UK General Election 2010: Prime Ministerial TV Debates

[mcgillianaire]

For the rest of the world who isn't following the British general election, tonight marks the third and final TV debate between the three major political leaders. The debates are taking place for the first time this year and tonight's is being telecast on the BBC. Like the previous two debates held on the previous two Thursdays, it will also last ninety minutes. Tonight's is about the economy. And we go to the polls next Wednesday. But I'll be honest. I haven't watched any of the debates live or in full and tonight will be no different. My mind's already made up but I can understand how many undecided voters could yet be swayed. But there's still a few problems with the current format.

First, we are a Parliamentary Democracy, not an American-styled Presidential one. On polling day we vote for a Member of Parliament who represents that specific constituency. The person we vote for may belong to one of the three major parties but we don't directly vote the man or woman who takes up residence in 10 Downing St. What we should really be having are 650 Town Hall debates between prospective MPs. We should not be giving so much prominence to all these televised debates between prospective Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers.

Which leads into my second gripe about all these debates. I share a lot of sympathy and anger for regional parties such as Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party who were never invited to the Prime Ministerial debates. Indeed, the name was changed from Leaders' debates in order to facilitate this democratic travesty. Worse still as both parties have pointed out, very little of the 180 minutes of the debates so far have discussed issues relating to Wales and Scotland. Though at least I did notice a member of the Green Party (E&W) taking part in the Environment Ministerial debate. And the debate on London had among others, George Galloway taking part. But still, not good enough.

I know we live in the shadow of everything that America does and I know that Blair, Brown et al have transformed British government into a more Presidential-styled one, but it doesn't take away from the fact that at its core, we are still a Parliamentary democracy. And we should be proud of it. It has served this country, in some form or another, for several centuries. It's not a perfect system and there are many ways in which it can be tweaked for the future, but need we copy everything the Americans do? Join me in boycotting tonight's debate! :)

Comments

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

I don't know how rigid party lines are in Britain, but they are very strict on party discipline in Australia. Crossing the floor is grounds for immediate expulsion from the Labor Party, and while there are occasionally some conservatives who cross the floor, when they do so it is a big thing in the media and shows how the conservatives don't really know what they stand for, etc.

Realistically your local member is going to vote and publicly advocate for whatever his party's ministry or shadow ministry decides on. I don't think that this is as bad a thing as it might look. (Here I'm talking from the Australian experience.) Every now and then you get a hard-working local member promoted to the ministry who turns out to be completely incompetent at actually running anything important. The party machines make democracy worse in several ways, but they do a pretty good job at filtering out the dud MP's and promoting the ones with a talent for policy making.

Following this line of reasoning, the logical thing to do would be to have both a leaders' debate and a debate between ministers and shadow ministers. We had some of them before the last election in Australia. I don't know how much impact they had, but then the "debates" here are really tightly controlled, or at least they were under Howard, who was a poor debater and wanted as little actual debate as possible.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you brought this point up because my original post ties in with one of my biggest issues with the way parliamentary democracy has developed here in the UK, and it appears to be the same in Australia: the whip system. Disobeying a three-line whip is sufficient grounds for expulsion from a party. While I agree that parties do a pretty good job at filtering out/in, I think we should move on from the convention of collective responsibility at the cabinet level and the three-line whip. And you're right, because of this my local member is going to vote and publicly advocate the party position. But speaking in a single voice has drowned out principled voting and disconnected mainstream politicians from Joe the Plumber. I like the American system where they have strong political parties but Congressmen seem to vote across party lines more often than in our systems.

As for the debates themselves, I think it's important to have them, it's just disappointing the level of coverage that's been devoted to them. Given the way the media works, it was perhaps inevitable but like you also pointed out, they've been extremely controlled over here as well. Seventy-six rules (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7047010.ece) were drawn up for each of our Prime Ministerial debates.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Three-line whips are quite rare, though, and being expelled for disobeying one is even rarer. Wasn't the last example when John Major expelled some MPs for voting against him on the Maastricht Treaty? Usually when the whip's withdrawn, it's for some form of criminal misconduct or similar.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

D'oh! This is obviously something I should read up on. I thought three-line whips were a lot more common than that and didn't realise that was the last time MPs got expelled for disobeying it. Thanks for sorting that out...

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

disconnected mainstream politicians from Joe the Plumber
I would like to state, for the record, my belief that mainstream politicians (and heck, much of mainstream society) should stay the hell away from Joe the Plumber.

Let's also not forget that the American system, with its emphasis on individual representatives and their views, lends itself to endless backroom dealings on the part of legislators. Buying them off creates what is known as 'pork' in American parlance. Whips can thus vastly simplify and speed up the process of passing legislation.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Good point. No system is going to be perfect but pork barrel politics aside, do Congressmen not vote across party lines? I think the last time I did a comparison between the way British MPs voted and Congressmen voted, there was a lot more voting across party lines by the latter set. Surely not all of them are being bought-off?

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

lot more voting across party lines by the latter set
Hence the inability to debate legislation quickly (how long did it take to pass health care?) and the larger number of opportunities for people to be bought off (look up the failed 'Cornhusker Kickback' sometime). Plus, governments are unlikely to move into stasis over budgetary requirements; there'd be instant elections, with a clear winner likely. If only California were as lucky.

Surely not all of them are being bought-off?
No. Their views can be different for all sorts of legitimate reasons also. But even this extra freedom for legislators to make up their own minds is not always a good thing. Remember that any given legislator cannot be an expert on everything. In any event, not every vote is subject to a three-line whip.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Fair point. I suppose what would be best at a minimum at least, is a bit more principled voting. It used to happen a lot more often until a couple decades ago, and even used to be the norm over a century ago. The system didn't fall to pieces then, and if we could take a leaf outta the American book and establish fixed-term parliaments, then we can avoid the frequency of no confidence motions that afflicted 19th century governance.

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

If parliament's unable to function, it should be dismissed, lest it sit around deadlocked while urgent problems go unsolved. In India, where the stability of coalitions is more of an issue, there has previously been talk of adopting German rules. Any confidence motion should also include the names of the parties that will replace it.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Good point. What are the German rules?

[dubaiwalla.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I should have used a colon rather than a full stop in that last comment. The German rule is that confidence motions should include the name of parties that will form a government to replace the incumbent one.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Gotcha.

[pappubahry.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I certainly wouldn't complain if a few more MP's stuck up for their principles every now and then.

they've been extremely controlled over here as well.

Ho ho ho.

49. The moderator may then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit.

Howard got rid of free debate in 2004. There were strictly no interruptions - there was a set order of question from moderator, answer, follow-up question, reply from other leader, right of reply. Something like that anyway. Dullest TV ever.

I don't think it was quite that bad in 2007 (I was in France at the time and so didn't see it) - flicking through the transcript suggests that the leaders started talking at each other about half-way through the debate rather than just politely answering moderator/journalist questions. But mostly they didn't talk to each other. We have such terrible debates.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Quite a few people have remarked to me about how boring our debates have been, perhaps I should tell them how much worse it is/was Down Under!

That particular rule has worked quite well so far over here. A lot of it depends on the moderator. They need to be unafraid to shout down anyone who constantly interrupts the others. From the little I've seen of both debates so far, I've been impressed with how civilised it's been, given how little they obviously like each other.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

I actually think the debates have led to more policy discussion than we've had in the last few elections, so I think they've been a good thing. I do have some sympathy for Plaid and the SNP, but Scotland and Wales did get their own debates.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

This is the first election I've followed from close quarters so I couldn't really comment, but it's interesting you say that. Almost every commentator who's brought this up has suggested the opposite! I think there was an improvement in the second debate on the policy front but the media have seemed almost disinterested about it. Too much talk about who won the debate and not enough poking holes at what was actually said. And fair point about Scotland and Wales getting their own debates. I still think at least one of the main debates, particularly the one on the Beeb tonight, should've been more inclusive.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

It's probably worth noting that despite my rant, the party that has most benefited from these debates is the one I support, the Liberal Democrats!

[messicat.livejournal.com]

The only news I watch is the French news, for exposure to French, so all the coverage I've seen of the British elections has been in French and I'll be honest, I haven't understood most of it, but I do understand bits and pieces. After all, I believe that we have a similar political system in Australia, seeing as Britain is the Motherland! We also have the TV debates before the election, which are always so controversial, because they never cover the big issues of the time and it's only ever the current PM and the leader of the Opposition Party.

We are also highly influenced by America, which I believe can be detrimental at times. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Australia became a republic in my lifetime.

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

Sitting in Australia, I like the fact the only news you watch is French news! Indeed, our democracies are fairly similar. The UK exported the Westminster system to many places. And even the American system isn't too different from the British system as it was in the late 18th-century. I am a huge admirer of the American Constitution and think there's a lot there that can be added to the British system. I'm a sucker for Constitutional Law and it was by far my favourite module in the course that I did last year. So far I've only been studying the British one, but I hope to spend more time learning about others such as what you guys have Down Under and elsewhere. I think debates are a good thing. Anything that forces politicians to face a camera and answer questions is a step in the right direction but like you point out, it adds little value if it's tightly controlled.

[loganberrybunny.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings. I do agree that it's rather unsatisfactory to import a Presidential setup to a Parliamentary system - but Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland (among others) have done it before us, and they all have systems similar to ours. I don't think it was sustainable for the UK to continue to be the odd one out, so having no debate wasn't an option, and never will be again. As for 650 across the country... well, it sounds nice, but it's a return to the 1950s and town hall hustings - would it get TV coverage? Not a chance.

Moving on to who should appear... if you had the current three and (say) the SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, the BNP, the Greens and let's say two NI parties, then you'd have 10 leaders in all. It's simply impossible to do it with that many - either the programme would be so long that nobody would watch it, or each leader would get about two soundbites in total. Question Time has five people on the panel, and that's about the practical maximum; occasionally they've had six and it really hasn't worked.

And you have absolutely zero chance of getting me to join in your boycott! =:P

[mcgillianaire.livejournal.com]

I'm not against having debates at all, in fact I'd encourage having them in their current format (ie, Leaders and (Shadow) Cabinet members etc). I just don't like the emphasis that has been placed on them. If it wasn't for Gordo's centre-stage performance yesterday, we'd've been inundated with pre-debate hype right until it took place tonight, and it's going to dominate the news until the weekend. I think there should be a healthy mix between town hall hustings and televised debates which don't affect every single constituency.

You're quite right about a panel of six on QT. I suppose what they could've done is had at least the Beeb's debate with a member from Plaid Cymru and SNP, and had a separate televised debate with members of just the fringe parties (like the Greens, UKIP, BNP etc). If you're going to give such extensive media coverage to the main parties, it's at least the duty of public broadcasters to find a way to give some form of prominent coverage to even the fringe parties. The complete absence of parties like UKIP and the Greens from mainstream tele is something to learn from for next time.

As for the boycott, I don't blame you. I should've mentioned the fact that I missed the first two when they went out live due to other engagements, and tonight was to have been the same but I've found myself free. It's a toss-up between Liverpool and the debate. I'm gonna be tuned into both, just need to work out which one deserves the telly and which one my iphone! :P