The wiki page for the republican debates is interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_debates,_2008#May_3.2C_2007_-_Simi_Valley.2C_California

First it shows that the eventual republican candidate McCain did badly throughout. Maybe they should have listened more to the debates when choosing candidtaes, but of course here the candidates are already picked.

As important, looking through the accounts an apparent bias from Fox appears to be present, so I suspect if we do have a debate, even though they are calling for it, it won’t be on Sky…..

Peter.

I agree that the US presidential debates were poor, largely due to Obama’s lack of substance, although some in the past have been excellent. On the other hand, the Republican debates were a very lively mix of personalities and different competing ideologies.

Debates are all down to the people involved, which is one of the reasons I’d like to see Big ‘Eck involved. He after all has the most experience of leadership out of all the leaders with representation in parliament.

Personally, I think big multi-candidate debates work best, as with the Republican and Democratic primary debates. Also, representation in parliament is the fairest sane criterion. That means the following participants: Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Robinson, Jones, Taylor, Empey, Durkan, Galloway and Adams (the last of which I suspect will not be attending). 10 isn’t that many in comparison to American debates and would be an education in Celtic politics for most of the country.

The idea that politicans who have spent their careers only giving the answers they want to the questions they are asked, will somehow act differently on a election debate is to say the least niave.

I can understand that people want the debates and are looking forward to them but I can’t see any new blinding insight or revelation. In fact the risk is that we get the opposite, one candidate says the wrong thing or misses an answer and the other wins.

Imagine what would happen if the majority didn’t want Brown but Cameron made a gaff and the media attention let Labour just sneak a win even though Browns not up to the job.

If people want exitement lets just draw cards to see who wins, live during the X factor.

For me the Leader debates are like Video replays for Live Football. the people pushing for it aren’t the fans on the terracings it’s the TV companies who want to make money out of it.

The idea that Sky is pushing this because of Murdochs commitment to democracy is only for the gullible. They want it because it will be prime time viewing.

Now if only they can get an add break between each question……

Peter.

Again, excellent points about the debates. PMQs is not strictly speaking a debate: it is a venting of emotions by two groups of people who, while they often work together in select committees and are largely friends, must occasionally remind themselves they are fighting each other for control of the nation. This is why the fact that Cameron generally asks loaded questions and Brown does not answer any of them is not a problem; the purpose of PMQs is not questions, let alone debates.

HOWEVER, it is true that people who are unlikely to change their opinions of the leaders at the debate. More likely is that certain marginal voters will decide that leader x and party y are a better/less horrific option than leaders a and parties b.

Most importantly of all, the debates will add a little variety and novelty to the elections. Remember how the commentators when on and on about the new roof at Wimbledon? Imagine that for over a month. The inane reaction of the press will be mitigated only by the fascinating nature of the debates themselves, I suspect.

That’s twice you have shown that you are seeing things through rose tinted specktacles!

One thing is for certain; Ashcroft and the Conservative election team will probably be very focussed with funding and effort being channelled into marginals. Given that Labour probably won’t have the same level of funding, that might create a bigger swing in marginals in general, but there’s no guarantee.

Is there any recent evidence in marginal polls that they favour the tories rather than the national polls?

Also the Lib dems seem to hang onto their seats against the swing; however, this may change, particularly now as they seem to wish to replace Labour rather than Tories, but most of their seats are ex-Tory.