Should Gordon Brown take part in a televised debate? Sky News has announced that it will hold one before the next elections, and David Cameron and Nick Clegg have agreed to take part. However, Brown knows there are considerable risks involved - this Economist article gives as an example the debate between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960. Radio listeners thought that Nixon was the better debater that night, but television viewers (of which there were many millions more) thought Nixon looked sweaty and shifty, whilst JFK came across as calm and reasonable.
However, if Brown doesn't take part, Sky says they will go ahead anyway and leave an empty chair to represent him - perhaps they will be tempted to follow Have I Got News for You who once represented Roy Hattersley with a tub of lard when he was unable to turn up...
PLEASE DO A LIVE DEBATE!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteand we should devote an entire lesson to watch it all again.
That would be great :-) I don't think that a debate would harm Brown especially, considering that it might force Cameron into trying to decide on some policies as opposed to slating him all the time. I think it should be a positive debate on issues as opposed to a free negative campaign ad for all sides
ReplyDeleteIt is rare for all three leaders to get together in one place and talk, as the public tend to only see them when they are slating each other's political views. I think it would be insightful to see them work together and see how they all react under the live pressure
ReplyDeleteI don't really blame Brown for not wanting to take part - live clashes with the opposition have never really been his strong point.
ReplyDeleteIf he does take part he'll come off badly, if he doesn't he'll be accused of cowardice by the opposition.