Who SHOULD take part in leader's debates?

[Saracen]

So, assuming these should happen at all, who do you think should take part?

Points to consider ....

- LibDems are out-polled by UKIP and, IIRC, by the Greens but, currently, are by far the third-largest party in Westminster

- LibDems are also, currently, in government.

- UKIP won the last national election, beating all comers. That's a first, it not being Labour or Tory, in about 100 years.

- SNP aren't a national party for UK

- All indicators suggest SNP are likely to be third, or maybe fourth, largest party after the next election, with LDs maybe 5th.

- Can the SNP be included, and Plaid excluded, without offending the entire Welsh nation?

- If we have 6, 7 or even 8 party leaders, aren't we giving undue influence to tiny parties?

- If ever-smaller parties are included, where do you stop? Monster Raving Loony? BNP?



Note - this thread is NOT about which party leader wants what, or why they might want it. I want party politics kept out of this thread. It's about what YOU think, not what we think Cameron, Miliband, etc, think.

If you want to discuss what politicians want, please start your own thread on it. Thanks.

[Saracen]

Personally, I find it hard to exclude UKIP, given two MPs, and the Euro election results.

I can't see how LDs could conceivably be excluded, at least this time, given the number of MPs and that they're part of the government.

But if the debates aren't to get so large as to be unwieldy and pointless, I can't see 6, 7 or more working.

Personally, I'd go for either the current three plus UKIP, or, perhaps better yet, no TV debates at all.

If we are to have debates, I 'd like to see dramatic changes go the rules which, last time, were HUGELY restrictive. For a start, more audience feedback .... and questions from the audience. Second, more direct leader-to-leader challenges, and debate. Last time was so restricted as to be sterile, boring, anodyne and utterly uninformative. It was more like a three-part press statement than a debate.

But if we do have them, they have to be small enough to be manageable.

[badass]

I vote for none at all. What purpose do they serve apart from adding more theater to the theater that is Politics? How good someone is at winning over the audience on TV with someone else has little to no bearing on their competence as a prime minister. Remember, the audience in general don't pick those that win the arguments. They pick those that come across better (for example, being more polite)

[RobbieRoy]

I don't think that including smaller parties would give them 'undue influence' or that debates and questions to a panel of six or seven should be unwieldy.

Although imperfect (given the attempt by the major players to spin things, avoid answering questions and slyly uttering untruths), in this democracy any information that is not scripted or stage managed electioneering that is made available to the electorate can only be a good thing.

I also think it's a mistake to think that people would be disproportionately influenced by smaller parties - especially if they're speaking unvarnished sense!

[BobF64]

It depends.

If its a debate between potential Prime Ministers, then no one but the Conservatives and Labour.

No coalition would let a member of one of the smaller partners be PM.

If its a debate between all parties, then they shouldnt bother, as thats what their party political liarcasts are for.

That said, you have to have some sort of requirement for including parties, otherwise it will get out of hand.
If you include the Greens, why not Monster Raving Loonie? Why not every Independent candidate?

[kalniel]

'I'm a politician, get me out of here.' instead.

[Andy3536]

TV debates are largly unessesary in my opinion.
But if there has to be one, then just have the big 4 parties.

If Cameron insists on staying firm on his position that he won't do one unless the greens are there. Then let's have one without the conservatives. He's made his bed.

[wasabi]

Most people are too stupid to vote - this stuff proves it.

I really really hate these debates as they simply reinforce the cult of personality. I don't want to vote for an X-Factor style posturing figurehead leader, I want to vote for a set of policies I understand and believe in. But then I don't believe in democracy - not that we live in a democracy.

[Saracen]

I don't think that including smaller parties would give them 'undue influence' or that debates and questions to a panel of six or seven should be unwieldy.

....

Where do we draw the line between a smaller party that should be included, and a smaller one that shouldn't?

And .... who draws the line?

Suppose I form a political party, and get the requisite minimum level of support to comply with whatever the minimum is for a registered, legitimate party (and I've no idea what that is). Maybe we get a few hundred Hexus members to join, stump up a pound each (or whatever) and form the official Hexus party. As leader, do I get to debate with Cameron, Miliband, etc, on national TV?

I'd say that it did indeed give me undue influence, simply by the imprimatur of being included at all. We'd end up with a "leader's" debate with a cast list of hundreds.

Surely there has to be a metric to differentiate minor and major parties (and there currently is) and someone to apply it (currently OfCom).

And currently, apparently, UKIP qualify and Greens don't.

The potential if "smaller" parties are included is that it could ge way more than 6 or 7 included. Not just the ones in the options above, but the DUP, Sinn Fein, English Democrats, Monster Raving Loony, and many more.

Is not the point of leader's debates to hear policy platforms discussed by those either with a chance of being PM, or in this shiny new coalition world, being a part of the government?

[Splash]

'I'm a politician, get me out of here.' instead.

This. If it *must* be televised (and the party political broadcasts are bad enough) then it needs to be something utterly terrible like this. I have no desire for our politics to be even more about who presents the slickest image, I care for policy and how that policy would be enacted.

[Saracen]

This. If it *must* be televised (and the party political broadcasts are bad enough) then it needs to be something utterly terrible like this. I have no desire for our politics to be even more about who presents the slickest image, I care for policy and how that policy would be enacted.

That's why, if we must have them, I'd want to see the rules relaxed so they are an actual debate, not a series of pre-scripted unchallenged statements. I'd like to see each leader seriously pushed, especially by members of the public, to argue and defend their views and positions, precisely to see beyond to polished, pre-canned party-line speeches. Would it work? Dunno. But it might, if the environment was something like a blend of an Oxford Union debate, and Question Time.

But a repeat of last time would, IMHO, be a sheer waste of airtime.

If they happen at all. I've got doubts that they will. Shame.

[Dareos]

'I'm a politician, get me out of here.' instead.

do we get to vote on who gets left in the jungle after the show ends and everyone has left? preferrably about 500 miles from civilisation....

I've never really understood the debate thing. Its basically a case of oneupmanship and usually deteriorates into a slanging match. Politicians spend their time arguing with each other with absolutely no intention of swaying their opponents view, but with the sole purpose of making a better impression on their audience, usually achieved by blaming the opponent for every bad thing to happen when their party was in office. I would have a lot more faith in politicians if I felt they worked together for the good of the country and not just to line their own pockets

[kalniel]

We could do hunger games/the testing/divergent I guess. Perhaps instead of fighting they could be made to solve puzzles like how to convince a tabloid reading population that immigration isn't the great evil etc.

[Andy3536]

We could do hunger games/the testing/divergent I guess. Perhaps instead of fighting they could be made to solve puzzles like how to convince a tabloid reading population that immigration isn't the great evil etc.

Test 1

Bacon sandwich test.......

[wasabi]

Is not the point of leader's debates to hear policy platforms discussed by those either with a chance of being PM, or in this shiny new coalition world, being a part of the government?

But we're not really in shiny new coalition world. The electoral system is still first past the post, thanks to stupid moron voters. Bashing Clegg in the referendum to get back at him for Tory policies. So in the UK coalitions will continue to be relatively uncommon.

The debates are for people of below average intelligence, which is unfortunately half the population.

[BobF64]

It occurs to me, mainly because I recall some whiny woman on TV last time, that the requirements for being involved in any combined debate should be related to the share of the votes cast in the last election.

The share doesnt represent current MPs, nor does it directly represent big parties, just those that people want to vote for.

In 2010, the Tories got 306 seats based on 10.7million votes, where as the LibDems got 57 seats from 6.8million (you can see why they wanted PR voting).

Now, the Greens got 1 seat from a bit over 250,000 votes, apparently 0.9% of the votes.

But those are just winning figures, it doesnt include all the votes for losing candidates, so presumably the numbers might be a lot higher.