tonyh29 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 The Green party already count as a "major party" (as do UPIK) according to OFCOM's rules. The rules also say that that "due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period" and there must be "due impartiality". There's surely a case that the Greens would win a legal review/court case iof the broadcasters apparent plan to exclude them from any of the debates. More relevantly perhaps is that UKIPs have grown as a result of the right wing press giving them air, which then led to them (well Nigel Farage) getting on the telly a whole load, which led to more press coverage, and then more telly coverage and so on. That level of profile surely helped make the public aware of them and what they say, and allowed them to then get voters. Given that 2 party or even 3 party politics is well dead, then the Greens and Respect and UPIKs should get more air time. Respect polled 0.1% of the total UK vote in 2010 true they didn't put somebody up in every constituency but until they do so there seems little point giving them national airtime in a National TV debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 It was a bad example, my mistake. The point really was that the telly should be looking to be more inclusive of various (proper) parties, rather than sticking to pretty much the same 2 as always, and then a bit of air time for a couple of others. UKIPs and Greens and any others that meet the threshold of fielding candidates etc. should be given a fair crack of the whip. UKIPs has been over-helped in the past few years, but now come an election looming, the broadcasters are reverting to same old same old. The ship has sailed. 2 or 3 party politics is done for good. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 The Green party already count as a "major party" (as do UPIK) according to OFCOM's rules. The rules also say that that "due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period" and there must be "due impartiality". There's surely a case that the Greens would win a legal review/court case iof the broadcasters apparent plan to exclude them from any of the debates. More relevantly perhaps is that UKIPs have grown as a result of the right wing press giving them air, which then led to them (well Nigel Farage) getting on the telly a whole load, which led to more press coverage, and then more telly coverage and so on. That level of profile surely helped make the public aware of them and what they say, and allowed them to then get voters. Given that 2 party or even 3 party politics is well dead, then the Greens and Respect and UPIKs should get more air time. Respect polled 0.1% of the total UK vote in 2010 true they didn't put somebody up in every constituency but until they do so there seems little point giving them national airtime in a National TV debate and Galloway has destroyed that party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 It was a bad example, my mistake. The point really was that the telly should be looking to be more inclusive of various (proper) parties, rather than sticking to pretty much the same 2 as always, and then a bit of air time for a couple of others. UKIPs and Greens and any others that meet the threshold of fielding candidates etc. should be given a fair crack of the whip. UKIPs has been over-helped in the past few years, but now come an election looming, the broadcasters are reverting to same old same old. The ship has sailed. 2 or 3 party politics is done for good. Agreed, but I'd say the debate between party leaders should only consist of people who have a chance of having some sort of say in power after the election. Loathe or just moderately despise Farage, it's not inconceivable that he'll have a hand in what happens next year if he gets as many seats as he's hoping for. By all means there should be other forms of debate with the other parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 14, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 14, 2014 Televised cage fight to the death between Galloway and Farage, please. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 even if it involves his death I'm not sure I'd want to see Galloway on my TV screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Top Bantz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 It was a bad example, my mistake. The point really was that the telly should be looking to be more inclusive of various (proper) parties, rather than sticking to pretty much the same 2 as always, and then a bit of air time for a couple of others. UKIPs and Greens and any others that meet the threshold of fielding candidates etc. should be given a fair crack of the whip.... Agreed, but I'd say the debate between party leaders should only consist of people who have a chance of having some sort of say in power after the election. Loathe or just moderately despise Farage, it's not inconceivable that he'll have a hand in what happens next year if he gets as many seats as he's hoping for. By all means there should be other forms of debate with the other parties. Point taken, though I also think that definition, albeit just a post on a message board, well - it's kind of not beyond the realms to think that (say) if Labour get the most seats, but not enough for a majority, that (say) 4 Green MPs might then "have a say" if they were to do some sort of deal, or ditto with the tories and (say) 10 UKIPs. That's my point, or a part of it, really - the way bollitics is headed, there's not just going to be 2 or 3 parties representing people in England - there are probably goign to be at least 5 national parties (parties contesting most of the English seats) who may get a number of MPs, even under the current telly and media "loaded" or biased system of coverage. So in effect the media (lack of) coverage of the likes of the Greens, or over-coverage (certainly up to now) of the UKIPs is distorting the fairness and even handedness of policy coverage and debate compared to how normal folk feel on various issues. It's also making the biggest parties skew their policies very much towards UKIPs, at the moment, because they are bascially the only other party given a crack. So it's all immigration and Yurp, when in reality, though immigration and to a lesser degree yurp, are concerns for people, so are areas that don't get the same coverage - transport (nationalise the railways) or global climate change (fracking, for example), or corporate tax avoidance, or energy... Because UKIPs either don't have any policy on these things, or don't bang on about them, these areas don't get the same coverage, but are just as, if no more important to the future prosperity of the country. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 So in effect the media (lack of) coverage of the likes of the Greens, or over-coverage (certainly up to now) of the UKIPs is distorting the fairness and even handedness of policy coverage and debate compared to how normal folk feel on various issues. It's also making the biggest parties skew their policies very much towards UKIPs, at the moment, because they are bascially the only other party given a crack. So it's all immigration and Yurp, when in reality, though immigration and to a lesser degree yurp, are concerns for people, so are areas that don't get the same coverage - transport (nationalise the railways) or global climate change (fracking, for example), or corporate tax avoidance, or energy... Because UKIPs either don't have any policy on these things, or don't bang on about them, these areas don't get the same coverage, but are just as, if no more important to the future prosperity of the country. Their policy on green issues, is to abolish the department of the environment and rescind all green policies. And I got that from the UKIP website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Cripes, I knew they were mad, but not that mad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) So in effect the media (lack of) coverage of the likes of the Greens, or over-coverage (certainly up to now) of the UKIPs is distorting the fairness and even handedness of policy coverage and debate compared to how normal folk feel on various issues. It's also making the biggest parties skew their policies very much towards UKIPs, at the moment, because they are bascially the only other party given a crack. So it's all immigration and Yurp, when in reality, though immigration and to a lesser degree yurp, are concerns for people, so are areas that don't get the same coverage - transport (nationalise the railways) or global climate change (fracking, for example), or corporate tax avoidance, or energy... Because UKIPs either don't have any policy on these things, or don't bang on about them, these areas don't get the same coverage, but are just as, if no more important to the future prosperity of the country. Their policy on green issues, is to abolish the department of the environment and rescind all green policies. And I got that from the UKIP website. Edited October 14, 2014 by darrenm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 (edited) Their policy on green issues, is to abolish the department of the environment and rescind all green policies. And I got that from the UKIP website. I have just been on their website, I couldn't see either of those points, could you give me a link please? Edited October 14, 2014 by colhint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 UKIP have a presence because the governments of the last decade have failed to deliver or address what those issues are and appease the people who are deciding not to vote for them but for UKIP. Yes they have policies which are mental, they have politicians which are mental, but you cannot get that percentage of a vote by purely appealing to nutters or non nutters with such a low IQ they don't know right from wrong. Now whether the main parties cannot address issues like immigration etc due to being in the EU and the laws that come with that is where their battle ground will lie. For me the EU does far more good than bad, but lets face it if the EU was so good then it would be in a much better shape than it is now. It's clearly been mismanaged for decades and trying to create a united Europe about 100 years too early. Culturally too diverse, economically too imbalanced and geographically not integrated nearly enough to make it a cohesive economic beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 14, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 I just read that UKIP are for free trade on their website… but but but… EU… … does not compute…I ran away screaming at that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 14, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Their policy on green issues, is to abolish the department of the environment and rescind all green policies. And I got that from the UKIP website. I have just been on their website, I couldn't see either of those points, could you give me a link please? I googled it and it's a misquote, but the UKIP.org internet says "UKIP will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change and scrap green subsidies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 14, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted October 14, 2014 Their policy on green issues, is to abolish the department of the environment and rescind all green policies. And I got that from the UKIP website. I have just been on their website, I couldn't see either of those points, could you give me a link please?Its here in the policies for people section, need a wash now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 So nothing like the original poster said then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Sorry, was just trying to relate the policy from memory. Got the semantics wrong, hands up to that. But getting rid of the department for environmental issues, is not a great sign for dealing with something that is hugely important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 15, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 15, 2014 As a point on the influence of the media on how parties are perceived, I hadn't realised that the Green party had outperformed the Lib Dems in those recent Euronational elections. Possibly because the Murdoch press reported them in as 'Others' rather than naming them as a Party. Meanwhile UKIP continue to get six pages a day in the Daily Mail and constant coverage in the Sun, Times and most of the mainstream press; there's something quite sinister I think in the way the newspapers are pressing UKIP, almost as if there's a point they're trying to prove to the major parties. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Maybe the greens prefer it that way , think how many trees die making a newspaper 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts