Channel 4 insisted that the debate was for party leaders only and would not bend their decision, leaving the invitation to Boris Johnson open until the last minute. The result was a disappointed Michael Gove turning up at the Channel 4 studios and not being able to take part.
The rigid standpoint of Channel 4 on who should be able to represent the various political parties involved is certainly open to question. To start with, should they have allowed party ‘leaders’ on the programme if they were not even standing for election for the UK national Parliament?
In that respect, Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP and Adam Price of Plaid Cymru do not meet that criterion so would never be speaking or voting in the House of Commons. In fact their elected Commons leaders would be doing that, not them, so why should they be in the programme at all?
The same applies to Nigel Farage, The Brexit Party leader, but he decided not to attend, in what is another twist to this sorry saga.
Then there is Sian Berry, co-leader of the Greens, who is not standing for election for Parliament, yet was on this party leaders’ panel.
If there had been an insistence instead on party representatives standing in the General Election, the Greens could have put co-leader Jonathan Bartley forward, as he is standing.
All credit then to the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, Jeremy Corbyn and Jo Swinson, who are both Parliamentary and party leaders, for putting themselves in the front line.
So what is the point of having party ‘leaders’ for a political debate in an election for which they will never have political office? Surely, if there is an insistence on party leaders, it should be for the potential leaders of the respective parties in the House of Commons?
Did Boris let the Conservatives down?
It is disappointing that Boris Johnson was not prepared to submit himself for political questioning on this issue of climate change. It does him no credit and was disappointing, not just to his many supporters, but for many others who wanted to know what his stance was.
However, in all fairness, if the Greens are allowed co-leaders, then all parties should be allowed to put forward an alternative speaker to their ‘official’ leader. Michael Gove, as environment spokesman, would in fact have been an excellent representative to put the Conservative Party climate change policy, in place of Boris Johnson.
Did Nigel Farage let The Brexit Party down?
Channel 4 has now been accused of political bias and with some justification. In fact Nigel Farage, leader of The Brexit Party, effectively said this when he argued he had no faith in Channel 4 as his reason for turning down his invitation to appear on the programme. This decision, whilst understandable, is not acceptable for any political leaders who are expected to deal with the media, hostile, biased, or not.
It is likely that the real reason is that climate change agenda is not Nigel Farage’s forte, but then why this insistence on the party ‘leader’? Surely, one of the party’s prospective MPs could have stood in for Nigel, and Richard Tice, the party chairman is standing for election, so why not allow him? After all, if they manage to have some MPs elected, it will be Richard who will be the Commons’ leader and not Nigel, who is not standing to become an MP.
Again, no spokesperson from The Brexit Party was disappointing, denying the public the opportunity to know their views on this important issue.
Channel 4’s bias has no logic
This insistence by Channel 4 on only having party leaders in this debate has little logic to it. As already stated, some of the ‘leaders’ will not be in Parliament so will not be able to vote on political policies there. With the others, there is no cast iron guarantee that they will be elected (as with former Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg when he lost his seat). So at the very least it has to be those ‘leaders’ who are standing for Parliament.
Just why were non-UK parties allowed on a UK political programme
There is another very important factor to this Channel 4 decision on who to ask to appear on their programme, and it is this: Just why were the SNP and Plaid Cymru invited to attend anyway? Neither is a national UK political party, and neither achieved that many votes compared with other parties not invited.
In the EU elections this year, the SNP achieved under 595,000 votes, three MEPs, and 4.1% of the national UK vote. Plaid Cymru achieved under 164,000 votes and one MEP. In contrast, even the badly performing UKIP managed under 555,000 votes (and no MEPs).
At the 2017 General Election, the SNP achieved 978,000 votes, 35 MPs and 3.0% of the national UK vote. Plaid Cymru achieved 165,000 votes, four MPs and 0.5% of the national vote. In contrast, UKIP achieved 594,000 votes, no MPs and 1.8% of the national vote.
In this election, the SNP are fielding 59 candidates out of a total of 650 UK seats. Plaid Cymru are only fielding 36. In contrast even depleted UKIP are fielding 44.
If the Northern Ireland situation is brought into the equation, then the DUP achieved 292,000 votes and 10 seats at the 2017 General Election with 0.9% of the national vote.
Yet, Plaid Cymru, with 165,000 votes and four seats, with 0.5% of the national vote, were invited onto the Channel 4 broadcast but not the DUP!
The Greens only achieved 526,000 votes, one seat and 1.6%, so it clear that the Channel 4 criteria for who to invite on their party political broadcasts are pretty much askew.
It seems that separatists want to split up the UK, and the ‘nationalist’ parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cyrmru are facilitated plenty of promotion by Channel 4 (and indeed the other mainstream media).
If, however, you are ‘unionist’ and want the UK to remain united, then reasons will be found to deny promotion for parties like the DUP and UKIP as much as possible.
To be fair with political broadcasts, there has to be a change of policy. ‘Home’ country only political parties should only get ‘Home’ country broadcasts. They should not be on national UK election programmes unless other UK political parties are given the same treatment.
As a norm, though, national UK election programmes should only be for those standing on a national UK basis.
At present, there is an undoubted bias in favour of the secessionist parties. This has no foundation in fairness, and needs to be ended forthwith.
I’m not going to say much about appearances on so called debates (they aren’t anything of the sort) and interviews are an open season crap shoot to establish which contestant has the lowest crap (lies) factor
We know who tells the most common porkies already, we’ve been well guided as to their efficacy and legitimacy by that arch villain Mr Junker
But don’t they pale at the side of “the BIG LIE or LIES” perpetuated by that ex Commy sympathiser and present doubtful Jewish supporter, the one who should really not be allowed anywhere near Downing Street state secrets , never mind for the the gang he is associated with
As a matter of interest when Boris does tell the truth – look how all hell broke loose; it really was a Surrender Document wasn’t , it really was “humbug he exposed from that pretence cacophony organised by the parliamentary son sisters
Ph and the big lie , well how about Corbyn’s claim that Borid is about to sell out the MHS to the Yanks or that the Labour Party is not anti -Semitic or that Islam is a religion of peace
Anthony Webber. I’m sure you are right in your criticism of Channel 4 and the Media in general. However, in one respect you also are guilty. Over and over you say Climate Change is an important issue and the public deserve to know where our politicians stand on it. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT AN IMPORTANT ISSUE. It is fake news. The politicians who do not make an issue of it are quite right. Hopefully ‘the public’ are well aware that it is a NON ISSUE for UK.
Environment and NHS are “dead cat issues” thrown on the table to take any debate or scrutiny of what will happen to this country when Johnson gets MV4 through Parliament and signs us up to associate membership of the EU. The establishment and left liberal media will do anything to keep that off the agenda.
WRONG Tony. I presume by MV4 you mean the WA. Environment is a NON ISSUE and Channel 4 is Remain biased. It was not a debate. Boris and Nigel had more sense than to take part. BBC have now stepped down with an excuse that would not persuade the intelligence of a (live) cat.
Political elections are a test of political ability. Since the purpose is to serve as a politician , how it happens is immaterial. Politicians job is to do, what ? Do we really want politicians ? Politicians deal with everything including life and death.. For their own people?. If the people don’t get it ?. I suggest success in this arena is second only to survival.Theirs , ours , and possibly collatoral .
So what’s our beef and is it OK. ? .1..Are the rules skewed ? Are there any rules ? Do the rules (If any ) work.? Should there be rules .?
So many questions and answers Enven more wrong answers .
My answers are that the only fixed rule is the rule of the starters. It’s their rules.. Nobody elses. . If something or somebody can influence them somehow. then those are the rules..!. 5yrs old 15 year olds. No problem. They’ll ask advice ? Ad infinitum.
We know they’re corrupt, dishonest etc .every step of the way. It’s up to them all to believe who and what etc you like .
All will try to impose favourable rules etc…..Chaos..? Maybe but not necessarily. Someone somewhere has the ability to organise themselves out of a paper bag..?
Is this comment nonsense or no.? I dunno. Some one will no doubt tell me.
Surely Elections are about Policies. Politicians are supposed to present policies which they hope voters will like. Well it doesn’t seem to be like that this time does it. Seems to be as much of a shambles as the Parliament which only Tories wanted to end.
Who knows, maybe all the media fabricators of news and issues will get the push like the MPs who are not re – elected when it becomes clear they have failed.
It would be nice to believe it wasabout policies etc , but lets look at some of the more obvious leaks in the bucket .
1. Parachuting. I have continually talked about this as it is the first and most obvious entrance to the sewer.
2. Constituency size. A ]n axe over labour heads.
3. Variations in procedure. Counting, Postal. etc
4. Follow the money. This is the only thing the electoral commission understands , and it’s not very good at that’
5. The manifesto Its purpose and weaknesses.
6. Promotion, Responsibility and Authority etc.
7. Communications fraud
8. Distortion of the constirutional Monarch principal.
9 political maneuvres.
19, Individual swamps of morals and wickednesses.
And that’s British democracy, and compared to the EU and most other countries we’re the paragon.
Sorry.
You cannot have a debate on a subject whereby all the participants are on the same side. There was no climate realist there. All they could ‘debate’ (virtue-signal) was how to tackle a non-existent problem, with a scientifically illiterate solution (even if there were a problem) to which the UK’s contribution is miniscule, which renders the vast cost and forced life-style changes futile, on every count.
How about a ‘debate’ between, say, Piers Corbyn, Lord Lawson and Matt Ridley, on the level of distortion of science by the grant-dependant ‘researchers’, the callous get-rich-quick ‘renewables’ industry, the politically motivated activists and globalists, and the vast array of ignorant virtue-signalling politicians and media propagandists. Feel free to add to the list.
The latest must-have policy is planting trees because trees soak-up carbon. No; trees LIVE on carbon dioxide, as do all flora and indirectly all life on Earth. I am all for more trees and anything that improves our environment. But we need more carbon dioxide not less; to feed the flora we have and green the planet. CO2’s very minor greenhouse contribution occurs up to about 250ppm, after which the (logarithmic) graph is almost flat. We are well past that, so measures to reduce CO2 will do nothing except impoverish citizens.
Good comment Phil. The take up of the climate change scam, by the young especially, is worrying. They seem unable to think for themselves or seek out information as opposed to propaganda. All aided by most of the MSM and a flawed education.
Indeed. A young American actress, who starred in one hit series and now thinks she is the new Meryl Streep (she definitely isn’t), interviewed in the Sun Times mag, gushed how she loved Twitter; she got all her climate emergency info from Twitter. Lord help us.
Thanks Phil O’Sophical. You probably know though didn’t say, Piers Corbyn is Jeremy’s brother. Was it during that program that Jeremy vowed to plant so many trees in UK that according to a mathematician on here recently we would all have to live in tree houses?
I didn’t do the calculation but I read that it would mean planting 200 trees every hour round the clock for twenty years.
Good God, there wouldn’t be any room for new wind turbines.
….or room for net 250,000 net migrants, year in, year out.
Even Jeremy Clarkson has now been won over to the climate change ’emergency’ no doubt sensing that his overseas gas-guzzling TV productions will be targetted next by the carbon police brigade. He claims he has planted thousands of trees on his Cotswold farm (NB working farms are inheritance tax free as are forests) to proclaim he is more carbon neutral than anyone he knows. Maybe if he is a little short of credits he can tap up Elton John for a few credits to cover his overseas consumption of carbon.
https://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/1210781/the-grand-tour-season-4-jeremy-clarkson-greta-thunberg-carbon-neutral-amazon-prime-video
I’m afraid I don’t know anything about Jeremy Clarkson. What struck me was that Attenbourgh joined it. Surely he is rich enough not to need their bribes.
Now is it the EU that has decided which are WORKING farms? I believe that unlike our fish, at least our farming policies will revert to us under the WA.
Oh and isn’t King Charles III an ORGANIC farmer? Doesn’t he deserve some credit there?
“Surely, one of the party’s prospective MPs could have stood in for Nigel, and Richard Tice, the party chairman is standing for election, so why not allow him? After all, if they manage to have some MPs elected, it will be Richard who will be the Commons’ leader and not Nigel, who is not standing to become an MP. Again, no spokesperson from The Brexit Party was disappointing, denying the public the opportunity to know their views on this important issue.”
The TBP joining any debate now is irrelevant, the damage was already done (self inflicted no less). 4% in the polls (down from 5%), as I have said before, they won’t win any seats. That result was guaranteed the moment they dropped their 317 PPC’s.
To the public, this fateful decision shows they were not serious about getting into government or making change. They made the treacherous Tories the champions of Brexit by conceding ground. It was like a builder walking off a building site when the house was half finished.
This was the TBP’s ‘I agree with Nick’ moment, or should I say, ‘I agree with Boris’ and wasn’t it just?
To win any race, one has to take part in the race to begin with, whether that’s cycling, rowing, motor-sport or running. If you don’t compete, then that makes you a spectator, not a competitor.
As I have said before this decision may have finished a clean Brexit for good, and now we are near certain of May’s rehashed deal foist upon us before Xmas. What’s worse, there will be millions of disenfranchised leave voters (like myself), with no-where to cast their votes.
This GE has been an unmitigated disaster.
Very well said. Johnson 1 Farage O (home goal – again).
Jake, Jack, Colin.
Letting ego-driven Nige loose on 600-odd seats in order to ‘show ’em’, all that does is make the First Past The Post realists in Labour (yes there are still a few there) snigger, as it means a few more seats for them and yet another hung Parliament guaranteed.
The voting system is NOT just a trifling technicality.
Sadly the second time that Farage has let us down.
Jack, The Brexit Party in the south of the country has let down its candidates, constituency coordinators, the activists that had been recruited over the past six months to fight an election, its registered supporters and potential voters in a major major way. All this talk of having 650 candidates selected and being ready etc etc has been an unmitigated anti climax, and has turned out to be a total waste of our time, energy and money. I detect a gradual slipping away of support from the Brexit Party back to the UK Independence Party, certainly some of its registered supporters have either returned or are thinking of resuming their membership of UKIP
Colin
You may be surprised at how many Brexit Party MEPs take the same liberal line as Johnson on immigration. Catherine Blaiklock who founded the Party (and subsequently sacked by Farage) spoke of this on a radio interview saying that it would be folly to expect the BXP MEPs to support meaningful immigration control.
https://www.altnewsmedia.net/opinion/explosive-interview-with-brexit-party-founder-catherine-blaiklock/
Anyway, you have made my evening regarding your comment about BXP members considering rejoing UKIP. Perhaps, even the Branches that moved lock, stock and barrel to the BXP will return too?
” Catherine Blaiklock … subsequently sacked by Farage.” So she’s obviously not holding a grudge then. Shades of Suzanne Evans?
Spot on. I could not have put it better myself.
“needs to be ended forthwith” as do the non-UK wide parliaments, assemblies or whatever other title is used. This is supposedly the UK so why should the people of NI, Scotland and Wales have two votes?
We need the return of the United Kingdom as was before this mess was created.