It seems now that it is likely that we'll have a US style leaders' debate. I have watched the US one and it's all a bit sanitized and scripted. Is it of any value to the electorate do you think? Do you think the British one would be a bit more of a "no holds barred" scrap? Any suggestions as to how to stop the viewers turning over to Eastenders!
It's a load of t0ss really. It will only serve to make the election even more about personality and how well someone comes across on TV, and less about policies.
Inevitable though. As I've said before, what happens in the U.S we end up copying sooner or later.
Few undecided voters will watch but the media will pour over it and dwell on the "highlights" after.
The only way it'll make a difference is if one manages to force an unguarded admission or remark from the others - and I don't see that as being particularly likely.
It's also somewhat awkward with the Scottish situation. Without including Alex Salmond it's ridiculous North of the Border and including him would be ridiculous south of it.
hang on ahms, if "most people remain faithful to the party they vote for" is true then how come we get massive swings and landslides? There is a hard core for both the main parties but the ones that decide are the ones in the middle that can and do change alegience. It has long been said that middle England giveth and middle England taketh away. It was middle England that Noo labour seduced away from the Tories in 1997 and it's the same middle England that have now fallen out of love with the Blair "Project" and will swing back to Cameron. add to that the often irrational desire for change and wallop, landslide!
well I suppose they could have two jake, I mean the Tories in Scotland have about the same coverage as the SNP do in England! So in England it should be Brown v Cameron and Salmond v Brown in Scotland. Can't see the point in having Clegg. Well they could have a lower division shoot out, Libdems, Greens, UKIP, BNP, now that I'd watch!