TELEVISED confrontations between the presidential candidates in the United States are now well-established, and although they have not had a decisive impact on the outcome of elections, they have played a part in raising the quality of debate. British Prime Ministers have been noticeably reluctant to give a platform to the Leader of the Opposition, but in the coming election Mr Major starts off as the underdog. In an interview with a West of England newspaper he appeared to be amenable to debating on television with Mr Blair, so long as the TV companies come up with acceptable proposals after discussions with all the parties. Notwithstanding the difficulties of reaching agreement, carefully ordered televised debates between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would be a welcome departure from the practice of recent elections. In the age of the spin doctor and the sound-bite
for TV news bulletins, the election is in danger of being conducted at the level of the lowest common denominator. The electorate knows a great deal about Mr Major's record and his policies. Mr Blair may already have become an even more familiar face, but he plays his cards close to his chest and his policies and plans for Government have not been subjected to enough scrutiny.
Most of the utterings of our political elite are crafted by speech writers, carefully revised and rehearsed, leaked in advance, and then delivered by autocue before invited audiences. Questions from the floor form no part of this routine. It is like playing cricket in the nets. It is far removed from the hustings of earlier eras when political leaders could draw huge audiences and engage in excellent sport with professional hecklers. Mr Major sought to break the mould in the 1992 election with his famous soap box as he travelled the length and breadth of the land. Even Blair sympathisers will admit that their man often comes off worse in his exchanges with the Prime Minister across the floor of the Commons at question time. Televised debates during the election campaign would be a fair test of both men, and give the public a concrete basis for assessing their real strengths and weaknesses.
It goes without saying that pagers should not be allowed.
It may be objected that such confrontations would be too presidential in style, and place an unfair emphasis on debating skills at the expense of policies. There are certainly risks in going down this road in a country where the Prime Minister is not directly elected and derives his power from the House of Commons. The rules of the game would help to counter such dangers. And there are greater risks in not having a proper debate at all. But the big problem is what to do about Paddy Ashdown and - in Scotland - Alex Salmond? A three or four-sided debate would be unduly cumbersome and a nightmare to order. Television has rules of fair play to observe, but in its coverage of news it has been able to focus on the running battle between the Government and Opposition without excluding the other parties from the debate. Politicians do not win many friends by negative campaigning. Dirty tricks departments
have too great an influence, and the real issues are often obscured by trivia. It is too much to hope that the forthcoming proceedings will be dominated by a much richer mix than has been evident in previous encounters, but televised debates would give the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to show if they at least have leadership qualities and constructive policies.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article