Asking the Wrong Question - Cameron and The Greens

Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator for the UK yesterday morning decided effectively to bar the Greens, the one anti-austerity UK-wide party, from any significant TV and radio coverage at the General Election this May. But by the evening the Green Party unusually and ironically found itself in the national TV headlines after Prime Minister David Cameron said he would refuse to take part in the Leaders' debates on TV unless the Greens were included.

This is not news as such - Cameron first said this back in the summer when the BBC and other broadcasters issued a proposal for three debates in the run up to the polls, one of which would include UKIP but none the Greens. Ofcom's ruling covers not only the debates but all broadcast media - TV and radio news programmes and party political broadcasts in particular.

Ofcom's convoluted reasoning holds that UKIP is a major party deserving of coverage while the Greens are not. Hence we will have four pro-austerity, neoliberal parties covered, more than ever creating an illusion of choice for voters which bears just more of the same in reality. The Greens, who oppose austerity and campaign for greater equality would provide the only different narrative in any debate.

Cameron is not, of course, staking out his position for reasons of principle and fair debate, although unsurprisingly this is the argument he claims. With UKIP rising until recently largely at the Tories' cost, he has calculated that a Green presence would counter that any damage Nigel Farage inflicted on the Conservatives by the Greens impacting on Labour and the Lib Dems. Alternatively, with him as the incumbent, he knows that he is more vulnerable to attack from other leaders and so may be quite content to not have any debates while posing as a champion of fairplay.

So, all day, the media have been interviewing his confirmed opponents for the debate - Farage, Miliband and a rather hysterical Clegg (who briefly soared after the first "I-agree-with-Nick" debate last time). Why, they keep being asked, do they think Cameron is doing this? And of course, without exception, they say that he is keen to avoid the debates altogether and using the Greens as an excuse.

A more interesting question might have been to ask each of them for their reasons for not wanting the Greens to have a place. Why don't they just call Cameron's bluff and agree to have the Greens take part? Why won't they debate with the Greens? 

After all, the Greens had an MP four years before UKIP won their first one (a Tory defector who stood again in his own constituency as UKIP). Greens outpolled the Lib Dems across the UK at the European elections last May and won 3 MEPs to the Lib Dems' one. They reached 10% in the opinion polls before Christmas, one point ahead of Clegg's party and just three per cent behind UKIP - they are particularly popular among younger voters and are in second place to Labour among students. In Scotland, there are now more Green Party members than individual members of the Scottish Labour Party, while nationally 40,000 people are members of the Greens -possibly slightly more than UKIP and just 4,000 behind the Lib Dems' last declared membership figures. Nearly 300,000 people signed a petition calling for the Greens to be invited on the leaders' debates, while opinion polls show that about 4/5 of voters want them on, with clear majorities among supporters of all parties.

Greens - on rise among students, and everywhere else

So, who is really frit of the debates? Cameron maybe. But, in the absence of any other explanation or view being offered (aside from Paddy Ashdown's absurd claim that a fifth leader would confuse the voters!), Clegg, Miliband and Farage are clearly scared too - scared of a party that stands for the opposite of the dead, elitist agenda they offer. Because, in the end, bar a bit of tinkering here and there, these neolib quadruplets all offer pretty much the same - Britain PLC as a profit-seekers, privatised paradise, its people reduced to low wage service drones. All of them, in the end, have one purpose - to serve the interests of an ever smaller, ever richer and ever more bloated elite at the top of our society.

Noam Chomsky's warning has never been more appropriate: “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

So, all four of the men (and they are all men) who lead the neoliberal parties are playing a game. None of them, Cameron included, really want the Greens, or other truly different parties, to be heard. Rather, the PM hopes to have no debates at all while his rivals want ones that minimise their other competitors.

No one has asked them the questions that really matter. But then that's not news. Nor is it any surprise at all.

But we can make our views known and voices heard. Ofcom's decision is open to challenge via a consultation process now underway. You can comment by emailing them via http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/major-parties-15/  or phone them on  0300 123 3333 . The process runs until 5 February. Tweet your views as well using the hashtag #invitethegreens. Similarly, to call for the leaders' of the nationalist parties to be invited too, sign on to #leadersdebates and #fairdebate2015 .

And, whether the decision is changed or not, our fading Establishment can know that one more mask has been peeled away and one more column chipped a bit more deeply as the facade they put up for British democracy slips yet further into its terminal decay.

Still Nothing Worth Watching... UKIP TV

Last weekend, a Spring conference of a national political railed against inequality, cuts to the NHS and tax evasion by the wealthy and called for a basic citizens' income to be paid to all adults. The same party heard how its MEPs (Members of the European Parliament) have worked to create laws that give real protection to workers and consumers, that support communities facing pollution from big business and introduced a cap on bankers' bonuses. This party has an MP, 2 MEPs, and over 160 local authority councillors as well as 2 members of the London Assembly and its candidate came third in the last London Mayoral contest.

However, the Green Party gained relatively little coverage for its work and proposals. When leader Natalie Bennett was granted an audience with the eminence gris of Radio 4, John Humphrys, his main focus was on whether or not the party should change its name.

Wall to wall coverage meantime went to another party - UKIP, the United Kingdom Independence Party. As for some months, its seemingly ubiquitous leader, Nigel Farage, has been profiled ceaselessly on TV, radio and press. One Tweeter was even moved to state "Listened to Sports Radio Bulletin & no quotes from UKIP. Britain isn't what it used to be."

This in spite of UKIP having no MPs, and having just pulled ahead of the Greens in terms of local councillors last year (and subsequently losing swathes of these councillors either to breakaway groups, resignations, suspensions from councils or expulsion from their own party). The party's MEPs for a second parliament in a row have plunged in number as they have been expelled or left of their own accord (although to be fair, this time none of them have gone to jail for fiddling expenses). Their record of attendance in the European Parliament is pisspoor beyond compare and when they have turned up they have voted against/abstained on votes calling for action to stop violence against women, including female genital mutilation. In spite of this, they happily draw the salaries and expenses funded by the taxpayers they claim to be defending.

In policy terms, they are indistinguishable from the Tory right wing - opposed to Europe, supporting cuts to the NHS and pensions, opposing action on bankers' excesses and hostile to immigration while ignoring the millions of Britons living in Europe. And they even have a councillor who asked on social media if tuna is "a real fish that swims in water".

UKIP have nevertheless been polling reasonably well in opinion polls - around the 10 - 12% level, neck and neck with the sucker-punched Lib dems. So now Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, has decided that UKIP is to be treated as a major party for the purposes of broadcasting during the European elections. This means parity of coverage on the BBC and commercial TV and radio channels with the Tories, Labour and Lib dems. It also strengthens Farage's claim for a place in any Leaders' debate at next years general election - and indeed reflecting this, the BBC have already set up a Nigel Farage-Nick Clegg debate in early April.

 (A note for viewers in Scotland: There are some limited exceptions in Scottish-only programming given UKIP's dire position north of the Border - keep up the good work! However, Scots can be assured that they will still be able to see plenty of Farage & Co on all UK-wide programmes such as Newsnight, Question Time and the Daily Politics as well as all news bulletins. One more reason to vote Yes!)

So UKIP joins the three other neoliberal parties on the telly. Needless to say, the Greens and any other parties with genuinely different agendas (especially, it seems, left wing ones) are still not invited - our viewing is restricted to a mere illusion of choice. "Balance" in political broadcasting is a rather oddly interpreted word, with a clear bias to providing the status quo with a near overwhelming incumbent advantage. This paralyses genuine political discourse in a context where access to media is often key to any political idea or movement being taken seriously. Indeed, UKIP's rise is not entirely unattributable to polling organisations adding them to their list of parties respondents are prompted to think about when asked how they plan to vote. The Greens and others are not currently included - on the occasions they have been, they often poll between twice and four times their normal showing.

Of course, you could argue that this is just crying over spilt milk on the party of a Green. But on the other hand, you could look to the absence of any real debate on the mass media about our society and our world and the future we face. Instead, like a set of adverts for banks or insurance firms, you get some mild variations on a theme. Go compare, but don't waste your time for too long - they really are all pretty much the same.

So many channels; so little choice...