Free and unfair elections

So, the BBC Trust has rejected the SNP/Plaid Cymru appeal against their exclusion from the leaders' debates. The SNP are apparently unable or unwilling to spend the cash a court case would require, so I guess that's the end of the road. Money 1 - 0 Democracy. Much will be said on this subject, but I would like to register the following points:

1. The three parties included do not field candidates throughout the UK. There are no Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem candidates in Northern Ireland.
2. The Trust remarks that there are only "three individuals who could realistically aspire to be Prime Minister of the UK" . Let me be the first to congratulate Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg and David Cameron on retaining their seats. I didn't realise they had already been re-elected in their constituencies. Or does anyone think any of them would still be Prime Minister if they were no longer MPs (actually I wouldn't put it past Brown given his penchant for unelected ministers)?
   
3. Much is made of past electoral support in the Trust's ruling, although there are a few Freudian slips where they simply refer to the electoral support of the three main parties. And this gets to the heart of the matter - surely the whole point of the election is to determine the electoral support of the parties! Who are the BBC or BBC Trust to determine this in advance? Are they denying the possibility of substantial changes in the levels of support for different parties? A quick glance at the history books should disabuse them of that notion.
4. The Trust maintains that impartiality is preserved by sufficient "signposting" during the debates, when Westminster-reserved matters are being discussed, as well as by additional debates where SNP/Plaid Cymru can take part. Now, without wishing to insult the viewers, it is inevitable that they will be confused at times during the debates as to which bits are UK-wide and which are Scotland/Wales-specific. Viewers will pop out to make tea and come back halfway through an answer, Auntie Elspeth will phone up for a chat, the dog will start barking, and viewers will just simply forget the signposts. Confusion is absolutely inevitable and the viewers' (mis-)perceptions of the debates absolutely will have an effect on voting intentions (anyone heard of Clegg-mania?). Regarding the additional Scotland/Wales-specific debates, it's stretching reality beyond breaking point to suggest that they will enjoy the same media profile as the UK debates. It's manifest nonsense as the media coverage of the last week demonstrates.
   

I imagine the whole debacle has arisen as follows:

1. It would be nice if we could have meaningful TV debates ahead of a general election.
2. We can't have every party represented or it would be chaos.
   
3. We can't have SNP/Plaid Cymru/NI parties involved, as they aren't directly relevant to the whole UK.
4. If we only have Tory/Labour/Lib Dem leaders then we are not covering the election fairly in Scotland and Wales.
5. Technically we can't broadcast the debates to restricted areas (all regional channels are available on Sky for example).
6. So there isn't a fair way to stage the TV debates. But f**k it, let's have them anyway, as I said in point 1 it would be nice to have them, wouldn't it?

Every time you hear about "free and fair elections" in future, ask yourself whether that description applies to the UK. Free perhaps, but fair?

A parting shot: why would the following not have worked? Have the debates as they are, but with a representative from the SNP and Plaid Cymru included. The SNP/PC representatives may only speak when devolved matters are being discussed (ironically this idea is inspired by the SNP policy of not voting on England-only matters at Westminster).

Three's company, more's a crowd

The news that Gordon Brown has agreed to participate in a series of TV debates ahead of the next Westminster election is quite rightly causing a bit of a stushie in Scotland. The SNP are talking of amicable solutions to allow Eck to take part, but more likely they will be given short shrift by the TV companies. The result will be legal action from the SNP to prevent any debates bereft of Eck's beaming fizzog from being broadcast in Scotland.

This stance, though potentially depriving us all of watching a half-decent slanging match, seems absolutely correct. Quite why three parties should be accorded the extra publicity and platform that these high-profile debates will afford is not clear to me. The main argument seems to be that only the Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem leaders are potential Prime Ministers in waiting. One only has to read that last sentence again to see the idiocy of the argument...Nick Clegg? Potential Prime Minister?! Ahem.

Behind this lurks the distasteful presumption that the media already knows the outcome (more or less) of the election. As things stand the smaller parties get a raw enough deal: restricting the debates to a Labour-Tory-Lib Dem triopoly fatally undermines the idea of free and fair elections.

Obviously in Scotland the proposed debates simply fail to reflect the continued reality of Labour and the SNP fighting it out for the top prize, with the Tories and Lib Dems failing to get much of a look in. As other observers have noted, if the SNP do well enough there won't be a UK to be Prime Minister of, and under those happy circumstances one G Brown would likely be ineligible for the job - a potential PM indeed! Similar arguments apply to Wales with Plaid Cymru also deserving a place in any debates broadcast there.

Furthermore, one only has to look back to the last European elections to realise that there are in fact other parties out there, even in England. Granted, UKIP might not quite be shooting for second place in a Westminster election (yet), but then again surely their performance in the European elections makes them, and more to the point those people that voted for them, worthy of a little more consideration? And how can they ever hope to make a breakthrough if they are dismissed as a small party, unworthy of even a bit-part role?

The cosy, unthinking consensus in Broadcastingland seems to be that Labour and the Tories will naturally take turns in power for evermore. Anything else is unthinkable. The real value of the Lib Dems in this scenario is merely to lend some feeble credence to the notion that we live in a dynamic multi-party democracy. They make the stitch-up look a little bit more credible.

This ossification of politics is a consequence of the first-past-the-post system, where parties with a broad appeal spread throughout the country suffer compared to those with a more localised support. My hope is that people are gaining more of a taste for proportional representation. We've had it now in Scotland and Wales for 10 years. We've had it in European elections for longer. The London elections are also conducted using PR. If the SNP poll 30% of the vote next year and end up with only 10 MPs I for one will be demanding: "Where is my vote?!" And if UKIP get anything like the same share of the vote as in the European elections but gain no MPs, then I might well be one of many. Democracy indeed.