It seems likely that the Holyrood TV debates won’t get quite the same attention we saw when Cameron, Clegg and Brown faced off in April last year. For one thing, they’re not an innovation for a Holyrood campaign. For another, there really is a metropolitan media bias, and that media will probably spend more time wondering whether Clegg or Cameron wins the AV debate (as it sadly seems likely to be framed).
However, they will still matter. And who will be in them? The answer so far appears to be four out of the five leaders of the Holyrood parties, and as you can imagine I’m not delighted about that, just as the SNP were rightly disgruntled to be excluded from the Westminster debates.
It’s just special pleading to argue we should be in the debates, I’m told. But how are the broadcasters framing the programmes? Won’t that make it clear who belongs in them? To my mind, there are only two credible answers.
Perhaps they should be debates between the candidates for First Minister. Hands up anyone who has any plausible route for anyone other than Salmond or Gray to become FM in May? Nope, FM debates would have to be just those two, the first chunk of FMQs extrapolated to an hour or so, heaven help us.
The other sensible option is that the debates should test the parties that might take part in government in any form. Is there anyone prepared to rule out a government with Patrick Harvie in it, or supporting it from the outside? The most recent poll suggested that would be certainly a possibility, and even with just 2 MSPs we took part in talks last time that could have led to some sort of more formal arrangement. And does anyone think that criteria would mean including Colin Fox? Really? It also should be noted that both the Tories and the Lib Dems would be hard for either the SNP or Labour to work with formally given their roles in Westminster. So this option points towards five podiums.
Actually, there’s a third suggestion. Parties currently in Parliament should get in, with varying amounts of time according to group size. Yes, let Margo in too.
Any of these is logically consistent. But four out of five is purely arbitrary.
Footnote: On the comparison between the SNP in 2010 and the Greens in 2011, it should be noted that the SNP went into last year’s election with just 7 out of 646 MPs, a lower proportion than 2 out of 129, and although there was a way it could have happened, SNP involvement in government at Westminster government was always a considerably longer shot.
#1 by Malc on March 9, 2011 - 9:23 am
I’d be with you when you say there should be 5… but including Margo for me isn’t an option:
1) Margo isn’t a party
2) Margo only stands in one region, therefore the folk she’d be representing post-election only stretches to the electorate of the Lothians.
But yes – the Greens should be in. I don’t think there’s any fair way of saying they shouldn’t be.
#2 by somepapfaedundee on March 9, 2011 - 9:49 am
Maybe all parties at Holyrood should be included in the debates, with each party being given an amount of speaking time proportional to their party’s number of seats in Parliament?
#3 by Danny1995 on March 9, 2011 - 10:13 am
I agree on including Harvie.
#4 by Indy on March 9, 2011 - 11:04 am
I agree that the leader of any party which a) has elected representation and b) is contesting the election in every region of Scotland should be on the programme.
#5 by Malc on March 9, 2011 - 11:29 am
Indy agrees with me!
#6 by Jeff on March 9, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Fine post James. Someone’s messed up in not ensuring it is 5 podiums.
I do hope there is a petition about to go viral soon….?
#7 by Doug Daniel on March 9, 2011 - 1:04 pm
Yeah, can’t really think of any argument against the Greens being in. It’s tempting to say that perhaps there should be a requirement for participating parties to have a certain number of seats before being included, but that would just be an arbitrary number.
The only defining points should be:
1. Party is standing in every region
2. Party already has representation in parliament (thus proving they have at least some history of relevance to the electorate)
3. Party representative won’t make hateful, possibly unlawful statements on TV (thus ruling out the racists and homophobes)
Although on point 2, I think it probably would be reasonable to insist that the party must have more than one MSP.
I do wonder, though, if the fact the Greens aren’t actually putting forward candidates for constituency seats might be an easy get-out clause for TV stations?
Incidentally, I wouldn’t say this situation is directly comparable to the SNP’s situation in 2010. Yes, the SNP only had 7 MPs, but this was only out of the 59 Scottish seats, they were the main opposition in over half of the seats they didn’t win, they have the biggest party membership in Scotland, and they were also the current Scottish Government, which made any implications that they were a minority party patently ridiculous. Can the Scottish Greens say the same in regards to the Holyrood elections? I still agree the Greens should be a part of the debates though, particularly since Patrick Harvie is a far better politician than Iain Gray or Tavish Scott, and he would be providing a genuine alternative viewpoint to the big four parties – it would be interesting to see how it was received by the electorate.
#8 by Douglas McLellan on March 9, 2011 - 1:25 pm
I have to be consistent with the position I took with the TV debates last year. To have a podium I would argue that the party was standing in every seat and, since its Scotland we are talking about, at least one candidate in every region.
If a party is doing that then they should have a podium. It was because the SNP were not standing in England or Wales (obviously) that I argued they should not be on the main debates. If the Greens are fighting everywhere then they should get a podium.
#9 by James on March 9, 2011 - 1:29 pm
I can assure you we are standing in every region, every Scottish voter will have the chance to vote Green.
#10 by Douglas McLellan on March 9, 2011 - 1:46 pm
And every constituency? If yes, then Patrick should be included.
#11 by oldchap on March 9, 2011 - 2:34 pm
Doesn’t the fact that there is a different voting system for the Sottish Parliament matter? As James said, every voter will get the chance to vote Green thanks to the lists.
#12 by Douglas McLellan on March 9, 2011 - 10:23 pm
I have to be honest and say it does. The debates should be between the parties that, however unlikely, can form a majority government.
My problem with including the Greens on the basis of the lists only is that it is unfair that other list only parties would be excluded, even if they were on every regional lists. The 2003 election was good in that a number of smaller parties did really well thanks to the lists system and there is nothing to say that can’t happen again in the future. If the closed shop of the being in the parliament gets you a podium, how can we hope that more smaller get their voices heard.
#13 by Indy on March 10, 2011 - 9:12 am
It is only a closed shop in the sense that they haven’t managed to get enough people to vote for them to have someone elected. Frankly if parties can’t generate sufficient grassroots enthusiasm to get at least one person elected they can’t claim to have a mandate to speak for any section of the electorate and therefore why should they be included?
#14 by Malc on March 10, 2011 - 9:13 am
Can we take from that… you support the motion on the floor?
#15 by James on March 10, 2011 - 9:39 am
It is after all not permanent – you can still win a seat and make a breakthrough without this kind of coverage (we did it in 1999, the SSCUP did it in 2003).
#16 by oldchap on March 9, 2011 - 1:47 pm
I’d say that the conditions for a party to participate simply need to be:
1. possible for all voters to vote for the party (ie standing in all FPTP seats or all list seats)
2. existing representation in the parliament (to keep numbers in the debate sensible – though can you imagine the debates following a rainbow parliament as was floated in the whole-country list thread – how many debaters would it take for the whole thing to be ridiculous?)
I reckon SNP would be well advised to make this an issue as well – aside from it being the right thing to do, it would give themselves a stronger moral argument for getting into future UK debates (and as a by-product a means to possibly getting more independence-friendly MSPs elected).
#17 by James on March 9, 2011 - 2:56 pm
That’s another sensible and consistent pair of rules (that would work for me!).
#18 by John Ruddy on March 9, 2011 - 5:51 pm
I agree that the Greens should be represented, as they have representation in the existing parliament and they are standing in all regions.
Incidently, Brechin Churches Together are using the same criteria for their Hustings, so the regular 4 parties will be jioned by a Green candidate. Hopefully they will put up Martin Ford, as I understand he is a very impressive candidate.
#19 by fitalass on March 9, 2011 - 7:00 pm
Good article James. There was a lot more interest in the Scottish debates held before the last GE for the simple reason they were aired at far more sociable and accessible times in the broadcast media. IIRC, the Leadership debates during the last Holyrood campaign were tucked away late on at night which was disappointing.
#20 by Allan on March 9, 2011 - 11:26 pm
Fitalass.
There seems to be a lot more attention on last years Westminster Election as a whole than there normaly ison the Holyrood equivilant. I always find it disappointing that the debates are shunted back to the post 10 o’clock news (presumably so that the beeb or whoever can show their version of entertainment).
Then again, if your main host/chairperson/referee is Glenn Campbell…
#21 by Forteanjo on March 9, 2011 - 8:19 pm
“Yeah, can’t really think of any argument against the Greens being in.”
Going by comments Harvie has already come out with, the main argument against inviting the Greens is that we can simply invite the Iain “the grayman” Gray and cut out the middle man. As far as Harvie is concerned, the SNP have sold out to Souter which means the greens can jump into bed with Labour with a clear conscience (yeah, I don’t follow that logic either).
#22 by James on March 9, 2011 - 8:24 pm
The Herald may have said that, but Patrick didn’t.
#23 by Forteanjo on March 9, 2011 - 9:01 pm
Sorry, Patrick must have been misquoted by himself on his own blog then:
http://www.patrickharviemsp.com/2011/02/what-the-snp-cuts-budget-means/
The SNP are in cahoots with the condems and labour are the good guys? Really?
#24 by James on March 9, 2011 - 9:56 pm
Are you even reading that?
… I have no reason to think that Labour would have done much different.
On paper, the SNP oppose the UK Government’s cuts agenda. They use the same core argument as Labour – “too far, too fastâ€. On paper, the SNP looks like a centre-left party with a commitment to collective values. But in practice they have chosen to work with the UK coalition parties to pass a budget which cuts just as deeply as the coalition dictates.
There’s not a word in there that stands up your claim.
#25 by Observer on March 9, 2011 - 9:23 pm
The alleged Labour/Green deal is all the more reason to include the Greens in the debate. Let it be aired where it should be – in front of the voters.
It would be very silly not to include them – I haven’t actually encountered anyone who says they should not be included.
#26 by Jamie on March 9, 2011 - 10:01 pm
I’d imagine the greens could steal at least a few labour voters if given the chance. I’m still convinced that the people of Scotland are naturally left-leaning, and there’s loads of people who vote labour because “their dad always voted labour”. More of an anti-tory vote than pro new labour.
Seeing Patrick Harvie debating competently for the kind of country people want to live in, contrasted with Iain Gray struggling to defend his party’s right-wing policies would surely make some lifelong labour voters think twice. I think the greens are much closer to the labour party scotland wants than new labour are, they just need to opportunity to show people that.
And yes, ridiculous Patrick isn’t included.
#27 by douglas clark on March 9, 2011 - 11:45 pm
If it is a party leader debate and not a debate between potential First Ministers, then there is absolutely no reason the Greens shouldn’t be there.
#28 by JPJ2 on March 10, 2011 - 12:09 am
My recollection is that Harvie and Co opposed the SNP attempt to be included in the so called “Prime Ministerial” debates.
Therefore my sympathy for the Green omission from the debates on the grounds that they are not a major party (presumably) is strictly limited.
#29 by Jeff on March 10, 2011 - 12:27 am
What a principled stance you’re taking. Why not just make your own mind up rather than go for a tit-for-tat approach?
Anyway, your recollection is different to my recollection. I seem to recall the Greens being sympathetic to the SNP’s argument but largely indifferent. Hardly surprising given that the Greens, either side of the border, were not included either and were never going to be.
#30 by James on March 10, 2011 - 7:24 am
I made the argument to the media for inclusion of the SNP, as the party’s official spokesperson.
There’s been an awful lot of “The Greens, as everyone knows, used to sacrifice kittens” on here recently.
#31 by Paul on March 10, 2011 - 8:13 am
You must be starting to be seen as a threat.
Any SNP supporter who wanted Alex Salmond to be in the debates last year and does not want Patrick Harvie involved this time has to come up with some very twisted logic to avoid looking like a fool.
#32 by John Ruddy on March 10, 2011 - 9:56 pm
Twisted Logic is something that some nationalists are very good at.
It is interesting that the Greens are starting to attract attention from the SNP supporters (and not in a good way) – they must be seen as a threat. I think that the better the smaller parties do on the list the fewer SNP MSPs will be returned, although I thought the Lib Dems had the most to lose from a Green surge.
Pingback: Sign the petition – Include Patrick Harvie in Holyrood leader debates « Better Nation
Pingback: Greens must be allowed into Scotland’s election debates | Bright Green
#33 by fiona hardie on March 10, 2011 - 8:00 pm
Salmond wont even support his own constituents down at Menie, the families who were (probably still are!) being threatened with eviction. But of course Salmond has time to pay a visit to Trump International at Menie House. Patrick supports these landowners at Menie and has more right than Salmond for a seat in the Question Time studio. Without a doubt!
#34 by John Ruddy on March 10, 2011 - 9:58 pm
I quite agree, the First Minister’s actions in the Trump affair showed him for what he is – and will surely affect the SNP vote in parts of North East Scotland.
Good to see Martin Ford topping the Green list here too.
#35 by A Brown on March 17, 2011 - 12:02 am
I can’t see any reason why the greens can’t be included as they might only end up with 4/5 seats less than the lib dems.