Not like the rest at all ?

[teamsaint]

Jean, I would be interested to hear why you think the Greens have been treated like this.

I could speculate if you like, but perhaps not just now. :)

[french frank]

Setting aside for one moment the BBC's motives for their excessive election coverage of UKIP, here are some reflections on their extraordinarily meagre coverage of the Green Party:

So why weren’t Green Party people also being constantly interviewed about beating the Lib Dems, and even winning seats?

Why indeed?

News. The question reminds me of 1987 when I was election agent and Lib Dems were the clear (if somewhat distant) challengers to the Conservatives, with Labour trailing in third place (as in the previous election). I went in to the local paper to complain to a journalist about his report of the campaign which had reported the Labour claim that they were making headway, and saying nothing about the Lib Dems who were the challengers. The journo looked at me and after a minute's silence he said, 'So, two parties are in disagreement as to which of them is going to come second?'

[jean]

News...

The journo looked at me and after a minute's silence he said, 'So, two parties are in disagreement as to which of them is going to come second?'

Since elections are not exactly like horse races in that each new one has largely the same participants as the last, and coming second is often (always?) a first step for a new party to coming first, and news is anyway what journalists decide it is, I don't think that is a good enough excuse, then or now.

[french frank]

Since elections are not exactly like horse races in that each new one has largely the same participants as the last, and coming second is often (always?) a first step for a new party to coming first, and news is anyway what journalists decide it is, I don't think that is a good enough excuse, then or now.

I don't think it was a good excuse at all. It was a lousy excuse. But I've seen this from both sides - particularly politicians complaining about deliberately biased coverage. These things DO depend which side of the fence you're on.

Elections are like horse races, especially under FPTP: one party wins, all the others lose. When it looks like an upset or a photo finish - that's news. Otherwise it's for post election analysis.

[jean]

Jean, I would be interested to hear why you think the Greens have been treated like this.

I do think it is simply that we are not seen as 'news', and the reasons for that are not much more that that a once great party in decline is more interesting than a new one that may or may not get much further than it already has.

And of course Nige's cheeky chappie persona and his accident-prone acolytes are just so much more entertaining...

[jean]

Elections are like horse races, especially under FPTP: one party wins, all the others lose.

They are, but not in all respects.

As I tried to say above, each new election may be part of a process, a development from what's happened before. The contestants are (in most cases) representatives of political parties, not individuals (or horses.)

And the electorate do have a role in what happens. Each candidate's 'performance' does not depend solely on how fast they can run on the day.

[ahinton]

They are, but not in all respects.

As I tried to say above, each new election may be part of a process, a development from what's happened before. The contestants are (in most cases) representatives of political parties, not individuals (or horses.)

And the electorate do have a role in what happens. Each candidate's 'performance' does not depend solely on how fast they can run on the day.

Sure, but whether under FPTP or any other kind of voting system, how might you view the possibility that a new four-party system could exacerbate the difficulty of forming any kind of majority government? (I'm thinking here, as I mentioned earlier, about the risk that the LibDems rescue themselves from their current slough of electoral despond and UKIP maintains at least some kind of profile, so that the result of the next General Election might be that the only two parties that could achieve a majority in coalition are Tories and Labour).

[jean]

You're not suggesting we suppress news of the rise of fourth and fifth parties to avoid such an outcome, surely?

[ahinton]

You're not suggesting we suppress news of the rise of fourth and fifth parties to avoid such an outcome, surely?

If you mean me, no, of course not! I'm merely positing the prospect that political stability might be compromised by a situation in which no two parties that would ever be seen together in coalition could form a majority government because the balance had changed - that's all.

[teamsaint]

I do think it is simply that we are not seen as 'news', and the reasons for that are not much more that that a once great party in decline is more interesting than a new one that may or may not get much further than it already has.

And of course Nige's cheeky chappie persona and his accident-prone acolytes are just so much more entertaining...

Somebody sets news agendas. Somebody decides these things.

Green issues are popular with the public.

This kind of bias is not just bad luck, surely?

[Beef Oven!]

Sure, but whether under FPTP or any other kind of voting system, how might you view the possibility that a new four-party system could exacerbate the difficulty of forming any kind of majority government? (I'm thinking here, as I mentioned earlier, about the risk that the LibDems rescue themselves from their current slough of electoral despond and UKIP maintains at least some kind of profile, so that the result of the next General Election might be that the only two parties that could achieve a majority in coalition are Tories and Labour).

You're not suggesting we suppress news of the rise of the third and fifth parties to avoid such an outcome, surely?

[ahinton]

You're not suggesting we suppress news of the rise of the third and fifth parties to avoid such an outcome, surely?

See #744 in response to jean; I am not suggesting the suppression of any news - merely pointing out what I did in that post.

Wouldn't your repetition here be better used on the Minimalism thread?

[french frank]

Each candidate's 'performance' does not depend solely on how fast they can run on the day.

But I think that's where the difference between 'news' (i.e. election coverage, during the campaigns) differs from political importance which does not necessarily have 'news value'. As for 'green issues' - the Liberal Democrats used to complain in just the same way that they got no coverage. And that changed because they were well into double figures in Parliament, not because of their policies. And they didn't win those early seats through getting fair news coverage.

The Greens are fortunate that 'green' resonates with the public (as does 'Europe') more than Parliamentary or electoral reform, but I doubt much of the electorate knows much about the party policies. Notwithstanding, it's the resonances that will lead to Parliamentary successes, not the policies (in my view).

UKIP were hugely more successful than the Greens in the local elections as well as in the Euros, and the story was 'how successful?' For the Lib Dems it was 'how unsuccessful'? Some might think it was BECAUSE UKIP were talked up by the media, but that isn't generally how it works. I think the Greens are in it for the long haul, UKIP are the Britain's Got Talent winners.

[Serial_Apologist]

Somebody sets news agendas. Somebody decides these things.

Green issues are popular with the public.

This kind of bias is not just bad luck, surely?

I think it's because the Greens - whatever they, or some of them think - in order for their policies to be implemented, would take a huge challenge to the capitalist order, one which the ruling class would rather bring the whole Earth to the point of human uninhabitability than risk forfeiting their privileges and power to decide the fate of life on our planet.

As long as the state does its job of keeping an eye on dissent and their mates in the press and media in general are on-side by keeping schtum people won't be thinking about the Green Party, or equally unmentionable demonstrations such as last Saturday's here in London which, by the way, does appear to have attracted some 50,000, contrary to what I said.

[ahinton]

I think it's because the Greens - whatever they, or some of them think - in order for their policies to be implemented, would take a huge challenge to the capitalist order, one which the ruling class would rather bring the whole Earth to the point of human uninhabitability than risk forfeiting their privileges and power to decide the fate of life on our planet.

I'm not convinced that this would in fact be the case. Yes, if, for example, individuals were encouraged and helped on a sufficiently large scale to install various energy efficient means to keep their bills down, thereby reducing the demand for fossil fuel based energy supply, it might ultimately be something of a "challenge to the capitalist order" to the extent that it would weaken the power of the oil conglomerates, but it would at the same time put more into the hands of the individual to control his/her energy consumption destiny and that would surely represent a substitution of international large-scale corporate capitalism with small-scale personal capitalism, wouldn't it?

I realise that this is only a single example, but I think that it would be a mistake to seek to equate Green Party (or indeed other ecologicallly sound) thinking with challenges to the capitalist order as though Green philosophy and capitalism were by definition mutually and wholly exclusive.