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

[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.