Ok it must be Alex's time of the month. Yeah you guessed it once again he his making headlines regarding the Prime Ministerial debates. The BBC are in a sit down chat with the man who not only has no aspirations to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but who also at some point next year will no longer want to serve it from its Parliament.
I've mentioned before the different claims of other parties, UKIP the Green, the DUP and even the BNP on various factors over the man who leads the challenge in a mere 59 seats. But today I'm going to humour him and the SNP supporters and imagine that Alex Salmond actually gets to be in the debate. Now the format has not been set out for any of the three debates so questions may come the audience in attendance, a chairman or may come from the other leaders in the studio. So here we go here are some of the questions or supplementaries that Alex may have to answer.
When you become Prime Minister what would you party do for....?
I'm leaving the rest of this question blank. The only time any SNP leader becomes Prime Minister would be when they started to win seats in England, or if unfortunately after entering a coalition the SNP deputy leader took on the caretaker Prime Ministerial reigns while the larger partner went about the process of selecting the actual next Prime Minister. As this may well be the preamble to any number of questions in this debate how is Salmond or any other SNP spokesperson going to be able to play these with a straight bat without looking stupid.
Mr Salmond, you fought hard to get into this debate yet you are leaving the commons, what is the point?
It is bound to come up isn't it. Alex Salmond has been fighting long and hard to get into these debates yet is stepping down in the election. Indeed any press release from the SNP says that they want Alex Salmond in the debates so there are variations on this question. It may have the addition that many people cannot vote for you yet you have fought for your democratic right to represented (what about other UK wide parties etc).
You want a referendum on Independence but are going to have to join with the Conservative and Unionist Party to do so, is this a marriage or rather a divorce of convenience?
This could well be a question that makes both Salmond and Cameron squirm. Of course well now that such an Alliance is merely a convenience for both side. If a referendum passes the Conservative hold on power in Scotland increases, if it fails they would like like being the good guys in certain Scottish eyes and may be able to squeeze the odd nationalist vote in certain seats. For Salmond to admit that his fate lies in the hand of the Conservative and Unionist Party shows just what a level of inferiority he actually holds. He hasn't got the majority of seats or votes in Scotland that would force a hand he has to go begging bowl in hand to get the whole reason d'etre of his single issue party (let's face it there only one issue of their 2007 manifesto that is still standing in tact) moved upon.
The danger as any Lib Dem will happily tell you of appearing too eager for one specific side, other than your own, to succeed in an election but not by enough that they need your help always leads to trouble.
It leads to the follow up.
Suppose you get you referendum and it fails, will you remain in coalition and what will your party do for the people of the rest of the UK seeing as Mr Cameron won't let you vote on devolved issues?
The clash of the West Lothian answers will again have them both squirming. The Tories have suggested that they will stop Scottish MPs voting on English only matters. (I do wonder if the same will apply to only let Northern Irish, Welsh and Scottish MPs take votes on the future of their various devolved states). So shoring up a majority with the support of a Scottish only party surely defeats the object. Stopping maybe three of his own members and (I'll amuse the Nats further) 20 SNP MPs may not be enough to get any legislation through, including stopping Scottish MPs having a vote on English matters. Of course Salmond's answer to the West Lothian Question looks straight forward, do away with the Union. But thankfully most Scots are of the option that isn't the way to go.
However, the answer of what an SNP aligned with the Tories could possibly do could well harm not only the SNPs chances, and as for the Tories they will not want the Salmond claims of we can only do this with Dave's help to cause their own votes in marginals to do a wobbly and vote for the other guys. Salmond's grand plan to say Dave is our man may well unravel under the heat of the studio lights and lead onward to the ballot box.
Actually you know now that I think of all the booby traps of question for both Salmond and the leader of the Conservative and Nationalist government to answer the more I want to see Salmond in the debates. It will help the sitting Lib Dems in Tory marginal hopes. It could well lead to a hung parliament of even greater need for a strong third party to back it up, it could actually lead to Nick Clegg getting some fairness into a programme of Government. I think Salmond's persistence is going to be his undoing and in a good way with it that of Dave's agenda of words.
You know I just may have been wrong to want to steer Salmond away from the spotlight of the National stage. I do hope the questions are up to speed to show up the ludicrously of the SNP being there, their failure to keep their end of the bargain for Scotland, and makes them into a laughing stock on National TV.
Some great questions for the Maximum Eck there. Just a question, though: surely they wouldn't go into coalition with the Tories, they'd just do Holyrood role reversal and generally support a minority Tory administration?
ReplyDeleteJames I don't think that the casual sasanach based observer is going to make that distinction when they ask the questions. ;)
ReplyDeleteWhen did the UK vote for a Prime Minister? I have only ever been able to vote for an MP some of which belong to a party who pick the leader.
ReplyDeleteTherefore these proposed debates are party leader debates nothing more and in the interests of democracy and fairness in an election year leaders of all major parties are entitled to join in.
"When you become Prime Minister what would you party do for....? "
ReplyDeleteApply the question to any of the others.
What exactly Would Nick Clegg do for...
Scottish Education
Scottish Justice
Scottish Health
Scottish Local Authorities
Scottish Renewables Investment
Scottish Tourism
Scottish Transport
The truth is that a leaders debate like this is not compatible with the form of democracy that we have.
It is also outdated by the simple existence of devolution whereby the UK PM doesn't have power over what many consider 'bread and butter' issues.
Why the lib dems, in favour of PR, don't want other parties to take part in these debates is surely hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteDon't the Greens deserve to be at the table?
The BBC have had a chat with the man who has no chance to be PM of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Nick Clegg.
ReplyDeleteI've mentioned before the different claims of other parties, SNP, PC, UKIP, Green, and even the BNP on various factors over the man who leads the challenge with a mere 62 seats. But today I'm going to humour him and imagine that Nick Clegg actually is relevant in the debate. So here we go here are some of the questions or supplementaries that Nick may have to answer.
When you become PM what would your party do for....?
I'm leaving the rest of this question blank. The only time any Lib-Dem leader becomes PM would be when they started to win seats in England, or if unfortunately after entering a coalition the Lib-Dem leader took on the caretaker PM reins while the larger partner went about the process of selecting the actual next PM. As this may well be the preamble to any number of questions how is Clegg or any other Lib-Dem spokesperson going to be able to play these with a straight bat without looking stupid.
Mr Clegg, you fought hard to get into this debate yet you are irrelevant in the Commons, what is the point?
It is bound to come up isn't it. Nick Clegg has fought long and hard to get into these debates yet is a bit player in the election. Press releases from the Lib-Dem says that they welcome Nick Clegg in the debates so there are variations on this question. It may have the addition that many people won't vote for you yet you have fought against the democratic right of other parties to represented (what about other UK wide parties etc).
You don't want a referendum on Independence but are going to have to join with the Labour Party to do so, is this a marriage or rather a divorce of convenience?
This could well be a question that makes both Clegg and Brown squirm. Of course we'll know that such an Alliance is merely a convenience for both side. For Clegg to admit that his fate lies in the hand of the Labour Party shows just what a level of inferiority he actually holds. He hasn't got the majority of seats or votes in UK that would force a hand he has to go begging bowl in hand to get the whole reason d'etre of his no-issue party (let's face it there's not one issue of their 2005 manifesto that has made it through Westminster) moved upon.
It leads to follow up.
Suppose you block the referendum and it fails, will you remain in coalition with Labour and what will your party do for the people of the rest of the UK seeing as Mr Cameron won't let you near power in Westminster?
The clash of the West Lothian answers will again have them both squirming. Labour have said that they will not stop Scottish MPs voting on English only matters. Of course Clegg's answer to the West Lothian Question looks straight forward, do nothing. But thankfully most Scots are of the option that isn't the way to go. However, the answer of what the Lib-Dems aligned with Labour could possibly do could well harm the Lib-Dems chances. Clegg's grand plan to say Gordon is our man may well unravel under the heat of the studio lights and lead onward to the ballot box.
Actually you know now that I think of all the booby traps of questions for both Clegg and Brown to answer the more I approve of Clegg in the debates. It will destroy the sitting Lib Dems in Labour marginal hopes. It could well lead to a huge majority with no need for a strong third party to back it up, it could actually lead to Nick Clegg getting nothing into a programme of Government as usual. I think Clegg's persistence is going to be his undoing.
You know I just may have been right to want to steer Clegg away from the spotlight of the National stage. I do hope the questions are not going to show up the ludicrously of the Lib-Dems being there, their failure to keep their end of the bargain for Scotland, and makes them into a laughing stock on National TV.
People in Glass Houses...
Cynical highlander the term Prime Ministerial debates was the one first used by Sky. Yes we do not directly elect a Prime Minister, but it is clearer than calling it a leadership debate as then where is the cut off point.
ReplyDeleteIf it were just a matter of expanding the number of parties involved the SNP could quite easily as I have done, not just now but in the past, mentioned other parties that are also disenfranchised. The fact that the TV companies have actually looked beyond the big two is actually a welcome change.
Not the messiah, what could Clegg do for all those Scottish devolved areas that you mention. Well he could turn to Vince Cable and ensure that is adequate funding to enable them to be effective. Isn't that one thing that the SNP are always complaining to the treasury about.
ReplyDeleteAlso they would bring in a local income tax from the Treasury level, ensuring that mechanisms are in place to enable a fairer local taxation to be in place across the whole UK and set by local authorities.
As I said above see the link now added to the article relating to previous post, I couldn't upload it earlier as post was sent by email without access to my own back catalogue.
Doug the Dug that is very poor blogiquette to repeat the entire posting making you own changes, that is what a fisking blog post is for.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while you mmay be right that Clegg will not be leader after the next General election there has been in the last twelve months and could well be in the next six, when it actually matters a chance the Lib Dems will out poll Labour. Now that hasn't looked like happening since just before I joined the party at the SDP peak.
I seriously believe the death of new Labour is also going to herald a sea change. Over the next five years it won't be Labour that are the opposition, though they may be in name, but in outlook and people's perception it will be the Lib Dems that stand out from the sameness that has become Labour and Conservative policies.
Stephen:
ReplyDeleteIf this is a debate which breaks all the rules on political impartiality in the UK and is limited just to those who have a chance of being PM then it should just be Cameron and Brown. Brown being a very long shot.
If Salmond isn't allowed on because he can't become PM then Clegg has no right to be on there either. It's one rule for Salmond but another for Clegg.
Thing is of course Doug there are other parties that cover the whole UK. Like it or not Salmond has failed to make a coherant case for their inclusion. The Greens, UKIP and BNP all had more support in the Euro elections than all the Nationalist parties combined. Alex hasn't been pressing the case for political impartiality on the UK wide stage, he just wants his face to be there at the big table.
ReplyDeleteI'd happily support a Nationalist presence along with the members of the other parties mentioned and a Unionist from the Northern Irish side. With three debates it wouldn't always be the SNP at the table for the Nationalist cause of course.
Only Alex has made this about him, and that isn't right and that is what hold against his personal mission to put his nose into a campaign where he isn't even standing. As Not the Missiah to be compatible with the type of cdemocracy we have become it should be Westminster leaders that are involved in a Prime Ministerial/leadership debate for Westminster.
Since parody is out and fisking is in here goes:
ReplyDeleteThing is of course Doug there are other parties that cover the whole UK.
Yes that's true but none of them are defined as major parties by OFCOM unlike the SNP in Scotland and PC in Wales. Alex Salmond's demand is to be on any debate broadcast in Scotland to ensure that the broadcasters follow the rules of political impartiality in Scotland. He's not demanding to be on a UK broadcast.
Like it or not Salmond has failed to make a coherent case for their inclusion.
Odd, neither have Brown, Cameron and Clegg. It's not up to Salmond to fight the case for political opponents. He's requesting that the broadcasters follow the rules and guidelines which apply to Scotland for election broadcasting and give the SNP a place on any debate as a result of their major party status in Scotland.
The Greens, UKIP and BNP all had more support in the Euro elections than all the Nationalist parties combined.
They may have done but not in Scotland. The SNP is fighting for inclusion on any multi-party political debate in Scotland. In Scotland the SNP is regarded as a major party by OFCOM making it four major parties in Scotland. The SNP, Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems. If the SNP is not treated as a major party in any debate broadcast in Scotland then that breaks the rules on political impartiality.
Alex hasn't been pressing the case for political impartiality on the UK wide stage, he just wants his face to be there at the big table.
Quite true for the first clause in the sentence. He has however been pressing the case for political impartiality on the Scottish stage and for the broadcasters to keep to the guidelines on political impartiality in Scotland.
I'd happily support a Nationalist presence along with the members of the other parties mentioned and a Unionist from the Northern Irish side. With three debates it wouldn't always be the SNP at the table for the Nationalist cause of course.
Airtime for Political Election Broadcasts (PEB's) is worked out on on the basis of the four home nations of the UK. Unless the SNP get onto the debate each time it is broadcast in Scotland then that will breach the rules on PEB airtime in Scotland because three of the OFCOM defined major parties in Scotland will get three debates plus any Scottish "Regional" debate while under the present set up the other major party, the SNP, will only get on the "Regional" debate. The SNP will only get 25% of the airtime granted to the other three out of the four major parties in Scotland. I can't see any judge wearing that one.
Only Alex has made this about him, and that isn't right and that is what hold against his personal mission to put his nose into a campaign where he isn't even standing.
This is about Alex because he is the leader of the fourth OFCOM defined major party in Scotland. Cameron, Clegg and Brown lead the other three. Again I've read the legislation on PEB's and there is nothing to say that anyone who appears on a PEB has to be standing for election at the time of the broadcast.
As Not the Missiah to be compatible with the type of cdemocracy we have become it should be Westminster leaders that are involved in a Prime Ministerial/leadership debate for Westminster.
Not quite sure what you're trying to say, but that's an opinion and if the SNP bring this to court it will be on the guidelines and legislation which apply to the SNP and PEB's in Scotland not on opinions.
"The fact that the TV companies have actually looked beyond the big two is actually a welcome change."
ReplyDeleteYou mean a limited amount of democracy will be allowed because Clegg has been given a place on the centre stage, sorry people deserve better than the poor style of antiquated democratic government that we get at the moment which is a 2 party system.