PDA

View Full Version : Farage promises to use social media to undercut TV Debates if he is excluded



-:Undertaker:-
21-11-2013, 09:15 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25041740

Nigel Farage promises 'fun' if UKIP is denied election debate


http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1390948/thumbs/n-FARAGE-large570.jpg?6
Nigel Farage says much of UKIP's surge in popularity is down to social media


UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has said he will produce a "fun" alternative broadcast if he is not allowed to take part in the leaders' TV debate at the next election.

David Cameron says any debate will involve only people with a "prospect of becoming prime minister".

But Mr Farage told The House magazine he would not be "excluded".

He suggested the possibility of live-streaming on the internet while debates were running.

The first televised debates were held before the last general election in 2010, involving the three main party candidates - Labour's Gordon Brown, Conservative Mr Cameron and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg.
Technology 'is power'

It is not certain whether this will be repeated, but Mr Farage argues that, as his party is enjoying a sustained run of good ratings in the opinion polls, he should be included in any repeat.

He told The House: "If UKIP has good cause to think that it should be in the TV debates and it's excluded, we will provide an alternative form of entertainment on the evening.

"I'm working on some ideas. The internet is quite big these days... you could live-stream. There's one or two technical things we are working about and thinking about.

"It would be quite fun, wouldn't it? People would have their TVs and their laptops next to it."

Mr Farage added: "They might think they can exclude us but modern technology has such a power.

"To be honest, if it wasn't for the internet we wouldn't be here. YouTube and Facebook and all of this has helped us to reach an audience we would not have reached."

Dave, Nick and Ed can run but they can't hide.

Thoughts?

Kardan
21-11-2013, 09:16 PM
David Cameron says any debate will involve only people with a "prospect of becoming prime minister".

So why is Nick Clegg allowed to go on?

-:Undertaker:-
21-11-2013, 09:17 PM
So why is Nick Clegg allowed to go on?

Or David Cameron for that matter. :P

GommeInc
21-11-2013, 10:04 PM
Aren't the Lib Dems a small party these days? if anything they should be excluded for not being a "real" party. It should just be Labour, the Conservatives and UKIP.

AgnesIO
21-11-2013, 11:04 PM
Aren't the Lib Dems a small party these days? if anything they should be excluded for not being a "real" party. It should just be Labour, the Conservatives and UKIP.
If you have Lib Dems I guess you should have UKIP, if you don't have Lib Dems I cannot see why you should include UKIP.

GommeInc
22-11-2013, 07:17 PM
If you have Lib Dems I guess you should have UKIP, if you don't have Lib Dems I cannot see why you should include UKIP.
Because they're ranking #4 and would with all valid reason be a wasted vote anyway since they won't stick by their promises anyway? :P

AgnesIO
22-11-2013, 08:13 PM
Because they're ranking #4 and would with all valid reason be a wasted vote anyway since they won't stick by their promises anyway? :P

UKIP would be no more of a vote realistically - yes they have gained massive popularity, but the next election is not their moment - and sadly, I think that is the only election for them to really do well in.

GommeInc
22-11-2013, 09:47 PM
UKIP would be no more of a vote realistically - yes they have gained massive popularity, but the next election is not their moment - and sadly, I think that is the only election for them to really do well in.
They do quite well in the European Elections and are projected to do better given the rise in Euroscepticism in recent years. Not sure what to think about local and general elections so can't really agree or disagree with your opinion. It will be interesting to see what happens, they may do well coming in 2nd or 3rd.

Chippiewill
26-11-2013, 09:37 PM
David Cameron says any debate will involve only people with a "prospect of becoming prime minister".
I think Mr Cameron misunderstands the purpose of the general elections, we elect MPs not prime ministers.

AgnesIO
26-11-2013, 10:12 PM
I think Mr Cameron misunderstands the purpose of the general elections, we elect MPs not prime ministers.

But the parties all state who their head would be.. ie. the Prime Minister if they win. The debates were called "Prime Ministerial Debates" for a reason :L

Chippiewill
30-11-2013, 04:01 PM
But the parties all state who their head would be.. ie. the Prime Minister if they win.

Yup, and they day after the election they can be kicked out of office by their own party and replaced with mecha-hitler. The notion of a prime ministerial debate is ridiculous at best.

AgnesIO
01-12-2013, 12:04 AM
Yup, and they day after the election they can be kicked out of office by their own party and replaced with mecha-hitler. The notion of a prime ministerial debate is ridiculous at best.

Yes, but people tend to vote (if they don't always vote for the same party) based on who will be the Prime Minister.

Of course, they could be kicked out and replaced with mecha-hitler. Now, tell me in the history of British Politics when anything even CLOSE to this has happened.

-:Undertaker:-
01-12-2013, 12:10 AM
Yes, but people tend to vote (if they don't always vote for the same party) based on who will be the Prime Minister.

Of course, they could be kicked out and replaced with mecha-hitler. Now, tell me in the history of British Politics when anything even CLOSE to this has happened.

Not that he was a Hitler :P - and i'm quite fond of him even if I disagree with what he did - but in the first election when Labour won a majority under Attlee, Labour MPs were in the lobby literally moments after winning and were about to depose him as leader before he got to Buckingham Palace to ensure he wouldn't become Prime Minister. As it goes, he arrived at the Palace in his little car and Labour MPs abandoned the attempt to depose him.

But that does show that we're a parliamentary system, not a Presidential one.

Chippiewill
01-12-2013, 09:35 PM
Yes, but people tend to vote (if they don't always vote for the same party) based on who will be the Prime Minister.

Of course, they could be kicked out and replaced with mecha-hitler. Now, tell me in the history of British Politics when anything even CLOSE to this has happened.

No one voted Labour for Gordon Brown.

AgnesIO
01-12-2013, 10:13 PM
No one voted Labour for Gordon Brown.

Yes, because Gordon Brown is a mecha-Hitler...

dana1099
01-12-2013, 10:15 PM
I think its bad that i have no idea about whats going on in UK or England.

GommeInc
01-12-2013, 10:25 PM
Yup, and they day after the election they can be kicked out of office by their own party and replaced with mecha-hitler. The notion of a prime ministerial debate is ridiculous at best.
It's funny you bring this up as I'm studying public law at the moment and you have pretty much summed up how Prime Ministers are appointed. It's assumed to be the party leader, but they can easily be changed right after an election. There's no law to instate a party leader as PM, it's just a convention - or a common practice which parties tend to follow as if it were a rule.

Chippiewill
01-12-2013, 10:43 PM
Yes, because Gordon Brown is a mecha-Hitler...
Nothing gets past you does it.

HYPERBOLE.

AgnesIO
01-12-2013, 10:46 PM
Nothing gets past you does it.

HYPERBOLE.
That wasn't really hyperbole.

Gordon Brown is as tall as a mountain would be hyperbole. Your example of Gordon Brown wasn't.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!