We can make this a better country with UKIP. I run a science fiction bookshop in Glasgow (which partly explains my enthusiasm for human progress). Married to Hazel. Living in Woodlands. My father was Eastwood candidate for the Liberals. I spoke at LibDem conference in support of nuclear power, against illegal wars, for economic freedom and was the only person to speak directly against introducing the smoking ban. I was expelled, charged with economic liberalism. In 2007 I stood as the 9% Growth Party for economic freedom and cheap (nuclear) electricity. I am still proud of that manifesto - if vfollowed we would not have rising electricity bills and would be 80% better off with 7 years of 9% growth.
- UKIP is the only party opposed to Scotland having the most expensive "Climate Change Act" in the world; only party that wants us out of the EU - only part of the world economy still in recession - the rest is growing at an average of nearly 6% a year; only party opposed to effectively unlimited immigration; committed to growing our economy by the only way it can be done Economic Freedom + Cheap Energy; we offer referenda as a basic citizen right, as Switzerland and California do. --- Neil Craig
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Debate. Show all posts

Monday, 23 June 2014

  Letter to 30 papers:

Sir,
       This morning I found that, overnight, somebody had plastered a large Yes sticker (5" so much rarer than the button sized ones) on my door. I assume this is because I am well known as a UKIP supporter or because I have asked some pointed questions of the cybernats on the Wings over Scotland site.

      Remember how Alex Salmond went out of his way to endorse the thugs who attacked Nigel Farage last year (& rejected Willie Rennie's call to "call off his dogs" when Nigel visited this year.

      If this is how the "nationalists" behave now, what should we expect if they win?

Neil Craig
 

Friday, 20 June 2014

JK Rowling - Independence Is Not Just For Christmas

     This is JK Rowling's comments on independence. As Mike Haseler pointed out the original was formatted to make it difficult to read, which is a shame because it is about as serious and sensible as anything anybody has said on the subject:

Before you read the following, please be warned that it’s probably of interest only to people who live in Scotland or the UK (and not all of them!)  If you read on regardless, you need to know that there is going to be a referendum on 18th September on whether or not Scotland should leave the United Kingdom.  If you’re only vaguely interested, or pressed for time, there’s a mention of Death Eaters in paragraph 5.

I came to the question of independence with an open mind and an awareness of the seriousness of what we are being asked to decide.  This is not a general election, after which we can curse the result, bide our time and hope to get a better result in four years.  Whatever Scotland decides, we will probably find ourselves justifying our choice to our grandchildren.  I wanted to write this because I always prefer to explain in my own words why I am supporting a cause and it will be made public shortly that I’ve made a substantial donation to the Better Together Campaign, which advocates keeping Scotland part of the United Kingdom.

As everyone living in Scotland will know, we are currently being bombarded with contradictory figures and forecasts/warnings of catastrophe/promises of Utopia as the referendum approaches and I expect we will shortly be enjoying (for want of a better word) wall-to-wall coverage.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should say that I am friendly with individuals involved with both the Better Together Campaign and the Yes Campaign, so I know that there are intelligent, thoughtful people on both sides of this question.  Indeed, I believe that intelligent, thoughtful people predominate.

However, I also know that there is a fringe of nationalists who like to demonise anyone who is not blindly and unquestionably pro-independence and I suspect, notwithstanding the fact that I’ve lived in Scotland for twenty-one years and plan to remain here for the rest of my life, that they might judge me ‘insufficiently Scottish’ to have a valid view.  It is true that I was born in the West Country and grew up on the Welsh border and while I have Scottish blood on my mother’s side, I also have English, French and Flemish ancestry.  However, when people try to make this debate about the purity of your lineage, things start getting a little Death Eaterish for my taste.  By residence, marriage, and out of gratitude for what this country has given me, my allegiance is wholly to Scotland and it is in that spirit that I have been listening to the months of arguments and counter-arguments.

On the one hand, the Yes campaign promises a fairer, greener, richer and more equal society if Scotland leaves the UK, and that sounds highly appealing.  I’m no fan of the current Westminster government and I couldn’t be happier that devolution has protected us from what is being done to health and education south of the border.  I’m also frequently irritated by a London-centric media that can be careless and dismissive in its treatment of Scotland.  On the other hand, I’m mindful of the fact that when RBS needed to be bailed out, membership of the union saved us from economic catastrophe and I worry about whether North Sea oil can, as we are told by the ‘Yes’ campaign, sustain and even improve Scotland’s standard of living.

Some of the most pro-independence people I know think that Scotland need not be afraid of going it alone, because it will excel no matter what.  This romantic outlook strikes a chord with me, because I happen to think that this country is exceptional, too.  Scotland has punched above its weight in just about every field of endeavour you care to mention, pouring out world-class scientists, statesmen, economists, philanthropists, sportsmen, writers, musicians and indeed Westminster Prime Ministers in quantities you would expect from a far larger country.

My hesitance at embracing independence has nothing to do with lack of belief in Scotland’s remarkable people or its achievements.  The simple truth is that Scotland is subject to the same twenty-first century pressures as the rest of the world.  It must compete in the same global markets, defend itself from the same threats and navigate what still feels like a fragile economic recovery.

  The more I listen to the Yes campaign, the more I worry about its minimisation and even denial of risks.  Whenever the big issues are raised – our heavy reliance on oil revenue if we become independent, what currency we’ll use, whether we’ll get back into the EU – reasonable questions are drowned out by accusations of ‘scaremongering.’  Meanwhile, dramatically differing figures and predictions are being slapped in front of us by both campaigns, so that it becomes difficult to know what to believe.

I doubt I’m alone in trying to find as much impartial and non-partisan information as I can, especially regarding the economy.  Of course, some will say that worrying about our economic prospects is poor-spirited, because those people take the view ‘I’ll be skint if I want to and Westminster can’t tell me otherwise’.  I’m afraid that’s a form of ‘patriotism’ that I will never understand.  It places higher importance on ‘sticking it’ to David Cameron, who will be long gone before the full consequences of independence are felt, than to looking after your own.  It prefers the grand ‘up yours’ gesture to considering what you might be doing to the prospects of future generations.

The more I have read from a variety of independent and unbiased sources, the more I have come to the conclusion that while independence might give us opportunities – any change brings opportunities – it also carries serious risks.  The Institute for Fiscal Studies concludes that Alex Salmond has underestimated the long-term impact of our ageing population and the fact that oil and gas reserves are being depleted.  This view is also taken by the independent study ‘Scotland’s Choices: The Referendum and What Happens Afterwards’ by Iain McLean, Jim Gallagher and Guy Lodge, which says that ‘it would be a foolish Scottish government that planned future public expenditure on the basis of current tax receipts from North Sea oil and gas’.

My fears about the economy extend into an area in which I have a very personal interest: Scottish medical research.  Having put a large amount of money into Multiple Sclerosis research here, I was worried to see an open letter from all five of Scotland’s medical schools expressing ‘grave concerns’ that independence could jeopardise what is currently Scotland’s world-class performance in this area.  Fourteen professors put their names to this letter, which says that Alex Salmond’s plans for a common research funding area are ‘fraught with difficulty’ and ‘unlikely to come to fruition’.

According to the professors who signed the letter, ‘it is highly unlikely that the remaining UK would tolerate a situation in which an independent “competitor” country won more money than it contributed.’  In this area, as in many others, I worry that Alex Salmond’s ambition is outstripping his reach.

I’ve heard it said that ‘we’ve got to leave, because they’ll punish us if we don’t’, but my guess is that if we vote to stay, we will be in the heady position of the spouse who looked like walking out, but decided to give things one last go.  All the major political parties are currently wooing us with offers of extra powers, keen to keep Scotland happy so that it does not hold an independence referendum every ten years and cause uncertainty and turmoil all over again.  I doubt whether we will ever have been more popular, or in a better position to dictate terms, than if we vote to stay.

If we leave, though, there will be no going back.  This separation will not be quick and clean: it will take microsurgery to disentangle three centuries of close interdependence, after which we will have to deal with three bitter neighbours.  I doubt that an independent Scotland will be able to bank on its ex-partners’ fond memories of the old relationship once we’ve left.  The rest of the UK will have had no say in the biggest change to the Union in centuries, but will suffer the economic consequences. 

When Alex Salmond tells us that we can keep whatever we’re particularly attached to – be it EU membership, the pound or the Queen, or insists that his preferred arrangements for monetary union or defence will be rubber-stamped by our ex-partners – he is talking about issues that Scotland will need, in every case, to negotiate.  In the words of ‘Scotland’s Choices’ ‘Scotland will be very much the smaller partner seeking arrangements from the UK to meet its own needs, and may not be in a very powerful negotiating position.’

If the majority of people in Scotland want independence I truly hope that it is a resounding success. While a few of our fiercer nationalists might like to drive me forcibly over the border after reading this, I’d prefer to stay and contribute to a country that has given me more than I can easily express.  It is because I love this country that I want it to thrive.  Whatever the outcome of the referendum on 18th September, it will be a historic moment for Scotland.  I just hope with all my heart that we never have cause to look back and feel that we made a historically bad mistake.

Saturday, 14 June 2014

Proportional Representation (PR) or First Past The Post (FPTP)

   A few days ago I was, as one is, involved in a pub discussion over Proportional Representation V the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system.

So this is a list of the arguments for PR, most of which I never thought of at the time:

1 - Its democratic. We get the results we actually voted for.

2 - PR is far more stable than FPTP since a small change in % voting doesn't mean an utterly opposed party gets a majority.

3 - In economics one of the few things almost all economists agree on is that free competition is better than monopoly for customers and in particular for encouraging innovation. And in turn that maintaining a monopoly requires barriers to entry to the industry. FPTP is a very high barrier
 since, at least in theory UKIP, to take 1 example, could get 25% of the national vote and 0% of representatives (ie 0 MPs).

4 - FPTP artificially enhances differences between different geographical regions. In Scotland FPTP gives us an overwhelming Labour majority on under 40% of the vote. In the south of England there is an overwhelming Tory majority, again on about 42% of the vote. In fact neither are remotely as "leftist" or "rightist" with the majority voting against the ruling "consensus". This has led Scots to actually believe the guff we are told of how we have different political values - leading to the current referendum.

5 - Where a particularist party (ie one which deliberately appeals to an ethnic group or "working class") gets a hold and its supporters live together (thus no feminist party can use this) it will get representation far greater than similar non-particularist parties. Particularism means people not caring for society as a whole which is a bad very thing for society.

6 - MPs in marginal constituencies get changed but those in safe seats have a job for life. In safe ones the only electorate the MP need fear is the tiny number of people in their constituency selection committee.

7 - Where there are several parties, as now, the majority of people in the large majority of constituencies are going to be represented by somebody they didn't want. How "represented" that makes them feel must be questionable.

8 - Thus under FPTP people, correctly, feel their own vote doesn't count.

9 - Indeed parties' political analysts often say the election turns on about 50,000 floating voters in marginal constituencies.

10 - In some areas you get 1 entirely immovable party that has held complete power for generations, which encourages corruption and contempt for the electors (yes I do mean Glasgow Labour).

11 - The US civil war is an example of the breakdown of trust that FPTP can produce. The South's secession was as brought about by Lincoln winning an overwhelming majority of electoral places on 39.7% of the vote. Had there been a run off he would probably have lost.

12 - Because FPTP tends to dragoon politics into a 2 party system it means the nuances of dissent aren't shown.

13 - Theoretically FPTP should produce a 1 party system because a party that gets 60% of vthe vote in every constituency will get 100% of MPs. Normally this doesn't happen because ruling parties turn out uniformly to be so bad that opposition coalesces into an 2nd party - hence 2 party system. The only exception to this is Singapore where 1 party has won since independence, but Singapore has actually had remarkable competent government.

14 - Gerrymandering (setting constituency boundaries in such a way as to ensure voters for those in charge are spread evenly enough for them to win a small majority in some areas while all opposition voters are in one constituency where they get only 1 member) is a constant problem, sometimes more blatantly than others.

15 - Feedback. The great advantage of democracy, or any sort of parliamentary government, over other systems is that when something isn't working society sends a sign. This is known as negative feedback and is a requirement in any complex machinery (the centrifugal governor made the steam age).  The glandular system does the same for the body. I believe such feedback is equally vital to governmental systems. FPTP does allow some feedback but it takes much greater effort and usually limits the signal that can be sent to the official opposition party's.

16 - Because power is in the hands of big parties, the individual MP's fate is very much in the hands of whoever is party leader. When MPs stand in their own name they are almost always squeezed out. Compare this with both Margo MacDonald and Dennis Canavan both of whom refused to accept being fired by their parties.

For PR

1 - It maintains the constituency link - everybody can find out who their representative as (though as #7 shows) the odds are they will not represent their views.

2 - It provides united government able to take action. Thus when Mussolini took power he introduced an FPTP rule applying to the total Parliament - that the largest single party must automatically get 60% of the seats. This system is in some ways better than our sort of PR in that the barrier to entry is only at the government level not at the getting into Parliament level so parties with new ideas are not so wholly excluded. Decisive united government is a bonus, if you are sure it will be decisive in the right direction.
 
-----------------------------------------
   Which explains why, consistently over decades, polls have shown the British people support PR by roughly 70%:20%; why the ruling parties who are doing well out of FPTP support FPTP & why UKIP supports PR. I think the results of the next election, where the winner is likely to get no more than 35% of the votes and the 2 losing parties above 25% will show how corrupt our present system is.

Monday, 28 April 2014

Lib Democrats Refuse To Debate on EU - Willie Rennie Knows His Lie About The EU Helping The Economy Simply Cannot Be Defended

  OK my apologies for being offline for the last few weeks.

  I can confirm that I have received no response, not only from Willie Rennie, the Scottish Lib Dem leader, but from ANY representative of the party to defend his claim, at the "Glasgow Skeptics" censored "debate" on separatism, that EU membership is economically beneficial.

  This empty chair seems appropriate.

 
   However, when an opponent runs from the field one may reasonably claim victory.
 
  I had originally planned to run this debate over a full week but because I was offline taking it up again seems inappropriate. I have sent this
 
Dear Mr Rennie and Lib Dem Party,
                                                           I note you & your party's refusal to debate, openly online or elsewhere, your claim that EU membership is beneficial to our economy.
 
     I trust you will not object to the obvious conclusion that you know this claim cannot successfully be sustained in open debate (as Mr Clegg has also shown).
 
     However I do not think it can either be disputed that open debate of issues is a necessary requirement of democracy or indeed liberalism and I put it to you that your refusal to debate is thus also proof that you and your party are neither liberal nor democratic. Let me know if you dispute either assumption or conclusion.
 
      In that light I would be willing to debate, in the same form, with you, or any approved "LD" spokesman on ANY subject where the UKIP position differs from yours.
 
      I assume that if you can find even 1 policy promoted by your party which is better than that of UKIP you will be more than happy to debate it.
 
     I look forward to finding if there is any such.
 
    Sincerely
    Neil Craig
 

Monday, 31 March 2014

"EU Membership Damages Rather Than Improves Our Economy" - Part I of VI Part Debate With Scottish Lib Dem Leader Or Nominee

   Last Monday Willie Rennie publicly claimed that UKIP’s desire for growth was inconsistent with wanting to quit the EU. He knew UKIP were censored from the debate  – hence the present online debate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1980 the 10 EU countries represented 30.9% of world gdp. Now the 28  represent 18.3% and declining. The world economy is growing at 3.4%, which means, with the EU in recession, the non-EU 83% is growing at 4.1%. The EU is the only zone of the world economy in recession.

    Why is the EU failing? Professor Tim Congdon calculates that membership costs us £170 billion & Professor Minford has a similar figure. This includes an estimate of 5% of gdp lost directly though EU bureaucracy (the rest is mainly higher food costs, welfare costs of immigrants and our direct financial payment). If this be thought surprisingly large it may be because it is little reported in Britain that EU Commissioner, Gunter Verheuggen has publicly estimated bureaucracy cost slightly higher at 5.5% of the community’s wealth.

   This is simply the immediate cost – the long term cost of the lost growth giving us an economy half the size it should be is far greater.

     For 40 years now British politicians have said that all that is needed is reform and they will achieve it, given a couple more years. We didn’t quit when we were ahead. Perhaps we should quit now we are [40yrs X £170bn} £6,800,000,000,000 behind.

Saturday, 8 March 2014

Will The Viewing Figures Of The UKIP/LD Debate On BBC2 Beat BBC1 At The Same Time?

  My reply to an opponent of both UKIP & LibDems in our forthcoming BBC 2 debate saying:

   "but the great battle of the minnows in the debate to come is going to help both parties"
-------------------------------------------------
Good point. Though, if polls are to be believed (or expectations UKIP will come 1st in the UK election) it is hardly a minnow being nearly the same size as the LabCons. But it is true that in terms of media coverage, particularly the state owned BBC with its legal duty of "balance" UKIP is virtually a sardine.

But yes it has always been that coverage in the big media has always been skewed towards 2 parties and even if the LDs do better, per capita, than UKIP they are still largely excluded from the approved 2. Both parties gain from open debate (as, even moreso, does the public since it is possible we will see some real disagreement on substantive issues which is not normally what the media do).

It will be very interesting to see what viewing figures on this BBC2 programme are compared to BBC1 at the same time or normal viewing figures at the same spot the previous week. If they are as embarrassingly good for the BBC as I suspect it will be difficult for them to censor future debates involving either these parties or the serious undiscussed issues.
----------------------------------------

    On the same subject Tim Worstall recently made the point that the UKIP court ruling, that we are entitled to as much coverage as the "main" parties is actually a win for the LDs since what the BBC "guidelines" actually said was that the 1st 3 parties were entitled to coverage but nobody else and the LDs are actually now clearly 4th.

    Technically Tim was right but in reality not since the BBC write and rewrite their "guidelines" as they please and it is obvious that (A) the current 3rd party aren't getting the coverage of the 4th (4th & 5th respectively in Scotland and (B) that the BBC will rewrite the rules again to allow whatever they want and only the possibility that a court might be stirred into some, limited, activity will hold them. 

Thursday, 20 February 2014

BBC "Debate" Without Opposition Voice

      I will be in the audience tomorrow for BBC Radio Scotland's Brian's Big Debate.

WHERE:  GTG Building, 1330 SOUTH STREET, GLASGOW G14 0BJ
WHEN:           Friday 21st February
TIMES:  Doors open at the venue at 11:00am the show is on air from 12pm - 1pm
 
We are invited to submit audience questions on current issues & I have submitted these 3. I think the chances of any of them being chosen are comparable with the chances of any member of Scotland's 4th party being invited on the panel.
 
Questions
 
1 - With Mr Barroso pointing out the difficulty of an independent Scotland getting into the EU is it time for the SNP to decide that their policy of joining on any terms, without even allowing the people a referendum, is unwise.
 
2 - The SNP's white paper promises that after separation there would remain a common electricity regime and England would still put subsidies into renewables in Scotland. With Scotland to be 100% renewable by 2020, is it safe to promise this.
 
3 - With the Cowdenbeath by election UKIP is the 4th party in Scotland; the Wythenshawe by election makes it the 2nd in the north, it is widely expected that in the EU elections, the only UK election carried out under an uncorrupt electoral system, UKIP will come first. With the BBC's legal duty of "balance" when would it be proper to be allowed on here? 

Saturday, 15 February 2014

LibDems Want To Go "Head to Head" With UKIP But Refuse To Debate, Relying On BBC To Censor For Them

There are  just 100 days to stop the UK Independence Party becoming a permanent major force in British politics, Nick Clegg warns today.


His aim is to deny Ukip its “breakthrough moment” by mobilising pro-European voters. Nigel Farage’s party has been widely tipped to come top in the Euro polls, which are fought under proportional representation,

     Strangely enough, at the last LibDem Conference, held in Glasgow, Charles Kennedy spoke from the platform (naturally broadcast by the BBC) saying very much the same thing and promising to be willing to debate at any time in support of the EU. Charles is one of the very few LDs I have some respect for so I emailed him, saying that I would be happy to arrange a public debate between UKIP speakers and his. And that it would be desirable to offer it to be broadcast, in the unlikely event that the BBC & co were not to oppose open debate.

    I have yet to receive a reply.

    So lets repeat it again.

   Are the LibDems prepared to "go head to head" in a public debate on EU membership or does their "strategy" depend on assuming our state broadcaster will continue giving them massive coverage while censoring the sceptical case, even during an election campaign in which it is likely the large majority of British people will vote for scepticism?

   And will our state broadcaster be willing to broadcast open formal debate, rather than only censoring and spinning as they do now?

   Anybody want a side bet on whether they will put up?

Saturday, 8 February 2014

Democracy Is A Fraud When Debate Is Censored

      This is an article published on ThinkScotland, the online political magazine of Brian Monteith (who would have been Tory leader in Scotland if the party weren't scared stiff of new ideas).

      An ongoing belief of mine in that FREE DEBATE IS A NECESSARY AND PERHAPS SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR A FREE DEMOCRACY (ie where both sides get roughly equal chances to speak not what the BBC call "debate" where opposition voices are missing).

      Normally we define democracy by elections. However imagine a Nazi/Soviet style state where genuine discussion over the merits of genocide/Lysenkoism had taken place over a long period. If that had happened over a long period; if people had been able to make up their own minds and discuss it down the pub and the large majority come to the conclusion that these were bad things a Hitler/Stalin type dictator would, in the end, have had to bow to public opinion or be replaced by somebody less determined. Even if no formal elections took place something close to the democratic will would have been done.

     In the other hand imagine a parliamentary system, with multiple parties all of whom share pretty much the same opinions. Where state owned broadcasters and newspapers largely dependent on government advertising and state funded "charities" & qangos existed to promote the policies agreed by the ruling cartel. Where these state owned media continuously censored any dissent and anybody starting a new party committed to, for example to maximising economic progress, minimising nanny state controls of our lives, preventing unlimited immigration, not pretending we are experiencing catastrophic global warming & quitting the EU, was not only simple censored from the public media but smeared with false stories they were not allowed to answer. That would not be a democracy, even though the forms of democracy were maintained, because the people would have no say.

     I assume the BBC and our assorted MSPs also believe such a change would democratise the country. I can think of no other reason for their absolute refusal to answer this article or to try out the idea, but am open to anybody who can explain it.
****************************************************************

Could TV debates be the next X-Factor?

by Neil Craig
    
IT WOULD be astonishing what a high proportion of our national leaders first cut their political eye teeth in university debating chambers if it were not obvious what a vital role such organised arguments play.

Formal debating, normally two teams of two or three people each speaking in turn for around five minutes before an audience, is a formalisation of how non-dictatorial or monarchic governments are supposed to work and sometimes do. At least this has been the experience since the time of the ancient Greeks.

It is how Britain used to be run before three-line whips removed the power from Parliament and transferred it to the Cabinet, inner Cabinet and ultimately the Prime Minister and close friends.
In the Greek democracies debates were heard and judged by an assembly of the citizens (well the male, adult, free citizens). In Victorian Britain debates could only be heard in Parliament, a very small proportion of the population, thus Parliamentary sovereignty became the dominant ideal.
In the 20th Century the technology of radio and then TV made it possible for political discussion to be heard and judged in real time by the entire community, even more so than in ancient Greek times. But such open debate did not become the norm, except very occasionally in Presidential debates where, because not limited to one issue, they tended to turn into popularity contests rather than settling issues.

Also, because broadcasting was then a natural monopoly, they tended to come excessively under the control of central government. From Hitler, broadcasting his rallies, to Roosevelt's fireside chats to the BBC reporting "climate change" those expressing opposing ideas have been relegated to minor or zero coverage.

Which brings me to the subject of this article.

I propose that one or more of our broadcasters test runs weekly debates, normally one hour long in a slot similar to Question Time. The proposition should be drawn from those submitted online by the public. The choice need not be always the most popular, since some motions could not provide a balanced debate, but the popular vote should be made transparently public.

Assuming three speakers per side, the first speakers of each side have six minutes to present their constructive cases, or in the negative's case a rebuttal. The other four speakers each have five minutes to deliver a speech supporting their team's main arguments. There is also an allotted three minutes after each of the first four speeches for cross-examination, during which the opposing team has a chance to clarify what was stated in the preceding speech. There are many variations in format and so long as they have general acceptance, no one format should be set in stone.

The popular decision could then be determined, X-Factor style, by phone votes. These, like Crimewatch "results" could be broadcast later.

This is not and should not be in any way authoritative - it is simply TV.

I am sure there would be paradoxical results. For example one week the majority would vote for more government spending and the next for tax cuts. Though it should be pointed out that politicians show no particular consistency in such promises either. I would not be surprised to find viewers showing more responsibility than our current political class, so many of whom have never held a job not paid from taxes.

I have previously sent this suggestion to all our broadcasters, none of whom answered (though ITV and C4 promised to do so). No independent company responded either. Clearly either there is an overwhelming reason why this is less commercially viable than present political coverage, so obvious it is not even worth mentioning, or there is some other agenda at work.

It would, however, be an incredibly inexpensive programme to produce. The moderator need not be drawn from the channels' expensive stable of talent, indeed the ideal moderator is almost invisible. No Dimblebys; no dog and pony team trailing round the country; little more than a couple of cameras and a venue. A comparison is with the BBC's Northern Irish alternative to Question Time, broadcast every fourth week and made in-house. Northern Ireland has 3.3% of Britain's population so this must be one of the least expensive shows on TV.

Indeed with the X-Factor voting option I suspect the debating programme would be in profit even on a budget of zero.

Another requirement is that the teams be transparently chosen as the best available to debate the subject under consideration. I remember being in the audience of BBC Scotland's last relatively real debate. This was on "Scotland's Energy Future" in which one team called for far more subsidised windmills and the other for nothing but subsidised windmills. This was less than a full discussion.
Would it be popular? While that cannot certainly be told without trying it I have run an online poll (still going here) which shows a potential audience approximately matching Question Time's normal three million, which is about as popular as politics on TV gets.

The important reason for doing this is not finance, that is merely to prove there is no commercial reason for not doing it, but that it would, using modern technology, allow the citizenry real access to political decision making, in a way not technologically possible since the supercession of the Greek city states and Roman Republic.

It would be uncharitable to assume the big media ignore this because they think it would have work and I await some other explanation, from them or anybody else, that satisfies the facts.
In any case we live in a world where media is no longer a monopoly. If this is indeed a commercially viable project then it may turn into another case of online players cutting off the media dinosaurs at the knees.

"Debate" on TV currently consists, at its best, of four people and a moderator, with the "official" view, taking on one with a different one, with discussion limited to a couple of sentences before interruption. That is why elections are now about "soundbites" rather than real issues, which in turn explains why our governance is so abysmal.

We know there is an audience to watch Anne Widdicombe dance or George Galloway play a cat. I believe there would be one to watch them debate positions they understand and believe in. Our present "democracy" is conducted rather as if Athens had told Demosthenes he was not allowed to debate but it would find time to let him juggle. Surely we can do better than that?