View Poll Results: PM's TV debates - good or bad for democracy?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Good

    7 41.18%
  • Bad

    6 35.29%
  • Too early to really tell

    3 17.65%
  • What debates? I've been holidaying on Mars.

    1 5.88%
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

  1. #1
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    This is not about what we saw watching the debates, but about whether they benefited us or not. Did they open up debate? Did they change politics, and if so, for the better or worse?

    For instance, I regularly see commentators saying that the US has had Presidential debates for 50 years and that its about time we "caught up". The thing is ... we don;t have a Presidential system. Or we didn't until 'President' Blair got hold of it, anyway.

    We are supposed to be electing a local MP, not a Prime Minister. We're supposed to be choosing policy, not personality. And whatever else you can say, these three debates have certainly dominated campaign, largely because the media spends several days chattering about what they anticipate, then afterwards, a few days arguing about who "won", then they go back to anticipating again.

    Also, the format of them is so forced. Take the final debate last night. The first question last night was very clearly about the lack of honesty in spending cuts, and while it didn't mention the IFS report, that was very clearly what it was driving at. Not a single one of the candidates addressed the actual question. All they did was spout the drivel they've been spouting for weeks about the tip of the iceberg they have been talking about and ignored that the question was about the submerged bit they've been actively ignoring. Dimbleby did what he could to address it by repeating the question before handing it back for the follow-up, but he's not allowed to editorialise in the way Paxman or Nadrew Neil would by pointing out that the arrogant politicians had ignored the actual question in order to make a policy statement that we've all heard (if we're interested enough to listen) dozens of times already.

    In my view, we learn nothing new about policy from these debates, and all they were was a kind-of combined party political broadcast, from all three at the same time. They did not hold any of the candidates to account, and were more about who could present well in that format than about what the parties will do if they gets their backsides on the chairs of power.

    Presidential debates might work when you're electing a President, in a system with the checks and balances of a Congress, but we don;t have that system.

    Where they did score, big and unexpectedly, was catapulting the LibDems into a credible force and changing the three party system. while I disagree with much of what they stand for, at least they now have more of a chance to stand for it. But it may be a chance that doesn't hold beyond this election. If the LibDems do well, we may well have seen the system change permanently. If they can't convert poll popularity to votes next Thursday, it'll reinforce the impression that they aren't a credible alternative and it'll probably be a generation or two before they get another chance.


    Meantime, we've seen what's been described as X-Factor politics from these debates. Whatever Brown is (and both form=um rules and obscenity laws preclude me from passing my personal opinion on that), I don't think anybody including the man himself would pretend he's a natural at TV slickness. But I want Brown booted out of Downing Street because he's a walking economic disaster area, not because he's out-schmoozed by a pair of slick snake-oil salesmen.

    My view .... these debates were about presentation not policy, in a ratio of about 9:1, and were a democratic retrograde step. Sadly, it's one where the genie is now firmly out of the bottle and as is common with genies, we stand little chance of ever getting it back in.

    Shame. We see so little of real campaigning these days, getting instead a constant diet of carefully staged photo-ops among the faithful, and TV drivel. Come back John Major standing in a market square on your soapbox, or union leaders rousing the members with a good old impromtu speech. At least they were more sincere, not scripted word by word, even if you disagreed with what they said.

  2. Received thanks from:

    AledJ (30-04-2010)

  3. #2
    Senior Member AledJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,899
    Thanks
    168
    Thanked
    25 times in 21 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    All three debates had the same drivel that all the parties spout all the time. It did not change my vote as none of them dealt with the main issues, or if they did they was a half dig at another party. TBH they say they will do this and that, but until I see the proof I really don't believe any of them. I hope at the next election these debates are scraped!!

  4. #3
    Efficiently lazy shadowmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,233
    Thanks
    397
    Thanked
    310 times in 208 posts
    • shadowmaster's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-890FXA-UD5
      • CPU:
      • AMD Phenom II X4 965 @ 3.6Ghz
      • Memory:
      • 4GB Corsair XMS3
      • Storage:
      • Kingston SSD V series 64GB + Samsung F3 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • XFX 5870 1GB in Crossfire
      • PSU:
      • BeQuiet 1200W Dark Power Pro
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Stacker 832 SE
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • 3 x BenQ G2222HDL 21.5inch 1080p
      • Internet:
      • BT Infinity 2

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I watched all of the first one, half of the second one and none of the third one. I am surprised it took me so long to realise how useless these debates are. If you are going to have them, then I want to see politicians grilled in the process. I want to see tough questions asked and answered, they should be sweating and loosening their ties.

  5. #4
    Welcome to stampytown! Salazaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oxford-ish
    Posts
    4,459
    Thanks
    505
    Thanked
    353 times in 254 posts
    • Salazaar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asrock B450m Steel Legend
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5 3600
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 5700 XT

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    Personally, thanks to the fact the I've missed, not got around to watching and been away for all the debates, and that I've already voted, they haven't made a damn of difference to me.

    As for the nation as a whole, I'm not sure. But if they encourage people to get off their backsides and vote, for whoever, then they're a good thing in my eyes.
    ____
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  6. #5
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I think it's a good thing - purely to get an idea of what each party stands for. Let's face it, Party Political Broadcasts are unbelievably dreary... and whilst I found the debates pretty much unwatchable, it is a much better format to find out what they think.

    I'm utterly unenthused by the entire thing, but I think that's more because I don't think that anything they say has any weight behind it - and that's not a consequence of the debates.

    The problem is that it turns into a game of impressions. So you know that two things are on each leader's mind when they stand up - firstly, represent myself well by being friendly/eloquent/confident, and secondly, represent my party well by saying what the people want to here. And so we end up with these ridiculous conversations the next day about "Gordon Brown looked a bit nervous", "Nick Clegg came across as being very reasonable", so on so forth. As if people are voting for the person they'd most like to represent the UK at the Oscars or something.

    So it is good, but people (naturally, given the way people are) are judging it in the wrong way. For people who are prepared to judge purely on policies, and think about what they've been saying, then I would say it is beneficial.

  7. #6
    Herr Doktor Oetker, ja!!! pollaxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    West of England
    Posts
    2,969
    Thanks
    1,013
    Thanked
    280 times in 225 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I voted Bad.

    Simply because I feel our politics are already in the gutter, I don't want media and soundbites to play an ever increasing role in our elections, even though it's inevitable, I fear. A lot of people liked Nick Clegg's performance - and I'm pleased to see that the LDs have had a bit of a surge - *but* to echo Saracen's comments, I wonder how many people who liked Clegg can actually name most of the LD's policies?

    Tony Blair's cult of personality (you can query the spelling if you like) was a driving force for his election and we all know where that ended up. Obviously, the character of our dear leader must be up for scrutiny but a one man show is not the way to go.

    I totally agree with Saracen, it's not suited for our system but is suited to the U.S. Presidential format.

    My feeling is that if we have to have a televised debate then just one would have been enough.

  8. #7
    Welcome to stampytown! Salazaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Oxford-ish
    Posts
    4,459
    Thanks
    505
    Thanked
    353 times in 254 posts
    • Salazaar's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asrock B450m Steel Legend
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 5 3600
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 5700 XT

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    Does anyone else wonder how long it's going to be until we get 'Britain's Got Politics'?

    Our brave teams of prospective MPs spend the next 3 hours competing in a krypton factor/karaoke contest gameshow while being bawled at by political commentators and media 'personalities'. Only three parties can go through to the final when we open up the phone lines to you, the public, and you can votes in the MPs who've impressed you the most. Tactical voting, shenanigans and emotional breakdowns are the name of the game!
    ____
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    591
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    28 times in 26 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    From what I can see, and from what I have heard from people, a lot of people are voting on the "person" rather than the "party".

    How can someone do this? It's been a tough few years for a lot of people, Labour has been in power for a long time, and a lot of people want a "better" party to win, yet they don't even look into what each party is claiming to be doing if they win, and I watched the after debate last night when they showed the students watching the debate and they are all clueless chickens, they don't even know half of the things Brown, Cameron, or Clegg are saying.

    Saying that, I don't think a lot of people do, you have the power to vote, so you should at least look into what you are voting for, unless you vote for someone every time and don't care.

    About the actual debate, I do find them interesting, and when certain questions are asked, you can see who is speaking utter rubbish and who is speaking truthfully, Clegg speaks the most crap as far as I'm concerned, he speaks like he can fix the country tomorrow if he won, it's a cheap tactic to get the ignorant people's votes - There is only so much any party can do in power. Cameron didn't even bother questioning Brown, which from what I personally think, he always loses against him pretty much all the time, but, a lot of people who vote for Labour will still vote for them, the people who vote for the other two are looking to vote for Clegg, and Cameron is trying his best to get those votes on his side, if he does, it's a win win situation.
    Last edited by SammEl; 30-04-2010 at 10:21 AM.

  10. #9
    HEXUS webmaster Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    14,276
    Thanks
    292
    Thanked
    837 times in 473 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    Although the debates are largely superficial, and as others are pointing out, it might sway people's opinions for completely the wrong reasons, I still think they've been a good thing.

    They've helped raise the lib dem's profile, which, regardless of who you're going to vote for, makes the whole process a little more interesting than the two-horse raise it usually is, forcing the parties to engage in something a little smarter than "we'll do the opposite of what they say".

    But most importantly, I hope it exposes more people to politics, maybe gets some people to vote who wouldn't otherwise - I doubt it'll deter anyone from voting who otherwise intended to. And if somebody later regrets their vote, at least they voted, and it'll make their vote more considered next time.

    So on balance, in the long term, I think it's a good thing with respect to engaging people in the political process. Will it result in the best people being elected? Well, if we all agreed on that we wouldn't need a bloomin' vote on it, would we?
    PHP Code:
    $s = new signature();
    $s->sarcasm()->intellect()->font('Courier New')->display(); 

  11. #10
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by SammEl View Post
    ..... Cameron didn't even bother questioning Brown, which from what I personally think, he always loses against him pretty much all the time, but, a lot of people who vote for Labour will still vote for them, the people who vote for the other two are looking to vote for Clegg, and Cameron is trying his best to get those votes on his side, if he does, it's a win win situation.
    Part of the problem with debates is that they're run by tactical decisions on what plays well.

    I have no doubt that Cameron knows he has to strike a balance between challenging Brown's record, especially on the economy which is supposed to be Brown's strength, and coming across as negative, so he spent most of his time saying what he wanted to do, rather than sniping at Brown or even Clegg. But, for some of the time, snipe he did, as did both of the others. For instance, on the subject of Cameron "questioning" Brown, he pointed out, some number of times, that if Brown really believed in and wanted "that" (and what "that" was varied), he;d had 13 years to do it so it wasn't credible to suddenly have a 'deathbed' conversion now.

    So his not spending that time time questioning Brown is, in my view, entirely tactical. My opinion is that when Cameron and Brown go head to head at PMQs, Cameron comes across the best most of the time. The problem is, while I believe he generally is, coming across best doesn't make him right on the issue. If we see a direct confrontation between any two, or indeed any blend of the three, all we see is who is best at that type of verbal wrestling. Rarely does it help us actually see the arguments.

    Personally, I'd much rather see each of the candidates tackled by a panel of experts that could give a thorough and forensic dissection of their actual policies, by something like a combination of qualified people with the attack dog challenging nature of Paxman at his most obnoxious. I want to see the squirming and obfuscation they ALL indulged in held up to the harsh light of intense scrutiny by people that actually know their job. I mean, Paxman, Neil etc all all good at what they do but they're journalists, not experts.

    Maybe the politicians ought to be challenged on tax by accountants, on education by teachers, and so on. Really hold their feet to the fire.

    Oh, and whatever that panel of "experts" consists of, it needs to include an element of the general public. I referred to the first question earlier, but much the same thing happened several times, where the candidates each essentially answered a question they weren't asked.

    These debates are supposed to inform the public, and I find it offensive in the extreme that politicians when asked a specific question by a member of the public totally ignore it and spout repetitive policy on something only vaguely connected, and certainly don't answer the question. The net result, and I'm sure I'm not alone in it, is I find myself shouting "Answer the bleeping question for bleeping once you bleeping bleep" at the TV.

    I really get the hump when I get patronised in that way by people that then want me to vote for them.

    Shadowmaster said it well .... if they aren't sweating and loosening their ties by the mid-point, they aren't being pushed hard enough. And they sure weren't pushed. The whole series was simply a bit more political sleight of hand, and they were molly-coddled by the rules.

    Utter fail. Oh, and they're a yawnfest. I'm interested in politics and current affairs. And on two out of the three, I actually fell asleep, quite literally, trying to watch them, and hard to resort to recordings.

  12. #11
    The late but legendary peterb - Onward and Upward peterb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Looking down & checking on swearing
    Posts
    19,378
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked
    3,403 times in 2,693 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I missed the first two debates, but I did watch last night's as it seemed to focus on the important issues. If that was the best, I'm glad I missed the first two, as I found it a very sterile debate. In fact I thought it barely merited the title of debate.

    I can understand why that would be the case - each leader wants to create a good impression in front of the camers, but, like or loathe the processes in the House of Commons, the exchanges at PM question time, while containing a lot of part political point scoring, does hold the PM to account. Nothing I saw last night came close to scrtunising the respective party's policies in any detail.
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(")

    Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
    My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute

  13. #12
    jim
    jim is offline
    HEXUS.clueless jim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Location: Location:
    Posts
    11,435
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked
    1,639 times in 1,304 posts
    • jim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus Maximus IV Gene-Z
      • CPU:
      • i5 2500K @ 4.5GHz
      • Memory:
      • 8GB Corsair Vengeance LP
      • Storage:
      • 1TB Sandisk SSD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • ASUS GTX 970
      • PSU:
      • Corsair AX650
      • Case:
      • Silverstone Fortress FT03
      • Operating System:
      • 8.1 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell S2716DG
      • Internet:
      • 10 Mbps ADSL

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I get the feeling that if they hadn't have locked it down as much as they did - if they had given them free rein to argue each others' points, then they wouldn't have agreed to the debates.

  14. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    6,585
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    246 times in 208 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I like that idea of having a panel of experts. But is it feasible to ensure that the people asking the questions are neutral (at least for the hour) and question each of them just as hard?

  15. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    591
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    28 times in 26 posts

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    Did think the end speech by Brown was quite amusing with his cheeky smile, did laugh at that.

  16. #15
    Mostly Me Lucio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Tring
    Posts
    5,163
    Thanks
    443
    Thanked
    448 times in 351 posts
    • Lucio's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA-970A-UD3P
      • CPU:
      • AMD FX-6350 with Cooler Master Seldon 240
      • Memory:
      • 2x4GB Corsair DDR3 Vengeance
      • Storage:
      • 128GB Toshiba, 2.5" SSD, 1TB WD Blue WD10EZEX, 500GB Seagate Baracuda 7200.11
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire R9 270X 4GB
      • PSU:
      • 600W Silverstone Strider SST-ST60F
      • Case:
      • Cooler Master HAF XB
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8.1 64Bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Samsung 2032BW, 1680 x 1050
      • Internet:
      • 16Mb Plusnet

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    From what I've seen of the debates (and it's very little), they were pretty meaningless. All they've done is get across the three party's manifestos in a way that's less boring than watching party politcal broadcasts.

    The Presidential debates work in the US because there you are voting for the person and his close associates, but here, we're supposed to be voting for our local MP. I'm voting for my local MP because I think he, personally represents my views.

    (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
    (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
    (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")


    This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!

  17. #16
    Not a good person scaryjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Gateshead
    Posts
    15,196
    Thanks
    1,230
    Thanked
    2,291 times in 1,874 posts
    • scaryjim's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Dell Inspiron
      • CPU:
      • Core i5 8250U
      • Memory:
      • 2x 4GB DDR4 2666
      • Storage:
      • 128GB M.2 SSD + 1TB HDD
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Radeon R5 230
      • PSU:
      • Battery/Dell brick
      • Case:
      • Dell Inspiron 5570
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10
      • Monitor(s):
      • 15" 1080p laptop panel

    Re: TV Election debates - good thing or bad thing for democracy?

    I'm not going to vote, having not watched any of the debates, but if I were asked this as an open question I'd say it's probably a bit of both, tbh.

    Firstly, and contrary to my expectations when the debates were first announced, they do appear to have increased public interest in the election. Whether that will bring out more voters or not is another matter, but at least they have got people who would normally be completely indifferent to the election talking about it.

    Secondly, they seem to have been a huge boost to the Lib Dems, which I think is a positive since we're supposed to have a multi-party system. Whether having a multi-party system is a good thing is another matter entirely, but since we claim to have one it's good to see that we might see a significant number of seats moving away from the main two parties.

    That said, I'm inclined to agree with Saracen that these presidential style debates are irrelevant to the government system we're meant to have.

    And that's where it all falls down, of course. These debates don't really do anything for democracy, because we don't really have democracy in this country. Every four years I get the chance to choose a person who will sit in a building almost 200 miles away and try to represent the views of me and 99,999 other people in deciding what laws will effect the entire popluation of the country.

    Frankly, that's a ridiculous situation to describe as "rule by the people"...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Done a bad thing...
    By kopite in forum Consumer Electronics
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 10:22 PM
  2. Huge Tory victory in Crewe : Brown to resign
    By Saracen in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 25-05-2008, 06:40 PM
  3. Dell Support - how many bad blocks does it take to call a HDD dead?
    By cotswoldcs in forum Help! Quick Relief From Tech Headaches
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06-03-2008, 08:02 PM
  4. LINK: Baby's named a bad, bad thing
    By Mike Fishcake in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-02-2006, 11:15 AM
  5. Good, bad and the ugly
    By XA04 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 19-03-2005, 12:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •