Oh, dear. You don't really understand the four country make up of your beloved UK, do you. How's winning enough share of the vote to form the government - that significant enough? Or are you going to accuse my country of being less significant than yours? As for rational, yep pretty rational to tar nationalists with your nasty brush. You are a UK nationalist!
As a Scot, I have similar little desire to hear the last debate, which was broadcast UK wide, which covered mainly English only matters, but yet I had to put up with it, if I wanted a debate to watch. What about debates that include each.
ONLY if you are the billy big baws. Spoken like a true ignorant bully. We see what most others see as normality. But its too ego-shrinking for you to contemplate it. You must slag off and demean. What is it you can't stand in your neighbours being equal to you?
Would it that it were the other way round, would a wee local debate on English only matters, on your local TV station, be sufficient, while the the main debates, covering mainly Scottish issues, which are irrelevant to a devolved England, are shown across the whole four countries? Why do Canada and New Zealand and, and...have all political parties present in their debates and not just three?
If we take the argument, that it should only be the ones likely to win and form government, why include the Lib Dems, as, according to political analysis, they need an unachievable swing to win outright. And, if it's only probable winners allowed, that denies the outcome, which the voters are quite entitled to produce, that more than one party will be involved in forming that government. It assumes a majority outcome. See how it skews the system. And democracy (i.e. equal access to vote regardless of circumstance etc. and every vote should be counted EQUAL.)
BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT THE GOVERNING PARTY IN ONE COUNTRY OF THE FOUR THESE ELECTIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT (yes, I am shouting ;-)
The BBC's own guidelines say, the main parties of each of the four countries must all be represented. They only showed three, representative of England. There is no equality there. Or do you support that my country should be treated with less importance than 'yours'?
Agreed. It is shocking that in a supposed democracy some political parties are excluded from these debates. And we UK voters don’t elect a president, we vote for our constituency MP. It’s an affront to us that the BBC are paying these facts such scant regard. And it’s breaking its OWN rules on impartiality in so doing. Shame on the broadcaster, that it is being so reckless with its reputation. But more so, the public’s right to democracy is being lost. That’s beyond shame, it’s a disgrace.
Have you ever Googled 'democracy'. It's not the same as 'imperial'. Canada, NZ etc. etc. seem to manage it - impartiality in their TV debates. Why not the home of the 'mother of all parliaments'? Maybe not clever enough?