Following the confirmation that there will be a “Leaders’ Debate” in the Election campaign, we are today asking why there are no plans for policy debates.
Following the confirmation last night that there will be a “Leaders’ Debate” in the General Election campaign, Left Foot Forward is today asking why there are no plans for Departmental head-to-heads between Ministers and their shadows.
In the United States, the Vice Presidential nominees square up in live tv debates, yet no such plans are in place here, with only three shows between the three main party leaders, on ITV, Sky and the BBC – though the SNP and Plaid Cymru are reportedly considering legal action if they aren’t involved.
If, then, debates are to be held in Cardiff and Edinburgh, it seems fair to ask of the broadcasters to at least consider hosting debates between the Cabinet and their Tory and Lib Dem shadows, giving the public the opportunity to compare the strenghts, statures and intellects of those seeking to govern.
As important as character, it will also enable the public to examine, and contrast, the policies of the parties in the key areas of the economy, health, education, law & order, foreign affairs etc. the details of which are likely to be lost in the heated exchanges between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg.
Here’s how the debates could shape up:
| DEPARTMENT | LABOUR | CONSERVATIVE | LIBERAL DEMOCRATS |
| BUSINESS | Lord Mandelson | Ken Clarke | John Thurso |
| LDR. OF THE HOUSE | Harriet Harman | Sir George Young | David Heath |
| TREASURY | Alistair Darling | George Osborne | Vince Cable |
| CHIEF SECRETARY | Liam Byrne | Philip Hammond | Jeremy Browne |
| FOREIGN OFFICE | David Miliband | William Hague | Ed Davey |
| JUSTICE | Jack Straw | Dominic Grieve | David Howarth |
| HOME OFFICE | Alan Johnson | Chris Grayling | Chris Huhne |
| ENVIRONMENT | Hilary Benn | Nick Herbert | Tim Farron |
| DEVELOPMENT | Douglas Alexander | Andrew Mitchell | Michael Moore |
| COMMUNITIES | John Denham | Caroline Spelman | Julia Goldsworthy |
| SCHOOLS | Ed Balls | Michael Gove | David Laws |
| CLIMATE CHANGE | Ed Miliband | Greg Clark | Simon Hughes |
| HEALTH | Andy Burnham | Andrew Lansley | Norman Lamb |
| WORK & PENSIONS | Yvette Cooper | Theresa May | Steve Webb |
| DEFENCE | Bob Ainsworth | Liam Fox | Nick Harvey |
| TRANSPORT | Lord Adonis | Theresa Villiers | Norman Baker |
| CULTURE | Ben Bradshaw | Jeremy Hunt | Don Foster |
In April, speaking in support of the principle of a leaders’ debate, the Leader of the Opposition said:
“Any time, any place, anywhere.”
Left Foot Forward wonders whether he’d be as keen on our idea.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Full steam ahead for Leaders’ debate, but still no plans for policy debates”
Adam Pogonowski
Anon – what a lot of rubbish. We do not hold “silly” views of any sort. People preconceive us as holding such views, but we actually do not. Look into the manifesto before making bland statements.
And this may shock you, but local and continental politics are equally as important as domestic tittle-tattle that Lib-Lab-Con spew forth. Quite frankly, some people view local politics are far more important, as it affects them more.
And it may well also surprise you, but the Greens though Copenhagen was a failure, and guess what? They had nothing to do with negotiations etc. as it was the Capitalist neo-libs who decided the agenda and dictated proceedings.
With such awfully misinformed remarks, the person that ought to hide in a dark corner, is yourself, Sir.
Anon E Mouse
Liz – Gove would eat him for breakfast – we disagree there. As usual I’m right. On the Greens in Germany front… ok but in the UK they are really not taken seriously.
Adam Pogonowski – Nice polite insults towards me – I like that.
I have voted for the Greens locally but like Greenpeace, as soon as they start the crazy political statements it just turns people off. That’s why no one votes for you. (Sorry but it’s true)
It doesn’t matter what your manifesto says Adam, I accept it may have merit but no one is listening. Every time a government, admittedly not a Green government, taxes us to drive a car with the “Green Escalator” (invented by John Major btw) it just gets peoples backs up.
Why can I drive in Florida or Europe where I go three times every year and pay so much less for fuel?
Your opinion may be right but it is in a minority in the UK. I speak as a sceptical person – especially where this nonsense and exaggerated language is used by members of the Green Party.
Adam we are not going to be “incinerated as a species” whether we reduce CO2 production or not.
I would have thought that the Greens wanted to get people on board and agree with their message rather than make themselves figures of ridicule, which, with recent comments from your activists, you most certainly are.
With the silly alarmist language your activists use I put it to you Adam that you need to head for that dark corner as soon as possible and hang your head in shame.
Anon E Mouse
Will – I’m experiencing “Rupert Read” withdrawal symptoms… any idea where he is? With all this bad news on the weather front I need cheering up…
The Parallax Brief
There’s just not enough interest to justify debates between departmental heads.
Perhaps on Westminster TV or BBC News 24, or something.
Mandelson against Clarke would be tasty, though; as would Miliband against Hague, if their joint Today program interview a few weeks back was anything to go by.
Adam Pogonowski
Alarmist language? When thousands of species die off each year, probably caused by us, which upsets the harmonious interplay between the planet’s species to such a great extent, this perhaps justifies alarmist language.
However, we are not raving loonies who wage a General Election campaign on such issues. Believe it or not, we put people first; we want to end sleaze politics, and the complacent approach adopted by the Holy Trinity in Westminster; we want to increase people’s well-being, rather than just their material wealth; we wish to provide education freely for all, without letting standards slip, using a system based solely on academic merit, not one where money can influence admittances; we also are keen on lowering CO2, by the way, in a way that actually makes some impact, and makes our lives healthier, and oriented away from money money money, and the dehumanised society we find ourselves in currently.
Was that alarmist? Or silly? Absolutely not. If you really critically evaluated society at the moment, you would see that it’s essentially dehumanised ex facie; deeper down the core principles that combine to provide a humane approach to living exist – however, they have been temporarily sidelined for the past 280 years in the quest for money and unfulfilling power.