UK Election Coverage

Have to say, I disagree entirely.

Regardless of whatever concerns nationalist parties may have (legitimiate or otherwise) the combination of 3 major UK broadcasters working together with the 3 main political parties represents a pretty unassailable proposition.

Whether the nationalist issue gets addressed or ignored, there is now such a level of expectation amongst the public for these debates to take place, that there is absolutely no room for broadcasters or party leaders to renege or prevaricate.

I'd put money on these debates happening.

Kind of shows the usual system of each leader appearing in their own show, with additional shows for the SNP and Plaid leaders in Scotland and Wales is actually more fit for purpose than a debate.

Only way it could work is if the debates were pre-recorded with the Plaid and SNP leaders present, but only edited in to the versions broadcast in Wales and Scotland respectively - which heck, just wouldn't work.

Or of course hand it over to Simon Cowell, let Plaid, the SNP and other parties outside the main three join the debate in week one, and then eliminate one each week until just the big three are left in the final!

Hmm.. I would be surprised if it did not turn into a 'personality' contest. Consider the Nixon and Kennedy telly debate in 1960s: The majority of people who listened in on radio, thought that Nixon has' won' the debate, on what was said-- substance/rhetoric if you like. However those who watched on telly much preferred Kennedy: He was perceived to be more radiant, slicker and better in appearance-- whereas Nixon looked a bit on the rough and dour side-- thus Kennedy's better charisma led telly viewers to believe he had 'won' the debate.

Whilst I appreciate we have a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, voting for parties rather than leaders (which makes the "Gordon Brown is unelected" argument as tiresome as the man himself)¬; I do think it's worth having the three main party leaders definitively setting out their stalls for their respective parties, should they get into power.

I'm mindful that "in power" is essentially Tories vs Labour; but in the event of a hung parliament, it will the Lib Dems who will be the tie-breakers.

¬Brown did what John Major did in 1990, Jim Callaghan in 1976 and MacMillan in 1950s

Well that's the whole point. We don't have a presidential system, however much the media likes to think that we do. Theoretically at least, the British people ought to vote in terms of policy and ideology over and above the personality of the political leaders concerned. The vast majority of us are not even voting for Brown, Cameron or Clegg. We're voting for our own MP - and I think it's fair to say that a high proportion of the population would not be able to recognise their own MP, let alone know their personality. The whole presidential/parliamentary point was beautifully illustrated by the handover of power from Blair to Brown in 2007. Had we been under a presidential system, we would have had another election. Under our parliamentary system, the governing party can legitimately select a new leader who then automatically becomes PM. It really irritates me to hear people and the media banging on about how Gordon Brown is "unelected". He IS elected. The handover of the premiership in 2007 was completely legit.

Anyway, getting back to my point - the leadership debate ought to be more about politics rather than personality. The role of the leader should be to spell out and debate their policy platform, as the person in overall control of the direction of their party. I think that's how our TV debates should differ from their US counterparts. It shouldn't all be about looks/gravitas/charisma, etc. Sadly, though, I don't have high hopes. I expect the media will turn it into a personality contest as per usual.

I'd be more careful with your money.

It was a "done deal" in 1992 and 1997 as well.

Brown has said yes because otherwise he would be the toast of the Tory conference this week for "hiding from debate". Even if legal challenges fail, Brown (who clearly will come off worst in a TV debate) will have a million other reasons to not proceed based on the rules of engagement.

There is so much minutiae to be agreed and therefore disagreed on: how much time to answer each question uninterrupted? are there questions from an audience? is there advance warning of questions? is there even an audience? how long for cross-exchange? does Clegg get less time to answer than the other two? who gets to stand where on the podium- is it brown-cameron-clegg? but then why does cameron get's to stand in the centre- surely unfair prominence?

You can see the nightmare the broadcasters are going to have, especially if, as I suspect, Labour only want to convey the impression that Brown wants to take part. No labour strategist would choose a TV debate for Brown- he has virtually nothing to gain (can't hide from governing record) and lots to lose (he looks scary on TV!). The former reason is why Major and Blair both blocked these debates.

Now Sky have said they will proceed even if Brown pulls out, leaving him an empty chair on stage. Three points:
a) this assumes that Cameron will proceed against just Clegg (risky for him- expected to "win" therefore little benefit for him, but potential to slip up)
b) also assumes that Cameron and Clegg can agree terms
c) Brown knows that a Clegg-Cameron debate is meaningless, and that ITN and the BBC would never proceed to empty chair him.

Sky's rather odd political campaign for a leaders' debate (actually a publicity campaign for the channel) is meaningless - very few will watch a Sky debate of two opposition leaders in the context of no terrestrial follow-up. If Sky News had any significant influence on voting patterns, Hague's self-destruction in front of Adam Boulton in the 2002 campaign would surely have resulted in him actually losing seats compared to Major's poor baseline.

I'm afraid what you've written is rubbish.

The Lib Dems are in no danger of forming a national government. However, their 25% ish polling in England gets Nick Clegg a chance to take the stage for the Leaders' debate.

Now whilst I fundamentally disagree with his rights, Alex Salmond, as leader of the SNP can quite easily argue that within a country within our United Kingdom, his party will poll a greater percentage of the vote than the Lib Dems.

That can't be said for any of the other fringe parties you mention.

Now clearly, Salmond is an irrelevance for anyone outside Scotland but put yourself in his stocky shoes for a moment- would you really want the leaders of all your opposition parties, two of whom poll lower than your party, to be given a massive TV audience and media attention in the middle of the campaign?

A blackout for Scottish viewers is not practical given Sky are involved and the BBC and ITV regions are available north of the border.

It's not a perfect argument to block the debates, but it's certainly fair enough for a court to consider given how tight our TV and radio impartiality rules are once an election is declared.

That isn't always the case, it depends on the constitution in place.

The US elects a President and a Vice-President. It's assumed that the elected VP takes over if the President dies, resigns or is impeached. When Nixon resigned he was replaced by Ford, who was an unelected VP because the elected VP (Agnew) had already resigned. Ford was 'elected' by the Senate, as was his VP (Rockefeller).

The country didn't get asked to vote again until the normal presidential election cycle was complete.

Exactly.

The Tories are in no position to moan about Brown being unelected considering they used the slogan "Vote Blair, Get Brown" at the last election. The public were fully aware of what they were voting for, and as an elected MP, Gordon Brown had as much claim on the role of PM as Tony Blair and any other Labour MP.

In hindsight though, I bet Labour wished they'd lost the last election and the Tories had been left to deal with the credit crunch etc.

It's got nothing to do with percentages, as we do not have a PR system of election. I think Stuart put it the way I meant to, in that in order to get a workable majority you need 330ish seats. As the SNP are only fielding candidates in the Scottish seats, they are, in your words, in no danger of forming an administration at Westminster. So you sort of contradict yourself there. The LibDems are fielding enough candidates to form an administration, even if it's unlikely given their current level of support to happen. In theory at least, they are one of the parties able to form a government. The SNP are not. This isn't the Scottish Parliament eletions, this is the national elections. When the SNP put up 600 candidates maybe they will be taken seriously.

The above once again shows ignorance of the RPA and it's impact on broadcasting. Without SNP and Plaid involvement in Scotland and Wales respectively these debates will be hollow and will cause considerable alienation in the devolved countries. It will backfire on the UK parties greatly and add to the Nationalist's calls for Independence.

Good!

I just wish they'd get on and do something about it.

Indeed. Keep in mind that most EU countries also have parliamentary rather than presidential systems (France is a rare exception), yet televised politcal debates are very common throughout the continent. In fact, the UK is a relative latecomer to PM debates.