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”
Anon E Mouse
Adam – Your final paragraph tells everyone exactly why your party will never be elected to power, mercifully for the rest of us.
The fact you actually believe that the past 280 years have been a quest for money and power and not 280 years of advancement in science, medicine and the arts is the reason you’ll always be in a minority.
I said it before. Some of the language used by the Greens and tree huggers on this blog is like an episode of Transformers and not worthy of serious consideration.
Adam you should learn to be happy being a single issue cranky bunch of dreamers because that’s where you’re staying.
Adam Pogonowski
Well, it has also been an advancement in science, medicine and the arts, but that does not detract from the fact that society has become ever more ruthless in its pursuit for money. Never more so than since the 70s.
And I think you find it not worthy of consideration because you are happy with the status quo. Perhaps you don’t really care so much about people from my background, who struggle enormously to get by. And perhaps you care not for the future generations to come, who have just as much right to enjoy the basic natural environment that we have (I’ll refer you to Joel Feinberg in Blackstone (ed.) Philosophy and Environmental Crisis). Perhaps you do care. You come across as not doing so though. You certainly do not say where you stand.
Anon E Mouse
Adam – I most certainly do care and I come from a straight forward working class background but I consider myself to be a realist where the environment is concerned.
I am happy with any democratic system involving free speech. I am unhappy with the current government who I feel have truly betrayed the people of this country by turning into a bunch of self serving over regulating control freaks.
Their behaviour is inexcusable and at the next election they will get their just deserts and when it comes to the environment the Tories are even worse.
What I do not like however is an assumption by people in this country that governments have the right to force their views on the masses without consultation and when that involves taxing the people I am against it big time.
The arrogant views of the Greens serve only to alienate the general public who you should be trying to get onside.
People in this country, after 12 years of this current government, are sick of being lectured at and the attitudes of the “Green” activists serve only to agitate them.
Your message may be valid Adam but your means of delivery do you no favours. The people in this country have more important things to worry about I’m afraid.
Adam Pogonowski
I do not know what arrogant views you refer to… If you mean taxing the better off at increased rates, and taxing polluting industries more, saving taxpayers’ money by not conducting ridiculous foreign policies, then these are not arrogant but necessary.
Anon E Mouse
Adam – The arrogant view is that you believe actions should be forced on people irrespective of whether those people share your views, the ones that you feel necessitate the action.
When you tax the polluting industries as you call them who do you think ultimately pays that tax? The poor do. Again.
We need nuclear power dramatically increasing. There was a time when you tree huggers used to hate the power of the atom. How things change.