Clegg: I want a TV debate too
The leader of the Libdems Nick Clegg today also calls for a television debate between party leaders. He said it would “reinvigorate political debate”.
Writing in the Independent newspaper today he says:
It seems the Prime Minister is the only person left in the country who thinks there shouldn’t be a televised debate between party leaders at the next general election.
It would be an opportunity for transparency, to reinvigorate political debate, and to put party manifestos and leaders up against one another in a fair competition.
Gordon Brown says there’s no need for debates because we have Prime Minister’s Questions. But, despite nearly always descending into farce and name-calling, at PMQs, opposition leaders can only ask questions about government policy. In a proper debate, each leader would be able to question both the other parties’ policies as well as championing his own.
Our politics is marred by profound unfairness. Big donations mean far too much is decided by which party has the biggest coffers. A televised debate would go some way to correcting that.
A debate wouldn’t advantage a party; it would advantage the people. It would be the voters’ opportunity to see the leaders competing to be Prime Minister promoting their policies and answering difficult questions about how they’d change the country.
It would bring in a wider audience than leaders could reach otherwise, giving more people the opportunity to make up their own minds based on the facts.
If Gordon Brown believed in the Labour party and his own record, he would be champing at the bit to hold this debate. I’m eager because I want people to know about Liberal Democrat policies, and I want the opportunity to explain why Labour and the Conservatives would take us in the wrong direction. Labour’s time is up, and the Conservatives think it’s automatically their turn, but I think in these difficult times we need to do something altogether different.
It increasingly looks like Gordon Brown will agree to a television debate.
The issue has rapidly degenerated into tit-for-tat accusations between political parties.
---------------------------
| Tweet |
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
“Look at me, I exist too!”
Good on Cleggy!
A three-way debate could be terrible for Clegg: how irrelevant will he look when Cameron and Brown totally ignore him?
Clegg will not become PM after the election, even in a hung parliament. The LD front benchers, however, might take some part in a cabinet.
Thus have some three-headed policy debates (Darling, Osborne, Cable; D Miliband, Hague, Davey; Johnson, Grayling, Huhne) and one PM debate (just Brown and Cameron).
Careful scheduling will ensure that the broadcast time regulations (currently 5:5:4) are adhered to.
It would be quite wrong to decide who gets to take part in the debate according to the media’s judgement on who might be PM after the election. All three should be included, and probably the leaders of the Greens and UKIP too.
But this is missing the fundamental point – we have a parliamentary democracy, not a prime ministerial dictatorship (well, actually that’s not true, but that’s what we seem to aspire to).
People need to be less hung up on who the PM is and look more to the overall party they’ll elect to parliament. I suspect that’ll only happen if and when we get a genuine parliamentary democracy in which the PM is little more than the chair of the cabinet and national spokesman for government policy.
“I suspect that’ll only happen if and when we get a genuine parliamentary democracy in which the PM is little more than the chair of the cabinet and national spokesman for government policy.”
Nice idea but utopian.
You can’t run a business, or a government by a show of hands. You need someone to be accountable and be in charge.
Not obviously related but i cant see where else to put it; does anyone know why, when Labour membership fell by 6% last year, members subs fell by 11% ? Im just curious, it doesnt seem to make sense.
This is a complete guess, but it seems plausible that in a recession more people chose to pay the discounted rate.
Grrrrr…..
I know this is not constructive but come on! We should have ALL parties involved…nay?
No, we shouldn’t. If you have everyone who can stump up the deposit to get on the ballot paper in a single constituency, there’ll be less chance for viewers to see the parties who might form a government debating, which is what most people tune in for. You could easily have 30 parties there, which would leave time for all of about two questions.
Personally I really like the idea expressed above of having three parties’ (Lab/Lib Dem/Tory) spokespersons on different issues having their own debates, then a one-on-one Brown vs Cameron. You could maybe have separate ones for Scotland, with Lab/Lib Dem/SNP instead.
“…less chance for viewers to see the parties who might form a government debating…”
Around a third of the country doesn’t want either Labour or the Tories to form a government, so what good does viewing a Cameron/Brown fix-up do for them? It’s basically just propaganda for FPTP.
As we get closer to the election, Lib Dems/Others are extremely unlikely to be on a combined 33% outside of Scotland/Wales. I’ve said there might need to be a separate debate for Scotland. But even if they are, your comment is slightly misleading unless you’re saying that every party – perhaps 20 or 30 or them – would get to participate on equal terms. If you’re talking about a manageable debate including Clegg as well as Brown/Cameron then the figure’s likely to be 20-22%.
Which is a pretty small minority. It’s not unlikely that a larger minority than that would prefer to see a more involved debate between Brown and Cameron than a more superficial three-way.
@sharmit yes you can! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation
I wonder if some of you might like to take a unique journey into a radical perpective on these unfolding events?
It could change your entire world view. The false constructs of religion, politics, media, nation, race, etc. exposed and deconstructed, the imminent catastrophies outlined as we enter an entirely new era.
Fear nothing, love all. Keep reading. (NO commercial activity)
http://www.olivefarmercrete.blogspot.com
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
- Liberal Conspiracy
Article: Clegg: I want a TV debate too http://bit.ly/utyjw
- Max Young
Liberal Conspiracy » Clegg: I want a TV debate too | creating a … http://bit.ly/11OMwK
- Liberal Conspiracy
Article: Clegg: I want a TV debate too http://bit.ly/utyjw
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You can read articles through the front page, via Twitter or RSS feed. You can also get them by email and through our Facebook group.
» Why Quantitative Easing doesn’t make common sense
» Barclays was also bailed out – Diamond doesn’t deserve a bonus
» Ten myths about private rented housing
» Even on the left, morality has its limits
» The NHS bill could be a Waterloo moment for the govt
» Ken Livingstone and gay rights – it just isn’t an issue
» Abu Qatada deportation: what about our principles?
» New study shows a Robinhood tax would boost growth
» In defence of Sky News’ re-Tweeting ban
» Another reason to continue banker bashing
» An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs
|
5 Comments 15 Comments 17 Comments 26 Comments 42 Comments 21 Comments 13 Comments 49 Comments 11 Comments 78 Comments |
LATEST COMMENTS » BenSix posted on Fabians change policy on unpaid internships » Have Labour realised the election is more than three years away? | My Blog posted on Labour's wonks are becoming part of the problem » Owen Blacker posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Richard Blogger posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Daniel Henry posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » nonny mouse posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Socrates posted on Dorries says Osborne wanted Lansley "shot" » Bloody Yank posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Bloody Yank posted on Why Quantitative Easing doesn't make common sense » Robin Levett posted on An attack on the wind industry is an attack on UK jobs » kernowjim posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » ROFLMFAO posted on Fabians change policy on unpaid internships » Cherub posted on High pay - in football and banking - shouldn't be about morality » jojo posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction » Sun journos nicked in hack enquiry shocker « andrew henley posted on Venables journo has manslaughter conviction |








