....

It would be hard to justify inviting Farage (no MPs) without inviting the leader of the Green Party (one MP).

Good lord no. I wouldn't allow UKIP or the Greens either. They're not exactly real parties now are they?

 

(we all know how much I love the green party)

It would be hard to justify inviting Farage (no MPs) without inviting the leader of the Green Party (one MP).

 

I would agree that he'll probably be excluded if they still have no MPs, BUT the wildcard is if UKIP win a by-election before the next election (which I do think is very possible; they've gained strength since the Eastleigh by-election, and that wasn't even in a particularly good area for them). If that happens and they remain ahead of the Lib Dems in the polls a few months before the next election (also possible I think)...

 

Failing that, maybe they'll just have a separate debate for the minor parties (I don't think there was such a thing last time?) with Farage, Alex Salmond, the Australian woman who the Greens inexplicably dumped Caroline Lucas for, whoever leads Plaid Cymru now, etc.

Edited January 3, 201411 yr by Danny

Caroline Lucas resigned so "dumped" is a bit of an odd term. I'm really disappointed that the Greens haven't kicked on since 2010, in other circumstances they'd have taken a lot of Lib Dem votes.

 

I don't see why Farage should be involved. The entire rationale of the leadership debates was/is to give a platform to the leaders of the three parties likely to be in government after the election in one form or another. Regardless of their vote share, UKIP won't.

It wouldn't be Salmond. He doesn't lead the SNP MP's and if he was involved in 2015 debates it'd be in the climate of a failed indy bid so would not want to face the unionists.

 

Plaid and SNP both have far more of a mandate to be included than any of the UKIP, BNP or Greens given that the SNP has significantly more seats in Scotland than the conservatives and command a higher vote share than the other half of the government, the liedems. Can't speak much of PC other than they aren't unpopular in wales.

I've had a mindblank, were there Scottish and Welsh debates last time?

I've had a mindblank, were there Scottish and Welsh debates last time?

As I recall, I think SNP and Plaid called for them but they didn't happen.

We had debates in the lead up to our last election with the three parties + Salmond. I think it's part of the reason he actually won in the end. He just outclassed everyone else.

 

 

I do think they should be included in a national debate though as it would be a far more realistic and complete process for those voting outside the home counties.

UKIP are probably more popular than the Lib Dems I would have thought?

Edited January 3, 201411 yr by G R I F F

UKIP are probably more popular than the Lib Dems I would have thought?

 

At the moment, yes - the vast majority of polls in 2013 put UKIP ahead of the Lib Dems.

 

I do think there's a chance UKIP will get more votes in the next election than the Lib Dems, although the Lib Dems will still get more seats.

UKIP are probably more popular than the Lib Dems I would have thought?

Not the point. It's about who could be in government, and UKIP won't be.

I'm really disappointed that the Greens haven't kicked on since 2010, in other circumstances they'd have taken a lot of Lib Dem votes.

Why? We'd be fucked!

All parties standing should really be given an equal platform so yes. this idea that some are 'not real parties' or shouldn't be allowed to put their views across is so awful it hurts me.

Why? We'd be fucked!

 

Only in certain seats, like Brighton, Norwich, Cambridge, etc., which have a high number of students and middle-class liberals. But the Greens are just too middle-class to make much inroads in most Labour places.

All parties standing should really be given an equal platform so yes. this idea that some are 'not real parties' or shouldn't be allowed to put their views across is so awful it hurts me.

 

Then there would be no time for a serious debate as about a dozen people or so would have to give an answer

 

IMHO Farage should not be allowed to take part

 

UKIP have no MPs, there is a strong chance that after 2015 they will still have no MPs

 

There should be maybe a seperate debate for leaders of fringe parties but a guy with no representation in parliament should not be invited into the main debate

Only in certain seats, like Brighton, Norwich, Cambridge, etc., which have a high number of students and middle-class liberals. But the Greens are just too middle-class to make much inroads in most Labour places.

Oh, I don't mean in terms of losing seats to the Greens - if we started losing Lib Dem switchers to the Greens in big numbers, it'd dent the one big source of gains we've actually had since 2010 and the one thing getting us ahead of the Tories that we can control.

Oh, I don't mean in terms of losing seats to the Greens - if we started losing Lib Dem switchers to the Greens in big numbers, it'd dent the one big source of gains we've actually had since 2010 and the one thing getting us ahead of the Tories that we can control.

 

But I don't think Lib Dems WOULD switch over to the Greens in large numbers, anywhere, aside from that small group of "intelligentsia" areas. It's a mistake to think that all, or even most Lib Dem voters are/were liberal "Guardianistas" - most working-class people in the north/London/Scotland who switched from Labour to the Lib Dems since 1997 didn't do so because of civil liberties or the environment, they didn't even really switch over because of Iraq in most cases, it was more because of the sense that Labour didn't care about the poor and that the Lib Dems' policies were more Labour than Labour's policies, especially when Charles Kennedy was leader. Those types of voters would never be up for grabs for the Greens - atleast not yet, not while they're still overwhelmingly seen as middle-class and concerned with abstract issues that most people don't care about, and while they've still not mastered the Lib Dems' talent for presenting themselves as different things to different people.

 

On top of the liberal middle-class and Labour working-class voters that went to the Lib Dems, the other parts of their vote also came from generic none-of-the-above voters who just wanted to protest against "the Establishment" (who were always going to drift away when the Lib Dems became part of the Establishment themselves by going into government, and so will either vote UKIP or not vote at all next time most likely) and the rural working-class, in places like Eastleigh, Portsmouth and in the southwest - the latter group are the only group I can see sticking with the Lib Dems next time, since they generally have nowhere else to go, as that group is VERY culturally resistant to Labour (even in 1997 they finished third in a lot of those types of seats).

Edited January 3, 201411 yr by Danny

Why? We'd be fucked!

Bear in mind I formulated this idea when I thought AV was going to get through.

But I don't think Lib Dems WOULD switch over to the Greens in large numbers, anywhere, aside from that small group of "intelligentsia" areas. It's a mistake to think that all, or even most Lib Dem voters are/were liberal "Guardianistas" - most working-class people in the north/London/Scotland who switched from Labour to the Lib Dems since 1997 didn't do so because of civil liberties or the environment, they didn't even really switch over because of Iraq in most cases, it was more because of the sense that Labour didn't care about the poor and that the Lib Dems' policies were more Labour than Labour's policies, especially when Charles Kennedy was leader. Those types of voters would never be up for grabs for the Greens - atleast not yet, not while they're still overwhelmingly seen as middle-class and concerned with abstract issues that most people don't care about, and while they've still not mastered the Lib Dems' talent for presenting themselves as different things to different people.

 

On top of the liberal middle-class and Labour working-class voters that went to the Lib Dems, the other parts of their vote also came from generic none-of-the-above voters who just wanted to protest against "the Establishment" (who were always going to drift away when the Lib Dems became part of the Establishment themselves by going into government, and so will either vote UKIP or not vote at all next time most likely) and the rural working-class, in places like Eastleigh, Portsmouth and in the southwest - the latter group are the only group I can see sticking with the Lib Dems next time, since they generally have nowhere else to go, as that group is VERY culturally resistant to Labour (even in 1997 they finished third in a lot of those types of seats).

 

speaking as a lifelong liberal voter (pre-Libdem) all of the above is a fair comment, and anyone thinking one voter-induced term in bed with Tories in some way invalidates what they stand for (as opposed to what they've had to agree to in partnership) is assuming that liberals are more flip-floppy than the average Labour/Tory flip-floppers that create most of the governments of the country. You know, people who knee-jerk vote rather than issue-vote...