The Green Debate: More harm than good.

When David Cameron came out to request the inclusion of the Green Party in the upcoming TV leaders' debates, many from the Green-left cheered. It was assumed that this gave a platform to a real alternative and would catapult the party into mainstream success. This unfortunately is unlikely to be the case.

The Green Party themselves have been quoted as saying they are targeting twelve seats as potential gains, with six seats being a reasonable estimate for what they could realistically hope to win. Considering the limitations of the party's estimates, it is clear they do not expect to be a major player in the next parliament.

It is for this reason that Cameron's request is not a laudable example of political inclusivity, but a piece of tactical genius. In welcoming the Greens into the TV debates, Cameron has opened the door to legal protestations from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the DUP, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Respect. Inclusion of the Green Party in TV debates means that based on broadcaster neutrality, all of these parties have a right to equal representation based on their representation in the House of Commons.

In promoting the inclusion of the Greens, and allowing the door to open to all of the minor parties within the House; Cameron has successfully created a debate scenario wherein the majority of messages become drowned out in a cacophony of alternative opinion. I think many would agree that nationalist and regional parties, who are now to be included in the debates, do not offer any value to a UK wide discussion on policy, as they do not seek support or have support in the majority of the union.

What these parties do serve to do however, is create confusion. In a leader's debate format, discussion on a number of issues will take place over a very short time - the previous discussions were over a 90 minute period. Were the parties to each cover their stance on health, education and the economy in this time, each leader would have just over four minutes to speak on each issue, disregarding time for questioning, retort and actual debate to ensue.

This move by Cameron to bring in minor parties, many of whom are irrelevant in the majority of constituencies serves to protect him from any criticism regarding the destruction he has carried out on the UK in the last five years. In such a limited space, it is unlikely at best that he will face any real critique on his failures in government, or be required to make any explanation of why he has begun to destroy the NHS without a mandate to do so; or increased the UK debt whilst pushing many low income families into food banks. The inclusion of the Greens has had a knock on effect of turning the debate into a circus, in which Cameron the clown becomes an entertaining option.

Within such a chaotic debate it is unlikely the Greens will get any real platform to promote themselves, and they will likely win few votes from the appearance. What their appearance, admittedly along with the SNP and Plaid Cymru will do is cause confusion. What confusion will do will cause worry among voters who have not been conveyed any understanding of complex policy issues and the respective solutions of the parties on what is the ONLY piece of media in this election which will likely reach a mass market. 

Unfortunately, what this worry will do is cause a retreat to the safety of familiarity, and likely promote the option of the Conservatives where a debate offering real criticism would damage them. The Tories remain the only party who have public confidence in their ability to run the economy, which whilst baffling is a huge tool for them, particularly in an arena such as this debate. Napoleon said that the winner will be he who controls chaos, and that is exactly what Cameron is trying to do here.

Do you agree? Leave your opinions in the comments.