Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics: The DUP number game

The DUP are claiming that their 9 MPs being greater than the SNP's 9 and Plaid Cymru's 3 puts them in a position to be at the leaders' debates ahead of these other regional parties.

But look at it another way the DUP will be fielding between 16-18 candidates (the number is variable as they are still talking about possible deal(s) with the UUP), this is against the SNP who will be standing 59 and Plaid who will be standing 40.

Of those 59 and 40 they will all face a Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat and a high proportion also facing a Green and UKIP candidate. Of the DUP candidates there may be a handful who face Conservatives, UKIP and Green candidates. Not one will face a Labour or Lib Dem candidate (although they may be facing a member of one of those parties under a different label).

So does the DUP on the numbers game they are playing deserve a podium at the debates? In my opinion no.

However, I would love to see Peter Robinson up there as to actually debate real issues would show up how backward the DUP actually are. I've long been of the opinion that even many third and fourth placed candidates in the rest of the UK have a greater grasp on reality, people and working for all people than the DUP. So I dreamt last night of Peter Robinson having to face questions for the other UK party leaders having to justify the conscience clause and his parties anti-LGBT and anti-abortion agenda while claiming they wanted to be British.

Of course both Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance are now all saying that they too have as much right for representation with the inclusion of two parties who don't stand across all of the UK in these debates. And the DUP are saying that Naomi Long of the Alliance is represented by the Lib Dems, when she is not on my membership list and has said she is not a Liberal Democrat many times and the SDLP by Labour.

Radio Debates in Forth Valley

Central FM 103.1 Forth Valley's local radio station is holding radio debates for main candidates together from Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Falkirk County, Ochil and South Perthshire and Stirling. They are looking for the people to pose questions which you can email to news@centralfm.co.uk

I've been invited to a pre-recording for the Linlithgow and East Falkirk candidates on Thursday I will let you know the air time of the programme as soon as I know.

But you've seen the TV debates on the national stage now you can look forward to the radio debates for your local candidates, the people who want to be your next MP.

Debates on TV and Local to You

At the start of the Arnold Vinnick v Matt Santos debate in the final season of The West Wing Arnie while answering the first question says 'let's throw away the rule book and have a real debate'. I don't think that is going to happen tonight in the first of three Prime Ministerial debates on ITV, although I suspect that anyone brave enough to do so might just swing the vote in their favour. Instead we have the 76 rules to govern the three men who sek to be the next Prime Minister.

The thing is unless you live in Sheffield Hallam, Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath or Witney you don't have an actual vote on any of those three. Of course I'm hoping that many people vote for Nick Clegg, John Mainland and Dawn Barnes in those three seats. Unlike in America where there is an elected president our Prime Minister is by in large the leader of the largest party equivalent to America's Congress.

But many of the people who are voting in Linlithgow and East Falkirk have been asking me what I think about certain issues. I know that they also have been asking the other candidates, but this so far is all behind closed doors via email or on their doorsteps.

But there is a sense that you can be in the debates, local hustings take place all across the country of the people who are contesting to be your MP. I only know of one so far in Linlithgow and East Falkirk of 2 May at 7:30 in St. Michael's Kirk Hall Linlithgow, but I will keep you informed of others.

If you want a review of the hustings last time here are the words of my Labour opponent last time on the opening day debate of the last Parliament.

"In my constituency, we had debates on the hustings, and the general tenor was respectful and humorous. At the end of the day, we all felt our opponents had not dropped into the positions that some of the national leaders of the parties did as they conducted the election. Our electorate appreciated that. The question is: how we did it. Even the Conservative candidate had been against the Iraq war in the public prints for a number of years, so everyone on our platform was against the war and we all had things to say about it. I am sure I shall have things to say about it here in future."

Vince on Top in Debate

"The Labour government led us into this mess. They have done severe damage to pensions and savings, they have wasted a vast amount of money on over-centralised public services.

"The Tories presided over two big recessions in office, they wasted most of the North Sea oil revenue, they sold off the family silver on the cheap. Now they want to have another turn to get their noses in the trough and reward their rich backers.

"The Liberal Democrats are different. We got this crisis basically right. We are not beholden to either the super rich or militant unions."

Vince Cable's closing statement in last night's Ask the Chancellors debate on Channel 4. The Guardian says that Vince drew first blood as the election truly kicked off, The Independent says he came out on top of the opening battle.

Even the readers are saying the Vince was head and shoulders above in the Guardian's poll. And the host Channel 4 are reporting that it was Vince that impressed the audience.

Last night it was easy for the supporters of all three parties to be partisan, but watching the neutrals it was clear that Vince was the one that was impressing the people that needed to be impressed, not the party faithful but those yet to decide where they will place their X.

Of course the big two parties are brushing it off, George Osborne in his closing remarks saying "there won't be a Lib Dem government" but if the Lib Dems continue to convince people we are the actual change, we are the ones who finger is on the pulse, you can never tell.

What If Alex Faced the Cameras on National TV

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.

Who's Debating You? Salmond has Turned One Down

It has been a hot topic of conversation in Scotland over recent months that Alex Salmond has been saying he wants to be involved in debates in Scotland ahead of the general election. He has even threatened legal action if he is not allowed into the Prime Ministerial debates.

Well if looks like he has refused to answer a challenge from the Scottish leaders Labour's Iain Gray, Lib Dem Tavish Scott and Tory Annabel Goldie to a debate. Indeed let's also invite Patrick Harvie of the Greens and if Alex doesn't show empty seat him. I've since the first ramifications said there should be a Scottish wide debate instead or as well as one of the proposed debates. It is not a compromise but a recognition of the devolved nature of politics here in Scotland, an answer to the West Lothian Question as far as the debates issue is concerned. I'm sure a similar thing will occur in Northern Ireland and I'd wish it also happens in Wales. But Alex is letting his ego get the better of him.

He has stated his ambition of getting 20 seats in the General Election, but his super-ego is getting the better of him. He thinks as First Minister of a devolved Parliament he deserves equal billing with the Prime Ministerial contenders and at the same time thinks he above the opposition leaders in that devolved power. He is in the no mans land, not on the same stage as the others and with his one extra seat considers himself better than Grey and the rest.

Turning down this offer of a Scotland debate on terms of parity while seeking to set, control and bully the UK wide agenda (without consideration to other more nationwide parties) for his own self shows that the ego is what is ruling the SNP decisions on the debates issue.

Your Monthly Salmond Bite of the Debate Question

As regular as clockwork at the start of each month (see August and September) Alex Salmond seems to raise his head in the great West Lothian Question of Prime Ministerial televised debates.

The latest take is that Alex Salmond is threatening to sue if he is not included in the debates in the run up to the election. They are also threatening to block any debate that does not include the First Minister. John Swinney has said:

"It deprives the voters in Scotland of hearing the breadth of political choice that quite clearly exists here in Scotland about the input of Scotland into the UK General Election."

I have in my previous posts above already discussed compromises, so I will not repeat them here. The action that Salmond is threatening is also denying the British people who live in Scotland the chance to hear the men who will be those that decide the shape of the next United Kingdom Government. The three men that the broadcasters have invited are those key men. Even if Salmond's army where to get a clean sweep across Scotland he would only have 59 MPs not one of them being Alex Salmond.

The people in Scotland are lucky to have a vote that can count towards the opinion
shakers in Westminster. Having just had my 40th birthday if I hadn't moved elsewhere I would have had 22 years of my adult life where I could never have voted for a party that held sway in the corridors in London (apart from when the UUP held up the slim Major majority). Yet in Northern Ireland we still get to see political discussion from the UK leaders through Question Time and the like, although there is a once monthly opt out for a local QT.

If Salmond had wanted to be at the big boys table he should have brought forward the one key promise he seems intent on keeping since the 2007. If he'd already had his referendum and had his desirous result this would all be a moot point. As it is what he should be doing is sitting down with broadcasters to come up with a compromise. I mean to take his point on board should the English Democrats have a place on the debate that is broadcast to Scotland, or the Cornish Nationalists. Surely supporters of such parties are being denied the full breadth of political choice? How about those that do vote Official Monster Raving Looney?

There are holes in his argument and he needs to be sensible and discuss these rather than bully or cajole.

One Foot in Brown's Grave

The lastest Ipsos Mori puts Labour in 3rd place in an opinion poll for the first time since Michael Foot was leader in 1982. With the Tories on 36% down 7% on last month, the Liberal Democrats on 25% up 8% and Labour on 24% down 2%.

Of course the media are going to put this down to a Lib Dem conference bounce, but don't forget this is the same media that said that the Lib Dem conference was a disaster for the leadership only last week. Maybe it is a conference bounce and if it is it shows that the people can see past the media spin and realise that the Lib Dems listen to people whether the party members for forming policy or as Katy Gordon proved the people (women) on the street.

Rumours tonight are also circulating that Gordon Brown is going to announce at last that he is prepared to take part in Prime Ministerial debates ahead of the next general election. However, there are also hints that he is seeking to exclude Nick Clegg from some of the series of debates he proposes. Here in lies a fault there are currently just 8% points between the three main parties in this latest opinion poll. Not as close as in 1982 when it was wafer thin between the three. Then the other two parties tried to exclude the Alliance to hinder the birth of three party politics, now 25 years on Labour are trying to do the same again from an even weaker position.

The only bright spot of the Labour conference so far it seem was Lord Mandlevort of Hartlepool and Foy's speech this afternoon. From what I saw yesterday it look like a wake. They truly are a party on the downward slide. Now the Prime Minister is worse off than they were in there darkest hour in opposition. Not only is he in third place but has less than a quarter of the support of those polled. He truly does have one (Michael) Foot in the Grave. Things can only get worse, one expects.

However, the hegmony of our current electoral system is once again shown when the opinion poll is put into Electoral Calculus. On this opinion poll the Tories would have 327 seats, Labour on 209 and the Lib Dems with 82. So even having overhauled a sick Labour Party in the opinion polls the Lib Dems would still have less than half the seats. How the apologists for First Past the Post can call this a clear, simple, easy-to-understand outcome is beyond me. Even when they are in third place Labour would still maintain a strong second place in the number of seats. Just how safe are some of those that wear a red rosette?

The answer sadly is that leaving the Tories as they are on 36% even if the Lib Dems reach 30% and Labour sink to 19% they will still have more seats than the second most popular Lib Dems. The split is 341, 141, 135. Surely that cannot be right?

The West Lothian Question for Sky Election TV Debates

You could almost see it coming, Sky issue an ultimatum to the leaders for a television debate and Alex Salmond demands to be part of it. Stewart Hosie the SNP Westminster whip claims:

"Sky must meet its obligations to audiences across the UK – and so any debate involving Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg would have to include Alex Salmond. "

As I pointed out early last month there are a lot of issues with that, the first being that the leader of the DUP has more right on current representation, the other that 4 other parties would on 2005 seats contested have more right that the SNP to a UK-wide platform. Indeed he is contesting less than 10% of the seats.

However, the most crucial point of course, in my opinion, is that Alex Salmond himself would not be standing in the next Westminster election. This is not a contest for where he wants to have his sole seat after the election. The other party leaders at least would be contesting the election, would if elected have some responsibility for the issues that would be open for deabte. I've already stated, as it seems do Sky, that there should be debates for the Scottish and Welsh to be held these should have the Scottish or Welsh leader for each of the parties in Westminster. In the case of the Scottish Lib Dems that role falls on Michael Moore not Tavish Scott and for the SNP that would be Angus Robertson not Alex Salmond. As Tam Dalyell would say can we really have a Member of the Scottish Parliament answering questions about matters over which he has no say*.

Another reason that I see Alex Salmond forfeiting his place in the Westminster debate is the lack of interest he has shown in the place, from even before he gained his Holyrood seat. From the start of 2007 to present he has the worse attendance record of any MP who has actually taken the oath to serve, only Sinn Fein's non-attendance is worse.

I think the televised debate is a good thing, long overdue and important to get the policies tested in a format from those in know. Like in the American debates where the speakers are kept to their strict timings to answer and rebut one another. How big can we make such a debate and keep it relevant? That is an interesting question.

However, Caroline Lucas has more of an ax to grind over the debate but is more focused on the funding discrepancies for minority parties yesterday. UKIP's Nigel Farage who fielded the fourth highest number of candidates said nothing at all. Only Salmond is again first out of the trap to demand equality where for him none exists on a number of counts. But it is a question that Sky need and appear to want to address. But if they are only looking for party leaders no substitutes, they may well set the rules for Westminster leaders no substitutes.

*It should be noted that once the Prime Minister goes to the Queen to gain a dissolution Salmond ceases to be an MP or a candidate seeking election to that Parliament.

Hello, Good Evening and Welcome Leaders

Yes news is emerging that talks about a Prime Ministerial televised debate with the man who interviewed Richard Nixon, Sir David Frost emerging as a favourite to host such an event.

Sir David of course is a respected political commentator on both sides of the Atlantic, having come a long way from the political satire that made his name in the sixties with That Was the Week That Was. He is being touted by advisers of the three main party leaders as a respected and neutral host that would be needed to host and chair such a debate. TW3 ironically was pulled from the air in 1963 in the lead up to the 1964 election as it was thought it would influence voters.

However, as watchers of the West Wing will know the discussions about rules of the debate, channel it will be hosted on, also the number of debates and type of issues to be discussed if more than one debate is to be had are all up in the air. As is the subject of the host, although consensus may be galvanising around Frost for that one. The same issues and questions have been a stumbling block in the past for the UK following the example of other countries notably USA and Australia, the former starting televised Presidential debates back in 1960.

The success of the London Mayoral TV debate may well be one factor that swings the wheels of electoral procedure the way of having a debate next time. Once it is in place it will hard for any of the parties to put up an argument to stop the juggernaut of holding one in subsequent elections. The shape of our Election broadcasting may just about be going to catch up 50 years with the USA.

The Ego is Wanting a Validictorial Debate

The MP for Banff and Buchan has been telling us he will be stepping down at the next General Election and not even seeking a seat in Westminster. In that sense enough he should not have a place on the platform of a UK-wide debate for the next Westminster election alongside Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Indeed since 2007 that member has had such regard for the Palace of Westminster that he is only beaten with the worst attendance and voting records by the Sinn Fein members.

Yet it is that the leader of the party with the fifth largest representation, yes their seven with a by election win is less than the DUP's 9; yet I don't hear Alex Salmond demanding that Peter Robinson should also have a place on that platform. Indeed at the 2005 General Election they only had one more than Sinn Fein, so should Gerry Adams also warrant a place.

Of course as Caron points out they will be contesting less than 10% of the seats. In fact in 2005 the top numbers of candidates were:

• Consevative 630
• Labour/Labour and Co-operative 627
• Liberal Democrats 626
• UKIP 496
• Green 202
• BNP 119
• Veritas 66
• Scottish Nationalist Party 59
• Scottish Socialist Party 58
• Socialist Labour Party 49

So he is the leader of the party that only fielded the 8th highest number of candidates. To be honest I see more of an argument for a UKIP representative on that stage as they contested, and will no doubt contest, more than half of the seats.

But of course Alex's Ego is bigger than the reality of the influence of his party on the national stage. Yes they are a major player on the Scottish national stage so I would say that should BBC Scotland run a debate on the Scottish level they should do and include candidates in that election. Therefore on that grounds I wouldn't want to see Tavish Scott, Annabel Goldie or Iain Grey taking the other party positions nor Alex taking the SNP position. It should be a leading party candidate who is actually going to be contesting taking a seat in that election, how else could they answer 'what would you do?' questions upon election if they will not be there.

Notice this statement from an SNP spokesperson:

"Scotland has a long tradition of party leader debates, and it is high time that we had them at UK level for the next General Election. Peter Mandelson has raised the issue again, and although it might have made Gordon Brown choke on his cornflakes when he heard it, the political parties and broadcasters should seize the initiative.

"The broadcasters must meet their obligations to audiences across the UK – and that has to include Alex Salmond's participation in any election debates involving Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

"We are obviously prepared to be flexible about options for the format, but the broadcasters' public service obligations require them to be fair to their audiences in Scotland, and indeed Wales. Both the SNP and Plaid Cymru are now parties of government and our voice must be heard. We will certainly be writing to the broadcasters at an early stage about this issue, so that they can be in no doubt about the position."

It ignores the fact that the DUP and Sinn Fein are also parties of government, as well as the 4 other parties that fielded more candidates across the UK. This stance is a self serving matter of ego. If the SNP were to stand candidates in Tunbridge Wells, Bristol, Liverpool etc they should be a National voice. But as Caron also points out, while California may be the 6th largest economy in the US their head of state Governor Schwarzenegger doesn't warrant a place in the national debate. Let us also not forget that this is the party that designated their candidates 'Alex Salmond for First Minster- SNP' in 2007 as if it was a directly elected American Presidential style position, rather than a constituency and regional election of representatives.