Nigel Farage should be barred from any General Election TV debate, and here’s why

As I start, I’m aware of the accusations that will inevitably be levelled at me; sour grapes, because UKIP have overtaken the ‘toast’ Lib Dems in the opinion polls. I confess that the polls do not make for comfortable reading as it stands, but at the heart of this debate is a rational, pragmatic answer. Where do we draw a line? Sooner rather than later the issue of another round of TV election debates will arise, no doubt focusing on the potential no-show of David Cameron and the Conservative Party. However, what will also make headlines is UKIP’s demand for inclusion, with Nigel Farage threatening court action if his party are excluded. He should not be allowed a podium in the debates, and here’s why.

With reference to Alex Salmond and the SNP’s exclusion from the debates in 2010, Farage commented “he only contested 60 seats, we’re intending to contest 630 or 640. It would be expensive to go to court but I would not preclude it”. However, if he is to use this logic as a reason for inclusion, then the Monster Raving Loony Party could try and muster together enough money to contest as many seats, and therefore merit a TV debate podium. Furthermore, if UKIP are to have a podium with no representatives in parliament, then what’s to stop the Green Party from making similar demands with their one MP? Should George Galloway and the Respect Party have a role in the debate too due to their by-election success in Bradford? If we are to base it on the fact that UKIP have 11 MEPs, then the BNP could demand representation with their single MEP. Farage may claim that UKIP are the new third party in British politics, but this has not yet been borne out in parliamentary representation.

Farage may well point to the poll figures as justification, but this is hardly the most credible territory. The Liberal Democrats were in second place in many opinion polls for much of the 2010 Election campaign, before gaining 23% of the vote on Election day; a 1% vote share increase from 2005. The SDP-Liberal Alliance had polling figures of around 50% prior to the Falklands War in the early 1980s, with Mrs Thatcher’s Conservatives in third place. The main parties could only dream of polling that sort of figure now, and even if UKIP were to raise above the giddy heights of 20% in the polls (which they rarely have), is Farage really going to go to the BBC and present as evidence a series of ‘reliable’ and not so reliable opinion polling?

David Cameron remains sceptical of another TV debate even with Farage out of the picture, so it would be a great shame if this democratic and engaging process was to be halted for any reason, whether exacerbated by Farage’s presence or not. I’ve said ‘trust the people’ in this blog before, and I meant it. If TV debate were to occur for the European Elections in 2014, I would have no qualms with UKIP having a podium. With 13 seats won at the 2009 European Elections, UKIP had the joint highest number of MEPs (with Labour), and so would have representative legitimacy. However, the issue is over the UK and the 2015 General Election, and as it stands UKIP have no MPs. As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, Proportional Representation would reinvigorate Elections and include more parties in the parliamentary process; if the likes of UKIP and the Greens were to receive a higher share of parliamentary seats as a consequence, then perhaps the TV debate argument would take a new shape. However, PR for General Elections is a long way off yet.

It is difficult to set a parameter or entry requirement for TV debates. If based on the number of seats, then what should the number be? Should it be based on a percentage of seats? There is no straightforward or consensual answer, but as it stands the Lib Dems are a clear third in terms of seats won in 2010 (57 seats); the closest party after that is the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland with 8 seats. The Lib Dems could well lose many seats in 2015, but even if they were to fall to around 20 MPs, the best UKIP can hope for in 2015 is around 5 MPs, under a disenfranchising electoral system. Farage may have more support than for TV debate representation, but we cannot base our decision making on 2015 by preempting electoral results.

With a strong surge in support, it is understandable for Farage to demand a stronger voice, and if he is to raise concerns about First Past the Post (which he labelled “a disaster” for UKIP), then I can more than sympathise. A large increase in UKIP’s vote share and no MPs to show for it in 2015 may well put electoral reform back on the agenda (Farage was part of the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign in 2011), but with 0 MPs at present, Farage’s demands for a TV debate podium aren’t built on solid ground.

Sarah Teather’s exit would have carried more credence had she practiced what she preached

With Party Conference season looming, Sarah Teather has perhaps ensured that yet another Liberal Democrat Conference will convene with controversy hanging over its shoulders, having resigned over “some aspects of government policy”. Refusing to pull any punches, she “no longer feels that Nick Clegg’s party fights sufficiently for social justice and liberal values on immigration…something did break for me that was never, ever repaired”. I’m not doubting that she has been in turmoil over the decision, nor that she has some honest intentions. However, when viewing her voting record, perhaps this ‘noble’ stance should be scrutinised more.

Credit where credit is due; she did vote against the recent benefits cap, and she also voted against military action in Syria. Furthermore, she overturned a Labor majority of over 13,000 in Brent East in 2003, and as a minister in the coalition she played a role in ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. However, this blog article isn’t about the merits of Ms Teather’s abilities. Once again, I’ve no doubt that she voted on many unpopular things with a heavy heart, but the wording of her resignation published in The Observer hints all too much of a holier than thou attitude. She voted for the increase in tuition fees, along with the increase in VAT to 20%. Although I’m not a fan of Zac Goldsmith, his tweet sums up the situation quite well; “Sarah Teather is desperately angry about all those policies she voted for. The alternative of course was not voting for them”. Andrew George would have been a far better candidate for resignation; he has voted against the coalition more than any other Lib Dem MP. In some ways she is doing the party a favour by not stepping down immediately a la Louise Mensch, which would have left the Lib Dems with the task of a tough by-election, along with the prospect of an open goal for the Labour Party. However, in choosing to time her resignation not long before the Lib Dem Conference, she is making a slight mockery of the “loyalty and friendship” that she tried to balance with colleagues.

Teather is of course right to highlight the Conservative’s pathetic and offensive “go home” van messages to illegal immigrants, but in choosing to resign she has perhaps lost the capacity to stay in the camp and fight against it; in stepping down at the 2015 election, she is essentially a lame duck MP. Whilst Labour are busy battling trade union reform, the Lib Dems perhaps could have benefited slightly from an upturn in economic fortunes, whilst tempering any potential Conservative triumphalism. Now Clegg is presented with a dilemma of either addressing Teather’s resignation head on at the Conference and defending the party, or shrugging it off and keeping his thoughts on the matter under wraps. However, whether the accusation that the party “no longer…fights sufficiently for social justice” is from Teather or the general public, Clegg has to answer the question head on. Raising the income tax threshold to £10,000 and initiating a multi-billion pound pupil premium for the poorest primary school students are very good starting points, along with shared parental leave for 2015. However, it is vital that Clegg pursues the proposals for raising the threshold to around £12,500 (taking everyone on the minimum wage out of income tax), a radical plan which could outflank Labour on social justice whilst at the same time proving to be a sensible option not open to a “lurch to the left” ridicule from the Conservatives. It’s a shame that Teather was not up to the fight of defending these proud achievements as well as questioning unpopular government policies.

Sarah Teather is a well-known Lib Dem MP, and it is a blow to the party. Her exit can now be easily pounced upon by the Opposition; cue Ed Miliband in his Conference speech declaring “the Liberal Democrats no longer fight for social justice and liberal values; Sarah Teather’s words, not mine!” However, her questionable voting record should take some of the sting out of the situation, and the resignation of a more high profile Lib Dem such as Vince Cable would have been a far more calamitous move. The Liberal Democrats need to move on from this and take the resignation as motivation to prove Ms Teather wrong. Whilst championing their achievements, they need to highlight popular policies such as the Mansion Tax which would be implemented but for the Conservatives, suggesting both a reason to vote for the Lib Dems and a reason not to vote for the Tories. As for Sarah Teather, it seems she is culpable for voting for the supposed policies which she now condemns. She has fallen on her sword, but it is a double-edged sword.