Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

PM won't debate without the Greens! Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the Green Party be part of the TV debates?
    Yes
    82.14%
    No
    17.86%

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    David Cameron just wants them on because he has UKIP to split his vote, and he wants his opponents to have their vote split by the Greens. Some Labour and Lib Dem voters move towards the Greens, but you get pretty much no Conservative supporters changing their vote to Green.

    (Original post by SirMasterKey)
    This.

    One problem of including UKIP and the Greens then becomes what of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sein Fein etc. They all have MPs but will their parties be included in debates? No.
    You could argue that those parties are not nationwide parties - SNP only stands in Scotland, PC in Wales, etc.
    Not sure where I stand on that, but I think a lot of Green supporters would be fine being excluded if UKIP were excluded as well - it's UKIP getting a place after winning MPs when the Greens have had an MP since 2010 which seems to have annoyed some people.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by She-Ra)
    Top idea! I've merged our threads
    Awesome It gives a clearer oversight to everyone's general opinion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I really can't understand why involving the greens is an issue? Surely the broadcasters want to get as many viewers as possible, so do they expect fewer viewers to tune in if they include them? I doubt it.

    Would having too many speakers make the debate less coherent? possibly, although I certainly don't think 5 (Lab, Lib, Con, UKIP, Greens) is too many, and with a decent questioner, it could work well - after all, Question Time has about 6/7 or so pannellists.

    I do think there is an argument for not including the scottish and welsh parties in the national debate given that they're much more regionally focussed than the 5 parties mentioned.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by Dez)
    A single MP can't really do much damage. IMO, the Green councilors in Brighton have done much worse than Lucas has as an MP. We've had a lengthy refuse workers strike, several unpopular decisions regarding traffic control and parking, and a ghastly observation tower got the green light from them too.

    I definitely won't be voting Green the next time council elections come up, but I wouldn't be too opposed to a Green MP, at least based on the last term's performance. Would depend heavily on their manifesto, of course.
    Councillors and MPs are different things... I think Caroline Lucas is pretty popular even if the council isn't. And not the right thread to debate our council but the refuse strike for example was caused by issues put off for years and years by previous councils, and the issues would have had to be dealt with by any coundil.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by RFowler)
    David Cameron just wants them on because he has UKIP to split his vote, and he wants his opponents to have their vote split by the Greens. Some Labour and Lib Dem voters move towards the Greens, but you get pretty much no Conservative supporters changing their vote to Green.



    You could argue that those parties are not nationwide parties - SNP only stands in Scotland, PC in Wales, etc.
    Not sure where I stand on that, but I think a lot of Green supporters would be fine being excluded if UKIP were excluded as well - it's UKIP getting a place after winning MPs when the Greens have had an MP since 2010 which seems to have annoyed some people.
    Agreed however currently Greens are polling as high as Lib Dems and standing for as many seats so Lib Dems would have to be excluded too.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    The Greens are a vile party intent on driving the economy into the ground
    I don't vote for the Green party (I have issues with a handful of their policies) but I just don't think that's true. Are you referring to their environmentalism or their left wing stance?

    Opposing business as usual isn't the same as opposing business itself.

    Given Cameron's poor record on cutting the deficit (he promised to have got rid of it by now, he's only cut it by a third), I think it's a myth that the main parties are more competent with the economy.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by jenhasdreams)
    Agreed however currently Greens are polling as high as Lib Dems and standing for as many seats so Lib Dems would have to be excluded too.
    However, the Lib Dems currently have *56 seats and are in power. The Green's have 1 seat. Of course, that could and probably will change at the next election, but atleast until May the Lib Dems are still the Third Party.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    so first he implied that UKIP shouldn't be in the debates at all, and now, he's saying he literally *won't* debate with the green party. it just shows how powerful ukip are over him, seeing a they could lose him major votes.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SirMasterKey)
    This.

    One problem of including UKIP and the Greens then becomes what of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sein Fein etc. They all have MPs but will their parties be included in debates? No.
    They do have separate devolved debates as well already. The only one I'm in two minds on is the SNP, as on current polling they could well be the third largest party in terms of seats.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PetrosAC)
    However, the Lib Dems currently have over 60 seats
    'Over 60' here meaning 56?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    I don't vote for the Green party (I have issues with a handful of their policies) but I just don't think that's true. Are you referring to their environmentalism or their left wing stance?

    Opposing business as usual isn't the same as opposing business itself.

    Given Cameron's poor record on cutting the deficit (he promised to have got rid of it by now, he's only cut it by a third), I think it's a myth that the main parties are more competent with the economy.
    The basic of fiscal policy is taxing, borrowing and spending. The more you borrow and tax, the more you can spend. So you can only spend as much as you get in tax money and borrowing.

    Borrowing loads is objectively bad as we have seen in Greece and Portugal. The debts come back to haunt you.

    They want to increase tax and cap banker bonuses. But the financial service professionals operate globally and that would mean London relinquishing its role as the financial services capital ofthe world. That would mean a large capital flight meaning less in tax money.

    But whilst the tax return would go down, the Greens want to subsidise renewables, pay for everyone's university fees, bring all academies and all railways into public ownership and remove the welfare cap. Where is the money going to come from for that?

    They also want to repeal anti-trade union legislation. One look at the 1970s will tell you that's a bad idea.

    Socialism can only work in a self-contained economy. In a globalised world, we would lose out to other countries with a more pro-business outlook. The same thing happened with Hollande's France and we profited by gaining France's best talent, and Hollande was a moderate compared to the Greens.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    The basic of fiscal policy is taxing, borrowing and spending. The more you borrow and tax, the more you can spend. So you can only spend as much as you get in tax money and borrowing.

    Borrowing loads is objectively bad as we have seen in Greece and Portugal. The debts come back to haunt you.

    They want to increase tax and cap banker bonuses. But the financial service professionals operate globally and that would mean London relinquishing its role as the financial services capital ofthe world. That would mean a large capital flight meaning less in tax money.

    But whilst the tax return would go down, the Greens want to subsidise renewables, pay for everyone's university fees, bring all academies and all railways into public ownership and remove the welfare cap. Where is the money going to come from for that?

    They also want to repeal anti-trade union legislation. One look at the 1970s will tell you that's a bad idea.

    Socialism can only work in a self-contained economy. In a globalised world, we would lose out to other countries with a more pro-business outlook. The same thing happened with Hollande's France and we profited by gaining France's best talent, and Hollande was a moderate compared to the Greens.
    They should still be able to debate their position and let people decide for themselves. Their policies are still far more thought out (if some a bit unrealistic) than any of UKIPs are.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    'Over 60' here meaning 56?
    Oops, I thought it was 62. In all fairness, 56 is a lot larger than 1.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I voted No, simply because the idea of having 5 different party leaders in a debate is ridiculous. All of them vying for time and trying to make their point would restrict the debate to what would essentially be a typical Question Time. By all means have a Question Time with the leaders or deputies of Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems, Greens and UKIP. But as for the main leaders debate, no thank you.

    The Greens need better coverage and more mainstream media attention. I think having the Greens in a separate debate with UKIP and the Lib Dems would be acceptable. But seeing as they got 0.6 percent of the vote at the last General Election, and have absolutely no chance of forming a majority government I do not see the point of having them in a leaders debate. If they perform well at this election, and continue to poll well then I'd change my mind. But I just believe this a sad play from Cameron to swing Labour votes to the Greens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I am all for it, a genuinely different political voice from the other four parties would be appreciated, even if I still have no intention of voting for anyone anyway.

    I see the argument for there being too many people but US primary debates normally bring 5-7 candidates and they tend to go alright (by US political standards anyway), I would probably extend each debate up to 2 hours rather than the 1 that we previously had to compensate though.


    David Cameron only wants the Greens there as a tactic though. He thinks that by having them there it will distract from his UKIP problem, it will, but it won't affect the polls very much.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    There should be no TV debates at all, given that they added almost nothing of any value to the last election. Instead we had the three leaders all trotting out their usual spiel and trying to score cheap points off each other, rather than actually convincing the public that they had sincere and sound ideas or principles to offer.

    They are simply an opportunity for the party PR men to go into overdrive, unleashing a load of specious drivel at the audience and forcing the leaders into artificial, awkward looking behaviour, like making Gordon Brown smile, or Alex Salmond suddenly walk forward from behind his lectern as if he were Moses delivering the Ten Commandments.

    The senior journalists presiding over them get off on the whole thing as they get to play the aloof & patrician-like chairman, finding out the "truth" for the good of the people, and generally inflating their own egos whilst failing spectacularly to get a clear answer out of any of the leaders. Naturally the various TV channels love it because they get to fill a slot in their timetable with a guaranteed ratings winner.

    Conclusion: it's reducing elections to a TV talent show rather than actually finding out anything of substance. A test of who's best at getting tarted up for the cameras and showing enough thigh to titillate the public into voting for them.
    • TSR Group Staff
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Group Staff
    (Original post by B-FJL3)
    There should be no TV debates at all, given that they added almost nothing of any value to the last election. Instead we had the three leaders all trotting out their usual spiel and trying to score cheap points off each other, rather than actually convincing the public that they had sincere and sound ideas or principles to offer.

    They are simply an opportunity for the party PR men to go into overdrive, unleashing a load of specious drivel at the audience and forcing the leaders into artificial, awkward looking behaviour, like making Gordon Brown smile, or Alex Salmond suddenly walk forward from behind his lectern as if he were Moses delivering the Ten Commandments.

    The senior journalists presiding over them get off on the whole thing as they get to play the aloof & patrician-like chairman, finding out the "truth" for the good of the people, and generally inflating their own egos whilst failing spectacularly to get a clear answer out of any of the leaders. Naturally the various TV channels love it because they get to fill a slot in their timetable with a guaranteed ratings winner.

    Conclusion: it's reducing elections to a TV talent show rather than actually finding out anything of substance. A test of who's best at getting tarted up for the cameras and showing enough thigh to titillate the public into voting for them.
    they do this all year round to be honest, but if you feel that way, then just don't watch them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have no problems with the Greens being in the debates but anyone who thinks David Cameron is doing this because of the Greens is lying to themselves, this is all about David Cameron being too scared to face Nigel Farage live in a debate and using the Greens as an excuse
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jenhasdreams)
    they do this all year round to be honest, but if you feel that way, then just don't watch them.

    On the whole I agree, but then it doesn't matter so much when it happens all year round does it? Most people are not watching Question Time, Newsnight, the Daily Politics, the Andrew Marr Show, etc...

    Lots and lots of people do tune in to watch these debates, and there seems to be some evidence they have had an effect on the result. If that is the case then it's dangerous to allow it to continue when the debates are barely worthy of the name being, as I said, merely an exercise in PR and spin and not a rigorous examination of the party's policies.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    The Greens are unlikely to take part because, according to Nick Robinson (BBC Political Editor), the SNP will sue broadcasters of these debates if the Greens are included but not themselves. And then before you know it, all the parties with MPs want in.

    Cameron won't be doing the Tories any favours if he abstains from debates. A cynic might think he doesn't want to get caught up in debates with Nigel Farage. :rolleyes:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.