tobyaw: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] tobyaw at 05:27pm on 18/04/2017
Televised leaders’ debates are bad, because they focus attention on party leaders rather than local candidates.

They’re bad because different parties stand in different parts of the UK.

They’re bad because there isn’t time for policy detail, and challenging questions.

They’re bad because they’re terrible, unwatchable, television.

So I’d be happy if they don’t occur, and wouldn’t watch them if they did.
location: St Andrews, Scotland
There are 4 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
vivdunstan: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] vivdunstan at 04:40pm on 18/04/2017
Yes. Totally agree.

I find them shallow circus level performances, focused on personalities, which ignore the real issues, also giving little detail to policies of specific parties.

I never watch them, but I usually end up arguing with my mum about them, who loves them, and is influenced in her voting by them.

Aargh!
ggreig: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] ggreig at 07:48pm on 18/04/2017
I'm in partial agreement with both of you, but only partial. Where they have some value is in bringing smaller parties' views to the attention of a wider audience on a fairly level footing, and small parties with good ideas have little chance of becoming bigger parties without that.

So while agreeing with all your criticisms, I still think they do some good.
tobyaw: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] tobyaw at 08:04pm on 18/04/2017
A debate between possible prime ministers is a very different thing than a debate including leaders of smaller parties. I see very little way of sensibly dealing with the different geographic footprint of UK political parties. In 2010 we objected because the SNP weren’t included in a debate; in 2015 a debate included the SNP and Plaid and the English Greens, but not the Scottish Greens. And a consistent dearth of Northern Irish parties. And I’m never happy about the prominence that the broadcasters give to UKIP, considering how limited their Westminster presence has been.

Anyway, I feel we get much more from a detailed one-on-one interview with a party leader; the Today programme, or perhaps Andrew Neil.
Edited Date: 2017-04-18 08:06 pm (UTC)
ggreig: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] ggreig at 08:28pm on 18/04/2017
A one-to-one could certainly be more informative, but wouldn't get the audience - most folk would only watch whoever the big two happened to be.

For leaders debates, I'm in favour of including all the leaders - definitely including the Northern Irish leaders. Yes, I'm sure it would get a bit unwieldy, but I understand it's been done in other countries, and lack of exposure to the politics of other parts of the UK is one reason why the K is not very U!

Agreed on UKIP; I wouldn't include them as of now, because my criterion for inclusion of a party's leader would be the party having at least one current seat in the Parliament being elected. Unfortunately - in my view - that would also exclude the Scottish Greens, but there has to be a cut-off point somewhere and I think that one's both reasonably inclusive and defensible.

Links

June

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
        1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6 7
 
8
 
9 10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30