It appears that Mr "I agree with Nick" Clegg is not happy. The Green Party, and their Leader Natalie Bennett are not happy either. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage and UKIP are fairly ok with things. Basically, the latest broadcast proposals do not give Nick the automatic seat to all three debates, yet allows the presence of Nigel in one session, and still freeze out the Greens.
Ultimately, Britons do not directly elect their Prime Minister in the same way the French and Americans elect a President. However, you do have to live in the present day. Considering many Brits have a disillusionment with Politicians and Politics itself, the debates will hardly do democracy any harm. The viewing figures were fairly impressive last time round, weren't they?
For anyone who has read any of my previous posts, it would come as no surprise to realise that if I don't spoil my ballot paper next May, then I certainly won't be voting for Mr Farage's Party. That said, there can be little doubt that Farage makes entertaining television. However, once we continue to favour one Party with one Westminster MP over another Party with that solitary MP, it becomes hard to credibly state that these debates are to aid the democratic process.
As for Mr Clegg, what can we say? Times sure have changed, and his Party can have few complaints that they are not automatically participating in every debate. Even during more favourable times in the cycle of Liberal Democratic fortunes, the democratic interest has always had a need which would be served better by at least one debate solely between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
We need to develop a new formula which will serve all General Elections in the future. I say no more than four Parties (seeking to form a UK Government) can participate, with the third Party guaranteed to sit out one debate between the sitting Premier and Leader of the second largest Party. If there is a tie between the fourth and fifth largest Parties in terms of number of MPs, simply favour the Party with the best performance at the last General Election to appear in one debate. THEREFORE NATALIE BENNETT IN, NIGEL FARAGE OUT!
Ultimately, Britons do not directly elect their Prime Minister in the same way the French and Americans elect a President. However, you do have to live in the present day. Considering many Brits have a disillusionment with Politicians and Politics itself, the debates will hardly do democracy any harm. The viewing figures were fairly impressive last time round, weren't they?
For anyone who has read any of my previous posts, it would come as no surprise to realise that if I don't spoil my ballot paper next May, then I certainly won't be voting for Mr Farage's Party. That said, there can be little doubt that Farage makes entertaining television. However, once we continue to favour one Party with one Westminster MP over another Party with that solitary MP, it becomes hard to credibly state that these debates are to aid the democratic process.
As for Mr Clegg, what can we say? Times sure have changed, and his Party can have few complaints that they are not automatically participating in every debate. Even during more favourable times in the cycle of Liberal Democratic fortunes, the democratic interest has always had a need which would be served better by at least one debate solely between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.
We need to develop a new formula which will serve all General Elections in the future. I say no more than four Parties (seeking to form a UK Government) can participate, with the third Party guaranteed to sit out one debate between the sitting Premier and Leader of the second largest Party. If there is a tie between the fourth and fifth largest Parties in terms of number of MPs, simply favour the Party with the best performance at the last General Election to appear in one debate. THEREFORE NATALIE BENNETT IN, NIGEL FARAGE OUT!
No comments:
Post a Comment