Television debates
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.
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.
no subject
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!
no subject
So while agreeing with all your criticisms, I still think they do some good.
no subject
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.
no subject
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.