted out, it’s hard to see the socialist vote not continuing to be split between (at least) two parties, meaning neither they nor Solidarity currently stand any credible chance of returning to Holyrood. Also, what do you do about new parties that consist of former MSPs, or existing parties that have never had MSPs but have recently had former MSPs join them?
But still, it is hard to see how exclusion from TV debates can prove to be anything but a hindrance to political parties. If nothing else, it gives the electorate the impression that any party not on TV debates is not a credible party, and therefore a wasted vote. Perhaps if the SSP WERE involved in the debates, they would get enough votes to get elected, although then you get Solidarity complaining about favouritism.
#31 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 12:13 pm
@Jeff – So questions like – “Patrick, who are you voting for in your constituency?” or “Who is your preference for a coalition party/who should voters elected in their constituencies?” wont get asked? Or even Alex, who should people vote with both their votes – SNP/SNP, Iain? Labour/Labour, Tavish? Lib Dem/Lib Dem and Annabel – Con/Con. Patrick…..
Now to all of those I am quite sure that Patrick will give a clear and coherent answer where he states, without procrastination, his preferences…..
Now. Lets say none of that comes up. And Patrick does well. He enthuses a number of people to join the Green Party cause. The day after the debate they call the Greens office and ask to volunteer. Who is their local candidate they ask, who is fighting that Lib Dem Jeremy Purvis? Answer……not what they expected. In fact, depending on the polls they may even be asked to campaign to get a Green MSP elected in a region that is not even theirs. Would the Greens have activists in Penicuik when polls show them a few hundred votes from 2 or even 3 MSPs in the Lothains? These potential new activists may be a little disheartened as that was not was Patrick was saying the night before.
#32 by James on March 10, 2011 - 12:24 pm
I’ve never heard someone say they want to volunteer for us to “fight” any other specific candidate. They all want to get more Greens elected, and we have plenty of work for them to do to help with that.
#33 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 12:40 pm
Douglas, come on, really? Questions like ‘who are you voting for’ are not going to be asked or else it will be a particularly lousy show. I think you’re beginning to get a little bit silly about all of this, if I’m being honest. And anyway, Patrick could easily bat it away your made-up question by saying that he will just be using his second vote for the Greens or that he doesn’t need to disclose who he will be voting for if he does use his 1st vote. DO you really think the public are that interested in who PH is voting for? Really?
As for ‘which party do you want to be in coalition with?’. That is a question that the Greens, Lib Dems and Conservatives can expect from now until May 5th. I also think that that is a rather lousy question too but that won’t stop it being asked.
I hope the debates are about issues as that’s what this election is about (not ‘who is fighting Jeremy Purvis?’, for goodness sake) and, on that score, the Greens have a story to tell that is markedly different to the other parties and a valid contribution the debate.
#34 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 12:23 pm
@Doug Daniel (excellent 1st name btw) – “it gives the electorate the impression that any party not on TV debates is not a credible party”
This is kind of my fear. The Greens are of course a very credible party. But it can be argued that UKIP is as well. Certainly in terms of representation at MEP level and have polled well in England recently. Now, electorally, they are nowhere in Scotland but there is the possibility that they, or another party, may be polling near the Greens in a future election but are excluded from the debates due to not having been in parliament which then impact on their electoral chances. But how can a party get the chance to be elected to parliament without access to the TV debates that similarly electorally positioned parties may have?
#35 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 12:31 pm
That for me isn’t a reason to exclude the Greens from the TV debates, but a reason not to have the debates at all.
If TV exposure gives the Greens an unfair advantage over UKIP etc, then surely having it without them gives the SNP, Labour, Lib Dems and Tories an unfair advantage over everyone else? Is that advantage merited if they are standing in every constituency – as your argument before would suggest? I don’t think so.
On a side note. How are UKIP “similarly electorally positioned” to the Greens? Like you say, they are nowhere in Scotland and have less than half (I think) the Greens vote share. And no representatives – at ANY level – in Scottish politics. How is that the same?
#36 by Douglas McLellan on March 10, 2011 - 12:55 pm
@Jeff – Perhaps I have a lower expectation as to the quality of the debates. But I still think that Patrick will have a differing argument to make based on being a list only candidate. Am I the only activist here that still has to explain the list system to many voters that I speak to?
@James – The Lib Dems were unprepared for what happened following the 1st debate. There were people coming forward who felt that the Lib Dems offered something different to the candidates they were used to and they wanted to do something to help a Lib Dem get elected. I still dont think that enough people in Scotland view the list system as the separate electoral opportunity the Greens and others do which could come as a surprise to new activists.
@Malc – I meant as list only party, nothing else. Of course UKIP are not going to get the same result as the Greens. And yes, I think standing in every constituency does offer the country and voters something different to just standing on the list.
#37 by Indy on March 10, 2011 - 11:11 am
But you would actually have a debate that brought in Labour, the SNP, the Tories and the Lib Dems as well as every other party because they all have candidates who are “list only” – (well, I think they all do, not totally certain about that – the SNP certainly does and I think Labour as well). That is why, to me, it’s a pointless distinction.
#38 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 8:59 am
In theory, I think this might be a nice solution. But in practice – a “second division” debate? Who would watch that? It’d be like watching Alloa Athletic v Dumbarton while the Champions League Final is on…
#39 by Stuart on March 10, 2011 - 10:06 am
Actually, a “2nd division” debate would probably be more entertaining than the “premier” league.
#40 by James on March 10, 2011 - 8:36 am
Just in case anyone has doubts about my personal views about the UK debates last year.
#41 by Mike on March 10, 2011 - 1:19 pm
Interesting link to put up: ‘The SNP and Plaid argued hard to be on … and the Greens were excluded.’
We fully support a much wider panel and a much better quality of debate. Though it no doubt benefits the SNP to have this brought down to a ‘presidential’ style debate its not good for the wider democracy.
The reality is that the Greens inexplicably failed to support the SNPs calls for inclusion last year (which would have included Greens too!) and so are in a very strange position today.
#42 by James on March 10, 2011 - 1:25 pm
My piece said:
“Supporters of every party excluded last night can rightly complain about the disproportionate disadvantage done to them, and the net effect, curiously, will be to narrow debate.”
Misread that if you will.
#43 by CassiusClaymore on March 10, 2011 - 10:38 am
He should absolutely be allowed to participate. The more people are exposed to the Greens’ apparent subordination of the traditional green agenda (supported by most) to numpty-vote seeking hard leftism (supported by few), the better.
CC
#44 by James on March 10, 2011 - 10:47 am
Thank you for your kind words.
#45 by Indy on March 10, 2011 - 11:04 am
I don’t think there is a direct conparison between the SNP being excluded from the Westminster debates and the Greens being excluded from debates in Scotland.
The issue with the SNP being excluded was that they are the party of government in Scotland – so to exclude them from an election debate in Scotland was just daft as well as undemocratic. The argument was made that the SNP doesn’t stand in the rest of the UK so it had no right to be represented. But on the other hand the debates were being broadcast in Scotland and it was only in Scotland that the SNP was demanding the right to be represented.
So it is a slightly different issue – and all water under the bridge now – but the underlying principle is the same. For me it is not just about whether a party has a realistic chance of being in government in some capacity. It’s also about their ability to represent the different strands of opinion that exist in Scotland. It’s not just a debate between individuals in other words.
So nothing I have read in these comments has changed my mind one iota and I’ll be happy to sign the petitition.
#46 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 11:17 am
Good stuff Indy. And I shall enjoy the challenge of working out which name is yours….! 😉
#47 by holyroodpatter on March 10, 2011 - 11:52 am
SSurely basing it purely on opinion polls is a bit of a fallacy? If we are going by who is represented in this term margo should be there.
But why would we base it on this term? Surely regular challenges to the status quo was a keystone of a pr election? Surely malcs idea of them being on every list also apply to the lefties and ukip?
Ps is it me or is this blog becoming very green?
#48 by James on March 10, 2011 - 11:59 am
I’m a bit green. I thought the “standing everywhere and with elected MSPs” was a good test. Or “could plausibly take part in a future Scottish Government after the election” would work too. I’d argued for Margo before but was probably talked down from that position.
#49 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 12:12 pm
Is Margo even standing again?
I actually don’t think regional politicians should form a part of a national debate. That, for me, is different to the SNP’s argument from last year as it had the BBC charter (which has a specific clause in relation to Scotland/Wales etc) to argue with.
#50 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 12:22 pm
Margo has said she will be standing again – but the point was made yesterday that only folk in Lothians will be able to vote for her, which meant that, as Jeff said, means she shouldn’t be involved. She also isn’t a party, which I think makes a difference!
In response to holyroodpatter – I made the case that this should be changeable for each election. And you know I have issues with polls, but I think parties that can demonstrate their support through a) parliamentary representation and b) opinion polls suggesting that will be maintained at subsequent election(s) should be included in the debate.
#51 by Mike on March 10, 2011 - 4:25 pm
Yes Margo is standing. She said so last night.
Indy’s argument is bizarre: ‘all water under the bridge now – but the underlying principle is the same.’
Er, yes it is – hand over control of our democratic platforms to commercial interests and you let them frame the debate. Contrary t what has been written here the greens failed to support protest against the greens and SNP exclusion.
For the record Bella Caledonia fully supports the Scottish Green Partys inclusion and would like to see as wide and expansive a televise debate as possible.
Rather than argue though we should jointly explore online hustings in video / audio to reflect the sort of democracy we’d like to build.
(that’s an offer and a suggestion)
#52 by James on March 10, 2011 - 5:21 pm
I can tell you one bit of the SNP’s approach we didn’t support – the threat to the BBC as a public service broadcaster. But we were very clear about supporting the SNP’s bid to get into the debates.
#53 by Mike on March 10, 2011 - 8:55 pm
In my mind we’ll oppose the exclusion but not back it up with any real clout.
Anyway let’s move on…if the SGP are excluded it gives more impetus to the idea that was hovering about after the last BBCQT debacle of an indy broadcast along the lines of the old ‘don’t hate the media become the media’ sort of thing. Maybe not the parity you’d seek (and deserve) for Patrick but maybe a good idea anyway? Cross-blog collaborative effort – all the things that the political coverage isnt. Anyone?
#54 by James on March 11, 2011 - 10:53 am
Interesting. Would the others take part, and where would you wish to draw the line?
#55 by Indy on March 11, 2011 - 1:43 pm
Would others take part? Maybe but I don’t think they would give it much priority. Political parties obviously want to seize every opportunity to influence people. So they are keen to get on telly cause they will get a fairly large audience (not in comparison to other TV progs perhaps but in comparison to other forms of communication).
Individual candidates will also usually jump at the chance to appear at local hustings. This is not just because of the 50 or 60 people who will turn up in their local church hall but because those people will then talk to other people who will then talk to other people etc – and most of them will be voters in the constituency the candidate is standing in.
The kind of thing you are talking about there would probably not attract a large audience – but neither would it have the “roomful of voters who all live in the constituency” factor that a local hustings has.
Also, I would suggest that the majority of people who might participate in such an event would already have made their minds up how they were voting. They’d be joining in just because they like a good debate, not because they were undecided about how they were voting.
#56 by CassiusClaymore on March 10, 2011 - 12:14 pm
James – you’re welcome….this green sympathiser won’t be a Green voter whilst you’re touting these discredited leftist policies! I live in hope of some kind of Green enlightenment.
CC
#57 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 12:24 pm
Not for nothing… but me too. 😀
#58 by James on March 10, 2011 - 12:35 pm
So anything other than cutting services is “leftism”? Politicians are only ever allowed to cut or freeze taxes? I must have missed that memo.
#59 by CassiusClaymore on March 10, 2011 - 1:15 pm
James – at current tax levels 49.6% of my income goes to the state in direct taxes. Add indirect taxes and you’re above 60%. Much of this is money down the drain.
Wanting to increase this (even) further is leftism, yes, not to mention economic suicide. And most certainly not the way to build a Better Nation.
CC
#60 by Ezio on March 10, 2011 - 1:38 pm
The Greens absolutely should be represented in the debate. There really is no acceptable reason for them to be frozen out.
I wont be signing the petition though, because we all know that during the debate Patrick will do nothing but attack the First Minister in the hope of making his cosy alliance with New Labour more likely.
#61 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 1:47 pm
So there is no acceptable reason for them to be frozen out but there is an acceptable reason not to sign the petition?
Your call but, well, sleep on it at least….. 😉
#62 by Daniel J on March 10, 2011 - 2:55 pm
Alternatively, between Harvie and Salmond everyone will finally realise how bad Iain Gray is!
#63 by Edinburgh Voter on March 10, 2011 - 2:24 pm
In the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections only four parties contested all 73 constituencies, but 13 parties contested all eight electoral regions.
#64 by Danny1995 on March 10, 2011 - 6:05 pm
Signed by yours truly, Daniel Haase.
I was #187
#65 by Paul on March 10, 2011 - 7:08 pm
” In the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections only four parties contested all 73 constituencies, but 13 parties contested all eight electoral regions”
And of those 13 parties only 5 parties ended up with MSPs
You can go round splitting up the number of parties and bring up a result that matches your agenda.
Or you can look to see what will improve the debate
If I was the organiser of a TV debate I would want to 2 things :-
a) A good debate
b) Include as many popular parties as possible.
Having Patrick Harvie on helps with a) as the SGP (whether you agree with it or not) offer a difference on tax and other policies). And looking at the polls, I’d want to include them because they are becoming more popular.
So, why haven’t they been included in the first place? The BBC wouldn’t care for arguments about constituency/list candidates or that they have no chance of forming the government (neither do the Tories and neither did the LibDems). Nor can they argue that 4 works better than 5 in political debates as 5 is the standard BBCQT number.
#66 by Top Tory Aide on March 10, 2011 - 8:31 pm
If he does get to take part in the leaders debates here’s hoping he turns up on time as his time keeping wasn’t the best today when meeting the head of the civil service in Scotland.
#67 by Felix on March 10, 2011 - 10:17 pm
Meow!
#68 by Ezio on March 10, 2011 - 8:58 pm
I suppose having Harvie represented might push the Big Two more to the left. We may hope, at least.
Still not signing though.
#69 by Ezio on March 10, 2011 - 10:50 pm
“I think Nicola’s right” in Patrick Harvie’s first QT answer.
I could grow to like the man, I really could…
#70 by James on March 11, 2011 - 10:54 am
And who else is defending Kenny over Megrahi?
#71 by Steve on March 11, 2011 - 8:16 am
It seems bloody obvious to me that Patrick Harvie should be included. The only factors to take into account should be, does the party have any MSPs and can all voters in Scotland vote for that party? Yes to both, so the greens should be represented.
All other considerations on both sides are irrelevant. Opinion polls are not accurate and change all the time, intention has nothing to do with it and is a total red herring.
I support the SSP but even I can see that not having any MSPs is fair grounds to exclude us even though if we hadn’d been so stupid as to split the left vote in Glasgow Mr Harvie might not even be an MSP 😉
#72 by Jeff on March 11, 2011 - 9:36 am
Good stuff Steve, thanks for that magnanimous answer.
On the Socialists, you’re right that they were silly to split the vote in 2007 but how in tarnation have they been silly enough to do it again in 2011!? Do you rate their chances of winning a seat? I have no expectation either way to be honest, I’m too far from knowing how they are place.
That’s an offer of a Guest Post even because I really don’t get it and I’m sure many others don’t either.
#73 by James on March 11, 2011 - 10:56 am
For what it’s worth, the poll we conducted had 2.5% SSP support and 0.1% (i.e. a single person) backing Solidarity. It is, as I think Frances Curran said, a party built on perjury and hopefully it will fade away.
#74 by Doug Daniel on March 11, 2011 - 7:24 pm
But will the socialist voters it took away from the SSP return to the SSP, or are they gone forever?
Interesting to note on the Solidarity website that they’ve yet to declare if they’re actually putting candidates forward. Anyone know from other sources if they are or not?
#75 by Douglas McLellan on March 12, 2011 - 8:22 am
It is an interesting question. I think that the SGP have moved to the left to pick up disaffected left votes so I think the SSP may struggle to pick up some of the Solidarity votes, given the fractious nature of the socialist left in Scotland.
It is a point of view by some on the left that the SGP “with 15,000 members the Green Party is a promising platform for spring boarding socialist ideas and values.” – http://bit.ly/i9McFh
#76 by Malc on March 12, 2011 - 9:57 am
I’m pretty sure that’s the Green Party of England and Wales they are talking about. James can correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt that the SGP has 15,000 members!
#77 by James on March 12, 2011 - 10:05 am
Malc’s right as usual. Also, in England and Wales there isn’t really anything else to the left of Labour, not even anything as “strong” and “effective” as the SSP or Solidarity, so it’s no surprise that a few of the disaffected hard left think they might make some headway. (protip: give up now)
#78 by Danny1995 on March 11, 2011 - 11:17 pm
My opinion of QT itself was.
Ferrari won.
Harvie second
Sturgeon and Goldie joint third.
Then Alexander
Lastly Michael Moore.
#79 by Top Tory Aide on March 12, 2011 - 4:35 pm
I’d have thought a good strategy for the Green party would be to target dissatisfied Lib Dems rather than punt themselves to the unelectable hard left. Just my tuppence, it should be noted.
Pingback: Four Seasons in one Roundup – Scottish Roundup
#80 by Davie Park on March 13, 2011 - 1:09 pm
Of course, The Labour Party did not field candidates in all UK seats at the GE and, therefore, should not have been represented at the Leadership debates.
I believe the standard response to this was that, as Broonie was a potential PM, he should be there. Likewise Clegg and Cameron. Hence Salmond’s exclusion.
It begs the question, why should Goldie be invited to the Holyrood debates?
Pingback: Greens deserve place in leaders’ TV debates « A Burdz Eye View