In the pub tonight most people said they favoured Nicola Sturgeon. What a pity this is S E UK..

[brogdale]

I'd wondered about this too - if Clegg goes it will probably make a link-up with the tories less likely since he's been at the front of this pair-up. There are more progressive elements in the party (although few have taken principled stands on legislation in this parliament) and it might be easier for them to do a deal with Labour without Clegg there to lose face about it, it might be seen as an opportunity to undo some of the damage they've done to themselves.

A year or two back I'd sort of expected that by this point of the electoral cycle the lib dems would be sticking in the knife and sharing all the dirt on their coalition partners in an attempt to redeem themselves with the electorate in the face of a likely Labour overall majority. Labour's drop in expected seats (largely due to issues in Scotland) has given them a glimmer of hope that the current arrangement could continue, so they're doing nothing to damage their only chance of remaining relevant, even reaching out to tory voters in marginal seats to 'keep Labour out'.

If Clegg goes and by some unlikely circumstance the numbers add up so that a Labour + Lib coalition is possible it'd be funny to see them betray tactical tory voters too and get into bed with Miliband. Imagine the wailing!

Looking at the 21 self-declared members of the Beveridge group it is interesting to note that all, bar one (Carmichael) appear to have E/W constituencies that must increase their survival chances. Although there is a variability of 'safeness' amongst the group!

 

[ViolentPanda]

It is a poor argument because you are trying to equate newspaper editors with the leaders of political parties, which is absurd.

Why is it absurd?
Come on boy, show your working-out!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Just so that I'm clear, would you say that the editor of the Sun (a daily mass circulation newspaper) has a more or less prominent voice in the general election than the leader of a relatively minor political party?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Or even the editor or the publisher of a daily with a smaller circulation - the Express, perhaps?
I'd argue that control of a media outlet that features in the daily lives of (if we can trust 50 years of academic research on print media readership) roughly 5x the circulation of that paper, and will influence their personal politics (Editors as diverse as Neil and C.P. Scott, and publishers like Rothermere the Elder and Conrad Black were explicit about this being a motivation) to a greater or lesser degree, the editor or publisher have greater influence, and more lasting influence than the leader of a minor regional political party.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

As far as I am aware no newspaper editor was invited to the main debate and none are standing for election, however some of the leaders are not standing but were invited - there's a bit of a disconnect there.

No disconnect at all; as you have just said the leaders of the parties were invited...that was the qualification for the invitation. What you talked about earlier was 'people who are not standing for election' having a prominent say'; which as several people have pointed out to you is something quite different.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[redsquirrel]

Indeed, and in the past, before devolution, it was possible for the SNP to have had a leader who was not an MP (or, obviously, MSP) but an unelected person.

And as is the case with Farage, and may still be the case after may 7th (though it looks like he'll probably get in)

 

[danny la rouge]

And as is the case with Farage, and may still be the case after may 7th (though it looks like he'll probably get in)

Indeed so.

Diamond you failed to point out Farage isn't an MP.

 

[brogdale]

Indeed so.

Diamond you failed to point out Farage isn't an MP.

not many of them were...Bennett, Wood, Farage...Sturgeon...

 

[Diamond]

not many of them were...Bennett, Wood, Farage...Sturgeon...

And two of those are not standing for election in any event.

It just strikes me as a bit odd to have people who are not standing for election debate those who are doing so on a leaders' platform.

 

[butchersapron]

And two of those are not standing for election in any event.

It just strikes me as a bit odd to have people who are not standing for election debate those who are doing so on a leaders' platform.

Categorically odd?

 

[brogdale]

And two of those are not standing for election in any event.

It just strikes me as a bit odd to have people who are not standing for election debate those who are doing so on a leaders' platform.

As someone said earlier, you appear not to have taken on board the implications of living in a union state, rather than a unified one.

 

[danny la rouge]

And two of those are not standing for election in any event.

It just strikes me as a bit odd to have people who are not standing for election debate those who are doing so on a leaders' platform.

Why? Why is it odd?

Please outline the oddness thus constituted.

Signed "someone".

 

[Louis MacNeice]

And two of those are not standing for election in any event.

It just strikes me as a bit odd to have people who are not standing for election debate those who are doing so on a leaders' platform.

Jesus Diamond don't you read your own posts; it was a leaders' platform, a platform for the leaders, the leaders of parties in a multi-country state who get to decide who their party leaders are. It would be really odd if they didn't invite the leaders!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Diamond]

As someone said earlier, you appear not to have taken on board the implications of living in a union state, rather than a unified one.

Not sure that anyone said that earlier but please, do expand.

 

[Diamond]

Jesus Diamond don't you read you're own posts; it was a leaders' platform, a platform for the leaders, the leaders of parties in a multi-country state who get to decide who their party leaders are. It would be really odd if they didn't invite the leaders!

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

You're/your.

That wasn't really my point - I was just observing that inviting those who are standing for election to debate those who are not on a national platform is inconsistent.

 

[danny la rouge]

I said it. You ignored the point.

 

[brogdale]

Not sure that anyone said that earlier but please, do expand.

I would have thought the point was pretty obvious, but as you've asked. In the pre-devolution, unified and centralised state of the UK it would have been unusual for any leader of a political party not to seek a (Westminster) parliamentary seat. But in an age of devolution within an effective supra-national union of nations with their own assemblies/parliaments it should come as no surprise that the leaders of some parties should not aspire to a Westminster seat.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

You're/your.

That wasn't really my point - I was just observing that inviting those who are standing for election to debate those who are not on a national platform is inconsistent.

Thanks for the heads up on the you're/your cock up.

Moving on to deal with what you posted rather than what you thought you posted - Diamond your first point was about prominent voices for people not standing for election; that one has been dealt with. Your second point was about who got invited to the leaders debates; that has also been dealt with...it is unsurprisingly the leaders.

Your actual point, now that you've got around to it, seems to be that you would prefer it if either:

1. all political parties only chose leaders who are going to stand in general elections;

2. or the broadcasters chose to invite the leaders of some parties, and other people form the rest of the parties.

In the first instance it is entirely up to the parties who they pick; not me, not you, not the BBC or whoever else...

In the second instance how would they all debate on equal terms as leaders if they weren't; you can just imagine someone turning round and saying 'well you're not the leader of your party how can we rely on what you say' (or words to that effect).

So all in all you have badly worded the point you were trying to make not once but twice, in addition to which it wasn't actually much of a point to start with.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Diamond]

I would have thought the point was pretty obvious, but as you've asked. In the pre-devolution, unified and centralised state of the UK it would have been unusual for any leader of a political party not to seek a (Westminster) parliamentary seat. But in an age of devolution within an effective supra-national union of nations with their own assemblies/parliaments it should come as no surprise that the leaders of some parties should not aspire to a Westminster seat.

Fair enough but I'm not sure why that's germane to the issue of a general election Westminster debate.

 

[brogdale]

Fair enough but I'm not sure why that's germane to the issue of a general election Westminster debate.

Don't be such a plum. It's 'germane' because the parties that they lead are all standing candidates for the election.

 

[Diamond]

I think this wrinkle around the debate highlights the constitutional mess that the UK has got itself into - a variety of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian question.

 

[danny la rouge]

Not sure that anyone said that earlier but please, do expand.

They did, me, at least twice:


http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...y-this-is-s-e-uk.334266/page-11#post-13859882

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...y-this-is-s-e-uk.334266/page-11#post-13860007

Fair enough but I'm not sure why that's germane to the issue of a general election Westminster debate.

You would if you actually read people's replies. Or indeed, had a bit of a think.

 

[danny la rouge]

I think this wrinkle around the debate highlights the constitutional mess that the UK has got itself into - a variety of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian question.

"The debate"? What the fuck do you mean by "the debate"? Do you mean you're actually having to hear from people who are AMs or MSPs? Poor you.

As for it being a variety of the West Lothian Question, it isn't. It is the WLQ.

 

[andysays]

I think this wrinkle around the debate highlights the constitutional mess that the UK has got itself into - a variety of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian question.

Except that this debate has no constitutional basis whatever.

Part of how/why you've got yourself into such a mess on this thread is that you seem to be viewing the Leaders' debates as of far greater importance to the process of influence and opinion forming in the run up to the GE than they really are.

 

[Diamond]

"The debate"? What the fuck do you mean by "the debate"? Do you mean you're actually having to hear from people who are AMs or MSPs? Poor you.

As for it being a variety of the West Lothian Question, it isn't. It is the WLQ.

By the first, I mean the leaders debate.

By the second, it is clearly not the whole of the West Lothian question - it is merely an aspect/variety/element/expression etc...

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I think this wrinkle around the debate highlights the constitutional mess that the UK has got itself into - a variety of Tam Dalyell's West Lothian question.

There is no wrinkle; a huge unsightly crease in your writing and thinking maybe, but no wrinkle.

There was a debate for a number of the leaders of political parties standing candidates in the Westminster general election; not all the leaders of those parties are standing in the election but obviously the parties are...end of.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Diamond]

Except that this debate has no constitutional basis whatever.

Part of how/why you've got yourself into such a mess on this thread is that you seem to be viewing the Leaders' debates as of far greater importance to the process of influence and opinion forming in the run up to the GE than they really are.

Weren't the DUP threatening to pursue judicial review in relation to the debate?

 

[maomao]

Can we not just all ignore Diamond being a cock again please? There's no awards for shooting fish in a barrel. It was previously a vaguely interesting thread.

 

[Diamond]

Can we not just all ignore Diamond being a cock again please? There's no awards for shooting fish in a barrel. It was previously a vaguely interesting thread.

Yes, because that's such a brilliant road to go down - groupthink and turn the volume down on dissenting voices...

A wonderful idea.

 

[DotCommunist]

I keep finding myself going to the shop daily to skim the papers in there (tight as a gnats chuff) just to see what latest lunacy they have. Post elections going to be even better. If they've entered viz spoof territory at the thought of lab minority, snp c&s then imagine how fucked they will go if it becomes a reality? I keep waiting for one of the rags to start banging on about marxists

 

[maomao]

Yes, because that's such a brilliant road to go down - groupthink and turn the volume down on dissenting voices...

A wonderful idea.

I have nothing against dissenting voices. You're not dissenting against anything though. You're dragging the argument sideways down a blind alley as you always do. I don't know whether it's because you're genuinely thick or you enjoy the attention but it's disruptive and tedious.