tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post3784684891147808951..comments2024-03-28T22:32:50.562+00:00Comments on Liberal England: Televised debates will be bad for the Liberal DemocratsJonathan Calderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730157683743989696noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-29247800968439158022009-09-03T12:36:51.677+01:002009-09-03T12:36:51.677+01:00I agree with Matthew's first two paragraphs. W...I agree with <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/18255872047710686115" rel="nofollow">Matthew's</a> first two paragraphs. We have a system of representative democracy and we should strengthen it, not weaken it.<br /><br />Rather than take his negative line on the leader, though, I think we should accentuate the positive, especially the strength of our Treasury team.<br /><br />A further thought: if Sky is contemplating taking a partisan line during the election period, surely the regulator must step in?Frank Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12447989626809704972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-13847302752703666002009-09-03T12:05:47.331+01:002009-09-03T12:05:47.331+01:00It's not even modern, the US has been doing it...<i><br />It's not even modern, the US has been doing it for 50 years.<br /></i><br /><br />Yes, and they have a presidential style of government and we do not. Our general election is not about electing a College of Electors whose only job is to elect the Prime Minister. Television general election coverage is already too biased in presenting it that way, why push it further? <br /><br />Why can't we push the emphasis back onto electing community representatives who together sort out how this country should be run? So why not do whatever is required to force the lazy journos to put it this way? Wouldn't that revive politics and the democratic ideal which is so lost at present?<br /><br />As Jonathan suggests, why do we have to live as if life as presented by US entertainment is reality, and what is around us is just a sort of shadowlands which we should try and fit and adapt into the reality we see in 'movies' and TV 'shows'? <br /><br />And, as Jonathan is hinting, actually we have a leader who is turning out to be a bit useless. Obviously we can't get rid of him before the general election. So it's in our interests to present ourselves as a party which isn't all about its leader. Our party has under several leaders suffered from being seen as just their personal vehicles, whereas we'd be seen as so much grander and more useful if we did present ourselves as stuffed full of skilled and experienced people who'd do a good job in government. Kennedy worked well as leader because (ok, it had to be this way because he was too drunk to be the front man all the time) he let the party be seen as more than him. Clegg's conversation on the plane shows up the real problem - he's insecure because he knows he's a bit useless, so he doesn't want any alternative talent to shine. Grudgingly, he's had to let Vince be seen and heard, but Vince is ok as he's too old to be a leadership challenger and really doesn't want to. Even so, notice how Clegg doesn't actually reflect what Vince is saying when he speaks, so Vince is seen as just Vince and not the voice of the Liberal Democrats. <br /><br />Smart constituency associations are minimising the Clegg presence on their literature. It is sad that so often we have to run local campaigns which seem to be separate from the national campaign because the national campaign isn't helping much. But my tip is, those who want to win must do that for the next election.Matthew Huntbachhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18255872047710686115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-38081548183139982402009-09-02T23:46:50.837+01:002009-09-02T23:46:50.837+01:00Now, let's get this right.
There might be a l...Now, let's get this right.<br /><br />There might be a leaders debate on tv -- and the rules might be fair.<br /><br />But the Lib Dems shouldn't let our guy go on because some of us are scared that he might get his arse kicked. Hardly the way to get taken seriously by anyone.<br /><br />Maybe our alibi will be that we don't like the owners of the TV station. So, no more interviews with the Times then?<br /><br />Or maybe we'll say we're running a team; meanwhile the voters judge us on our leader more than the team (also, parties that try this look like they're trying to hide a self-confessed weakness).<br /><br />There is by the way nothing "new" or American about these debates. NZ had a leaders debate as long ago as 1969 and they have been a staple of election campaigns there since 1975. Australia and Canada have also used them for years. They expose the leaders to much more scrutiny and bring politics home to people.<br /><br />Could that really be so terrible?Neil Stockleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11049181290242914014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-35271083858888949632009-09-02T23:05:23.677+01:002009-09-02T23:05:23.677+01:00If we think Vince Cable is going to be our biggest...If we think Vince Cable is going to be our biggest asset then we should be pushing for a debate between the parties' Treasury teams as well, or would that just be unfair on Osborne and Darling?<br /><br />Maybe I'm naive, but given that Sky invited the Lib Dems and openly stated that they 'should' be involved I see no reason why they'd suddenly take that away - judging by the comments on their petition if anything they'll have to open the debate up to other parties, not restrict it.<br /><br />I think Clegg would do well, and that any chance to have him placed on an equal platform with Brown and Cameron can only be good for the Lib Dems, and very much hope the debate goes ahead.Marc Gascoignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-5176380335487801252009-09-02T20:00:14.463+01:002009-09-02T20:00:14.463+01:00I'm in favour of TV debates, but for neither o...I'm in favour of TV debates, but for neither of those reasons Jonathan.<br /><br />For example, if there is a debate where the public ask questions directly, I think we're likely to get much better answers as stonewalling the public - especially if they get a follow up - normally comes over much worse than doing the same to a journalist.<br /><br />Also asking the same question of several party leaders together gives a much better opportunity to compare and contrast their answers, because you hear them in immediate succession - and therefore you get a different set of answers. A set of vague cliches from one suddenly looks very bad if the next answer addresses the issue more directly.<br /><br />That's not to be starry eyed about debates, but those I've seen from other countries most of the time give more information about the attributes and policies of participants than the journalist vs leader set-ups we have.<br /><br />For me the best argument from overseas about TV debates isn't the US, but from what I've seen of Canada and Australia, where they also have a Parliamentary system and the debates consistently make the election campaigns better.Mark Packhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17596137350950820090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-24219135130269263902009-09-02T19:33:55.616+01:002009-09-02T19:33:55.616+01:00I'm not in favour of it for partisan reasons. ...I'm not in favour of it for partisan reasons. I just think that the time is long overdue for the main party leaders to put their case in a televised debate. Frankly it is bizarre that it has not happened before now.<br /><br />It's not even modern, the US has been doing it for 50 years.<br /><br />As it happens I think Nick will do well, certainly better than Brown. It will give him/us more exposure and remind people that there are more than just the two main parties.<br /><br />Regarding Murdoch, it does irk me a little that it is Sky that has been the first to do this but we needed someone to. Leaving it up to the politicians we'd still be here in another 50 years debating the whys and wherefores and having the front-runners coming up with excuses as to why it shouldn't happen.Mark Thompsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00744387583593537268noreply@blogger.com