[xbl]

Reynard, on 05 April 2012 - 11:16, said:

Nothing?

Tough! Btw, how is your BBC conspiracy theory going?

[Reynard]

xbl, on 05 April 2012 - 11:17, said:

Tough! Btw, how is your BBC conspiracy theory going?

It took them a day but they finally got there.

I did notice that they managed to include the green candidate in their Mayoral election debate on Newsnight last night in spite of them lagging behind UKIP in the polling.

[xbl]

Reynard, on 05 April 2012 - 11:19, said:

It took them a day but they finally got there.

I did notice that they managed to include the green candidate in their Mayoral election debate on Newsnight last night in spite of them lagging behind UKIP in the polling.

They didn't include the Green Party in the Scottish debates despite them having a seat in the Parliament, and being as relevant as the Lib Dems. I wouldn't read anything into that.

[Reynard]

xbl, on 05 April 2012 - 11:22, said:

They didn't include the Green Party in the Scottish debates despite them having a seat in the Parliament, and being as relevant as the Lib Dems. I wouldn't read anything into that.

Ken Livingstone's election chances have received a potential boost thanks to his cosy relationship with Green candidate Jenny Jones. The London Green Party urged members to give Livingstone their second preference vote.


Maybe this is why.

[Swampy]

Because she's a potential kingmaker? Yeah, generally that does inform news coverage.

This creepy survivalist paranoia makes rational discussion impossible.

[Ad Lib]

Swampy, on 05 April 2012 - 12:43, said:

Because she's a potential kingmaker? Yeah, generally that does inform news coverage.

She's really not. No more than, say, the UKIP candidate.

[Swampy]

Ad Lib, on 05 April 2012 - 12:45, said:

She's really not. No more than, say, the UKIP candidate.

Who did UKIP endorse as second preference?

[Reynard]

Swampy, on 05 April 2012 - 12:55, said:

Who did UKIP endorse as second preference?

Siobhan Benita

[Swampy]

Reynard, on 05 April 2012 - 13:46, said:

Siobhan Benita

Right, meaning their king (or queen)-making potential is far less consequential - especially given what polling indicates about pre-existing preferences among UKIP and Tory voters.

[Ad Lib]

Swampy, on 05 April 2012 - 15:26, said:

Right, meaning their king (or queen)-making potential is far less consequential - especially given what polling indicates about pre-existing preferences among UKIP and Tory voters.

Why would the Greens be the Kingmakers, when they've got a smaller share of polling support than UKIP and are completely clear that they would jump into bed with Ken if he won (see e.g. on Newsnight his declaring intention to appoint the Green candidate his deputy if he won)?

In any case, because the London Mayoral Election uses the Supplementary Voting system, the notion of any one kingmaker is a bit false. Only the final two advance from the first preferences.

[Swampy]

Ad Lib, on 05 April 2012 - 15:39, said:

Why would the Greens be the Kingmakers, when they've got a smaller share of polling support than UKIP and are completely clear that they would jump into bed with Ken if he won (see e.g. on Newsnight his declaring intention to appoint the Green candidate his deputy if he won)?

Because unlike UKIP they're endorsing a major candidate for second preference... Green and Labour are working as a bloc, the Tories and UKIP aren't, ergo the Greens will have more of a say in the final outcome of the two-party vote than would UKIP.

Quote

In any case, because the London Mayoral Election uses the Supplementary Voting system, the notion of any one kingmaker is a bit false. Only the final two advance from the first preferences.

That's right, there won't be one single one, but it's clear which is more important.

Bear in mind I'm not arguing that the Greens are key to this election or anything foolish like that - they're not. I'm just trying to combat the usual creepy survivalist persecution complex in which the entire news agenda of a pseudo-public organisation/pseudo-private news business employing tens of thousands in news production can be distilled down to "doing things that Reynard doesn't like".

[Ad Lib]

Swampy, on 05 April 2012 - 15:46, said:

Because unlike UKIP they're endorsing a major candidate for second preference... Green and Labour are working as a bloc, the Tories and UKIP aren't, ergo the Greens will have more of a say in the final outcome of the two-party vote than would UKIP.

That's right, there won't be one single one, but it's clear which is more important.

Bear in mind I'm not arguing that the Greens are key to this election or anything foolish like that - they're not. I'm just trying to combat the usual creepy survivalist persecution complex in which the entire news agenda of a pseudo-public organisation/pseudo-private news business employing tens of thousands in news production can be distilled down to "doing things that Reynard doesn't like".

I strongly suspect that most UKIP voters will completely ignore the 2nd preference advice of UKIP and vote for Boris. If anything I'd say that inclusion of the Greens is less justified given they've effectively accepted they're Labour's lefty subordinate cousin and have nothing to add to the wider debate about what is best for London. I don't buy this "kingmaker" justification for the simple reason that they may as well be Labour for the purpose of this election.

If they're going to include more than the candidates from the main parties they ought to do it on basis of share of the vote or invite everyone.

[xbl]

I actually side with the "creepy survival" types here. We saw in the UK and Scottish elections that the media just chooses who they want to involve or not. So I'm not going to defend the BBC putting the Green candidate in. I would be interested in their justification. If the Green was polling below UKIP (or similar), then my opinion (obviously without knowing the facts) is that they should include both or none.

As I said, I thought it was a disgrace that the SNP were shut out of the 2010 election debates, and I thought it was also a disgrace that the Greens were not invited to the 2011 debates.

[Ivo den Bieman]

Reynard, on 05 April 2012 - 11:19, said:

It took them a day but they finally got there.

I did notice that they managed to include the green candidate in their Mayoral election debate on Newsnight last night in spite of them lagging behind UKIP in the polling.

That's because the Greens have an MLA elected to the London Assembly (the London equivalent of an MSP) and UKIP don't.

dry yer eyes.

[Reynard]

xbl, on 05 April 2012 - 16:14, said:

I actually side with the "creepy survival" types here. We saw in the UK and Scottish elections that the media just chooses who they want to involve or not. So I'm not going to defend the BBC putting the Green candidate in. I would be interested in their justification. If the Green was polling below UKIP (or similar), then my opinion (obviously without knowing the facts) is that they should include both or none.

As I said, I thought it was a disgrace that the SNP were shut out of the 2010 election debates, and I thought it was also a disgrace that the Greens were not invited to the 2011 debates.

He's gutted that I can make a good living in the land of my birth and he had to f**k off to rednecksville to get employment with his internet bride and now he spends all day long on a Scottish football site pining for the old country cos he's homesick.

To be honest I wasn't bothered by the Green witch being there. Her and the retired cop were just there for window dressing purposes.

[Swampy]

xbl, on 05 April 2012 - 16:14, said:

I actually side with the "creepy survival" types here. We saw in the UK and Scottish elections that the media just chooses who they want to involve or not. So I'm not going to defend the BBC putting the Green candidate in. I would be interested in their justification.

Aside from the fact that it's simply not true that UKIP are significantly out-polling the Greens - see YouGov's March polls for why that isn't the case - I think I outlined above why of all the irrelevant candidates (including the Lib Dems) the Greens actually will have the biggest say on election day.

It also doesn't explain why Siobhan Benita was skipped, because she's not exactly off-message with the BBC.

Quote

If the Green was polling below UKIP (or similar), then my opinion (obviously without knowing the facts) is that they should include both or none.

Right, but if you look at the YouGov poll, they're not - within the margin of error - polling below:

http://cdn.yougov.co...don%20Mayor.pdf

Quote

As I said, I thought it was a disgrace that the SNP were shut out of the 2010 election debates, and I thought it was also a disgrace that the Greens were not invited to the 2011 debates.

What was the relevant data around the 2010 debates? Were they national in scope?

[Swampy]

Reynard, on 05 April 2012 - 17:04, said:

He's gutted that I can make a good living

People who make good livings don't have to close down their shops and retreat to a shed - unlucky.

[Reynard]

Swampy, on 05 April 2012 - 17:46, said:

People who make good livings don't have to close down their shops and retreat to a shed - unlucky.

Is that so Mr Homesick?