Gordon Brown has just, for me at least, shown just how out of touch he is with ordinary people. At his press conference he was asked if he would agree to a televised debate when the next election comes between the party leaders. The questioner made the point that in France and America they help increase engagement.
Brown's response was that in France and America the people don't have the opportunity to see a 30 minute debate once a week like the British do with PMQs - ergo - there really isn't a need for a televised debate. Does Gordon Brown think that the electorate are all unemployed? Or that they can all just drop everything and find a TV with BBC Parliament or Sky News every Wednesday at 12:00?
Normal people - of which I stress I'm not - don't watch PMQs. In fact, they're lucky if they see more than a specific sound bite of 20 seconds on the evening news. However, a simultaneously live debate broadcast on the BBC and the ITV (sans big red folder of notes) during prime time in an election campaign will, in fact, reach far more people. I think Brown needs a better excuse for avoiding us watching him being grilled by his political opponents.
In other news, Gordon Brown also said in response to another question that he was the "first person in the country" to say it was in the national interest to have a referendum on the Euro. In a nation of 60 million how on earth does he know that? Oh yeah.. he doesn't.. he was talking bollocks.. silly me.
7 comments:
is it me or does he seem very weak on foreign policy and mid east in particular. he blatantly couldnt answer some of the questions on palestine/lebanon. his EU answers are laughable.
The thing is I can see the Lib Dems jumping up and down and wanting to take part, when of course really they shouldn't, as they don't have that many MP's, or at least they should only get limited time. That said I don't know how they do the debates in France where they have more than just the two main parties.
Otherwise you end up giving a lot of coverage to the smaller parties as they are all seen as part of the oppostion.
Any leader, of any party would always make the decision that Brown has. If the balloon-faced one ever gets into Number 10 do you think he would offer a debate to the opposition leader at the following election? No, he would use the PMQs, not a presidential system...blah...argument that every PM has.
Also, how can you say Brown's decision not to hold one is 'out of touch' I know of nobody, other than opposition leaders, that discusses this issue unless someone else raises it first. It seems more out of touch for you to suggest this is what people really want to see, when no one really seems to be clamouring to hear such a debate.
"how can you say Brown's decision not to hold one is 'out of touch'"
If you'd actually bothered to stop and read what I said, you'd have realised that I was saying his belief that normal people watch PMQs is what is out of touch. It wasn't that hard to understand was it?
'It wasn't that hard to understand was it?'
Fair enough, I'll hold my hands up to that oversight.
I still stand by my first point though.
Above post from Chris Paul deleted for link spamming again.
Post a Comment