It has been announced that Amber Rudd is to represent the conservatives at the next televised debate.
I grew up with a lot of Americanisms - smores, school prom, the idea that summer starts in may and ends in September. I grew up with an ingrained knowledge that live debates were a key part of the electoral process. The chance for voters on a massive scale to engage with the candidates who will potentially lead their country, and see how they respond on the spot against each other and the public.
To me, it is unconscionable, and bluntly, insulting, that Theresa May refuses to engage with this process in full in the UK.
Televised election debates are a new concept in the UK - very much an import from the US system. And it's important to note the systems have differences. We don't vote for a leader here per se, we vote for local party candidates and thereby decide which party, and which leader the country will have; because the UK doesn't isolate it's Executive from the Legislature, there are frequent opportunities for the 'losing candidate(s)’ to hold the winner to account in the form of PMQs; we are a country fiercely proud of it's Parliamentary system with good reason, and we are inherently against creeping Americanisation as a society and nation.
But from its inception in the UK, live televised election debates have been a success - viewing figures show they do engage with a huge number of voters, importantly, they engage with a lot of younger voters, the IT generation, where political apathy is otherwise rife. Up to 40% of voters consider televised debates to have directly influenced their polling day decision.
And political parties, given the chance, have taken part in them, fielding their leaders, hopeful future PMs, to represent why they and their party are the best hope for our futures. Whatever their misgivings, the parties have understood the importance and potential of these kinds of events from day one.
That May refuses to meet with the voters in this kind of public forum is utterly unacceptable to me. It is the sort of thing that would lead me to consider a politician unfit to lead their party. It speaks of such a flagrant disregard to engage with votes, to defend one's political views and principles under pressure. At worst it reveals a known inability to do so but a blind refusal to acknowledge that shortcoming.
Election debates aren't perfect. They're slightly artificial with their prearranged topics and rules and candidate preparation, but they inevitably have those uncontrolled moments and unpredictable developments of arguement that can be found telling of a person, and fundamentally, regardless of the local vote being for local candidates and parties, election campaigns have ALWAYS revolved around the personalities of the leaders. They are the representative of the party, and they are the face of the party; they should be expected to defend the parties policies in national campaigns, and parties across the whole spectrum should be entitled to take part if we are to call ourselves fair democracies.
(I recognise situations like the 2016 US Election prove the problem of that latter point where you can end up with a field that is too large to practically manage a debate with, but that is not a reason to abandon the process in entirety. Throw the bathwater. Keep the baby etc.)
We poll locally, but we vote nationally. Candidates face hustings locally, why should party leaders be expected any lesser of on the national stage, from both the electorate, and their own parties.
Theresa May's absence is inexcusable. The lack of a comprehensive party leader debate is unacceptable, and where party leaders do not participate in them, they should damned well be empty chaired.
No comments:
Post a Comment