C4 wants to replace Sky News as 2015 election debate host

I agree that Channel 4 really ought to host a debate over and above Sky News. But I would question the very existence of the debates in the British political system. Unlike the US we are not a presidential system and contrary to popular opinion, we the electorate ought not to be voting for the personalities who lead the parties. In principle we should vote for our MP based on the party whose policies are the closest to our own political viewpoint. This was a case in point in 2007 - if people 'voted' for Tony Blair in 2005 because of personality they were duped in 2007 when Gordon Brown was elected Labour leader and thus Prime Minister. That was perfectly permissible under our system because we elected the party to office, not the person. Yet many went ballistic about how he was 'unelected', which was utter nonsense. He was no less elected than any other British prime minister. So, I find the debates totally surplus to requirements. We survived perfectly well without them for centuries and it's just another step to the Americanisation of Britain.

It still isn't, for those in Freeview Lite areas (as I am reminded every time I stay at my other half's parents - it's a depressingly slim selection of channels).

Right so that would mean that one year the National Broadcaster would have none but Sky news with little viewership would



Nonsense as Tom Bradby said at the time, they (and their sister papers) have a habit of claiming credit and rewriting history! There was pretty much a behind the scenes deal agreed by all parties before Sky pulled their desperate stunt. Looks like it might be payback time!

To be honest for making such a suggestion, I think Asa should be giving the poster a two week ban, I doubt this will happen though.

There is no room for sentiment towards Sky here, the interests of the British people need to served. Sky shouldn't get to keep it because it would be 'unfair' for them to lose out.

I think the only way Sky should have one over Channel 4 is if a deal can be arranged for one of the PSBs to air it at the same time. But then it becomes a glorified advert for Sky News.

There is little question in my mind given a straight choice between Channel 4 and Sky News, Channel 4 would have to have it, in terms of it being more beneficial to the British electorate as a whole.

I think there is also argument, that if it is given to Channel 4, they should do something vastly different in terms of presentation so it does indeed appeal to say a younger audience who wouldn't watch the Beeb or ITV debates.

A spokesman that has been living under a rock for about 10 years?

And forgetting that C4 is supposed to be the alternative PSB broadcaster, not doing what the BBC and ITV are doing.

A couple more points:

1. Why should the BBC have an automatic entitlement to a debate in every election cycle? They don't produce every Queen's Christmas Speech for example. It's on a rota. Why shouldn't election debates be on a rota? Sky News didn't demand exclusivity for their debate last time, so the BBC would still get to air at least one debate. If they simulcast it on BBC1 or BBC2 then the ratings/reach will still be very high.

You could demand the removal of exclusivity for all debates, but I can't see ITV agreeing to that

2. I appreciate C4 have a commitment to a varied schedule, but consider how much C4 invest in, and contribute to, news provision in the UK. They make an important contribution. But then look at the investment made by Sky. Does that really mean nothing?

EDIT - Also don't forget Sky News's contribution in terms of 'pressure' to getting the election debates in the first place. Sky, along with the BBC and ITV did a lot of 'legwork' to get the debates

I strongly disagree with your analogy. You're comparing debates about the democratic electoral process with a 4 minute annual propaganda broadcast by an unelected 'pseudo-Head of State'. You may as well argue that airtime for adverts for Alton Towers are alternated between the commercial broadcasters on a 'fairness basis'.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mrs Windsor's pantomime contribution was done on a rota basis simply to prevent any single broadcaster having to permanently carry the cost. However, I suspect they all have to contribute equally, and the rota is to supposedly allow for different 'editorial control': although probably not a single frame of footage would be broadcast without the strict supervision of the Palace PR machine.

Although we don't have any direct 'Presidential style' electoral system: many people vote at General Elections for the person they want as PM. The 2010 debates were therefore important, and allowed us all to watch the 3 main UK party leaders in somewhere other than the playground atmosphere of PMQs.

I would suggest that 3 debates is sufficient, and it doesn't really matter who produces them as they were ultimately shown on all the other participating channels last time round. We have 'presumed political neutrality' amongst UK broadcasters (unlike in the US), so a rota system shouldn't really influence anything for the electorate.

I don't understand the great need to alternate the Queen's Speech between BBC/ITN/SKY. Over complicates things in my opinion.

For you maybe, not the broadcasters in question I suspect.

Did you know I'm an unelected pseudo-Head-of-State? The Queen isn't - she's an unelected Head of State. No matter how much you dislike her role, with little or no justification, she actually is the Head of State.

Couldn't give a toss what they think.