Adam Boulton, political editor of Sky News, has added his voice to those calling for live debates, come the next General election, as it would 're-energise' election campaigns. Stating that Sky News would be pressurizing the three main parties to agree to such debates, Adam Boulton is, like so many of the MSM, completely missing some important points.
Looking at the three main parties - Con/Lab/LibDem - it is extremely difficult, as Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party (Ukip) said, 'to get a cigarette paper between them' in respect of their policy on Britain's membership of the European Union. Ah, the European Union - the subject that no-one in the three main parties, nor the MSM, seems to wish to discuss. On this last point, one has only to return to the European elections in June - the Conservatives based their campaign on the premise it was an opportunity to 'give a good kicking to the government'; likewise the Libdems; and Labour, heaven knows what they were campaigning on, one doubts they even knew themselves, but none of them wanted to discuss the one subject about which the election was supposedly held - Europe! Yet it is the one subject that has a great bearing on the very point of the debates about which Adam Boulton is so keen - a debate on which party should govern this country and how. On the basis that 75/80 per cent of our laws emanate from Brussels, perhaps use of the word 'govern' is questionable!
This brings one to Boulton's aim - a debate between the three main parties. Er, which party polled the second most votes at the last opportunity the electorate had to express their opinion? Which party is never mentioned when 'policy' is discussed? As Harry Aldridge posts on IndependenceHome, when the BBC posted an item about the population being at a 47 year high there were quotes from Phil Woolas (Lab), Damien Green (Con) and the LibDems - was there any mention of a quote from Nigel Farage whose party campaigned in June, raising this very question?
The MSM seem only too keen to report on the Greens and the BNP, so why not Ukip? It could also be said that the MSM are 'censoring' the debate by excluding parties outside the Con/Lab/LibDem 'triumvirate'. Is it not the purpose of the MSM to 'educate' and 'comment' on all political philosophies, for the benefit of the public? When reporting the 'findings' of opinion polls, only the figures for the three main parties are given - everyone else is reported as 'Others', or 'Don't Knows'. If the MSM truly believed in 'fair' reporting they would provide the data contained in 'Others'.
It would seem that not only is the government, together with the Tories and LibDems, guilty of 'spin' - so is the MSM!
It Should Have Been A Cull, Not A Ban...
6 minutes ago
1 comment:
If nothing else the recent farcical situation where the Video Recordings Act 1984 is not enforceable because the pertinent papers were not forwarded to Brussels correctly shows that the need for a proper debate on our involvement with the EU is at least 25 years overdue.
Live debates? I would choose to watch either Brown/Cameron or Brown/Cameron/Clegg/Farage/Griffin/Lucas etc. The difficulty with the more inclusive second option is where to draw the line and how to manage so many egos in one small space. Few party leaders, and certainly none of the three main parliamentary leaders, dare to attend QT on a Thursday night and that often descends into a point and accuse affair.. .. .. I'm not sure that gathering all of them together in one room would actually be beneficial for the undecided portion of the electorate.
Maybe some kind of phone voting in a knockout competition? Pitch Brown against Lucas and the public decide who they believe and trust most. The winner of the (premium rate no doubt) phone voting progresses to face the winner of Cameron vs Griffin and so on.
Post a Comment