Charlotte Vere

22 DEC 2009

Cameron, Brown and Clegg too?

So, TV debates are now a real possibility and it seems that no one is happy.

Supporters of the Conservatives and Labour are dismissive of Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, sharing the platform, and the minor parties, BNP, Plaid Cymru, SNP, The Greens etc are all complaining that they want a piece of the action too.

And that is where the problem lies. I believe that the TV debates should be an opportunity for the contenders for the role of Prime Minister to show that they are up to the job. To demonstrate to the electorate that they can answer questions without resorting to spin and sound bites and that they have a vision for the future of Britain - the debates should be a ‘job interview in front of the nation'.

The invitation issued to Nick Clegg makes a mockery of the purpose of the debates. With the best will in the world, he is not competing for the top job and his inclusion has given some credence to the claims of countless other minor parties that their leaders should be included too.

Threats abound about legal action and I hope none succeeds. It is time for a prolonged head to head between Cameron and Brown outside the stilted environment of PMQs, and it is just a shame that Clegg will be there too.

6 comments

"Shame about Clegg" ? Sorry, do forget about being a democracy =/ The three main party leaders could all form a Government of some kind after polling day. Alex Salmond certainly could not; he is not even a candidate in 2010. That Clegg is one part of the leaders debate is not just to be welcomed, it is to be expected. To exclude the leader of a national party would be against electoral law. I do like seeing members and supporters of the red/blue consensus getting into a fret because of the LibDem threat they clearly fear.
- Liam

I admit that there is a small chance that the three might 'form a government'. But Clegg will not be contending for the role of Prime Minister.
- Charlotte Vere

I admit that there is a small chance that the three might 'form a government'. But Clegg will not be contending for the role of Prime Minister. It depends whether the debates are designed to be US-style leadership debates or an introduction to the policies of UK political parties. If the latter, then others do have a right to complain.
- Charlotte Vere

I don't see how US-style leadership debates are entirely appropriate, given we - the voting public - have no direct say in who the Prime Minister is. Sure, we can vote for our local MP, and whoever is the leader of the party that gets the plurality of seats probably will end up as PM - but we're not actually voting for a leader (thank God - because all three of them are completely uninspiring!). Sure, make it about putting the leader of the party on the spot, to account for their party's policies. But for many people the choice isn't between Labour and Tory. After all - the Greens polled nearly as many votes in the seat you're contesting as your party did.
- Pete

I agree Pete, we are in a different political environment to the US and so therefore we need to define what our debates are all about. If they are about something other than the potential leaders of our country, what exactly is that? And how does it impact the minor parties.
- Charlotte Vere

In 1992 the United States held a Presidential debate between George Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Ross Perot as an Independent candidate had virtually no chance of becoming President (he did not even win one vote in the electoral college). However, in the interests of democracy he was permitted to participate, not because he might win but because he had an agenda that contributed positively to the overall debate of the election. Your distinction between the US and the potential evolution of the UK debates into something 'new and different' is in effect irrelevant.
- George

Cameron, Brown and Clegg too?

I need your help!

Charlotte on Twitter

Newsletter signup

Find me on