Presidential debates: No wait, Prime Ministerial ones!

[Undesired Walrus]

This will be fun. Will Americans watch it, like the British obsessively watched Obama versus McCain last year?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8425280.stm

The UK looks set to have its first ever televised prime ministerial debates after a deal was struck between the big three parties and broadcasters.

Labour's Gordon Brown, Conservative leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg have agreed to go head-to-head in a series of three debates.

But should the SNP take place? They are threatening to take their case to court.

 

[Darat]

Absolutely stupid idea for the UK and I hope that it is found to be illegal (which it should be during an election campaign), no matter how much the media wants us to have a president we don't have one and we still vote for our individual MP during the general election.

 

[gtc]

We have them in Australia and I read that they have them in Canada. I haven't heard of any court challenges. On what grounds would they be illegal and why wouldn't that apply to party broadcasts (whatever you call them)?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Absolutely stupid idea for the UK and I hope that it is found to be illegal (which it should be during an election campaign), no matter how much the media wants us to have a president we don't have one and we still vote for our individual MP during the general election.

I don't see the problem with three of the most significant figures in politics agreeing to have a televised debate, which is all this really seems to be. Last time I looked, there wasn't a date set for the next election, so is this really taking place 'during an election campaign'?

Dave

 

[funk de fino]

We have them in Australia and I read that they have them in Canada. I haven't heard of any court challenges. On what grounds would they be illegal and why wouldn't that apply to party broadcasts (whatever you call them)?

An unfair advantage to the three parties in airtime. It would be petty for the other parties to go this route IMO but technically this sort of stuff is controlled as are party broadcasts.

 

[richardm]

But should the SNP take place? They are threatening to take their case to court.

I think will be argued that in a Westminster context the SNP are actually a tiny party - they only have seven seats there. So if they're going to take part, then so should all the other parties who have more seats - the DUP - or those who are not far behind like Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru or the Social Democratic and Labour Party, all the way down to George Galloway. Most of these party leaders will have no hope whatsoever of becoming Prime Minister, which kind of renders pointless a televised debate to see who'd be the best Prime Minister.

Besides, at what point does the number of people involved start to make the format simply unworkable?

Do you start to break it up and do several debates? Doesn't that make it harder on the incumbent PM, to have to fight his corner on television again and again? Isn't that more unfair, since unless you have dozens of shows, somebody is going to get more airtime than somebody else, and that somebody else is going to throw their toys out of the pram. Or there will be resentment that the Health Concern MP didn't get a chance to challenge Gordon Brown directly.

What I do find interesting is that many of the commentators who are so keen to deride "spin" and the way that the Labour party puts appearances before performance are the same commentators who are keenest on the idea of a televised debate. I have a nagging suspicion that they reckon Gordon Brown is a duffer at going on telly, while their boy Cameron is actually rather good. The resulting stramash will be an electoral disaster for Brown, they reason, therefore must be a good idea. I'm not so sure that it is actually a good idea, because it will be all about which leader puts on the best show, and I'm not sure that's how we should be choosing our MPs.

 

[Francesca R]

I think folks can choose their MPs for any reason they like.

Previous protocol on debates was that the incumbent had nothing to gain by participating--especially if they had a poll lead too. But if they are behind and expecting to lose, then why not. Cameron probably has less to gain from it but has little choice in the matter to avoid looking like a "bottler", given everything his party has uttered about the issue for the last decade.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

We don't vote for our leaders, but the nonetheless -and undenialbly- set the tone for their party. In a party whip system, their mps will, more often than not, vote for their policy agenda. It's important to have them in mind when you decide who to vote for.

 

[funk de fino]

I think Gordon Brown does ot come across well in the main but I think he will give Cameron a tougher battle than Cameron suspects.

Will people be put off Cameron if he comes across as too Blairish? I think Browns biggest hurdle is middle England, who do not like "that Scot" being in charge.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

They're on.