Eddie Barnes: The SNP should be grateful for being left out of debates
My views on the rights and wrong of the forthcoming TV debates, and the fact that the SNP aren't going to be involved, are on record but I'm beginning to wonder whether this is really going to be that bad for the Nationalists after all.
On the downside for the SNP, the fact that Messers Clegg, Brown and Cameron will be on our screens vying for our votes - with no sign of the SNP - can only help the other three parties in their efforts to show that the SNP isn't really involved in what is a UK general election.
But, as I read through the 76 (count them!) rules which are going to govern these debates, there are actually going to be some upsides as well. Obviously, the SNP can play the victim card, rousing its support by accusing the Beeb and the other broadcasters of unfairness. But on on top of that, they can join the rest of the country in now royally taking the mick out of the whole affair. Those 76 rules - which will bar applause, booing, hissing or heckling - look set to ensure that the UK debates will follow the example of the US TV debates which, if you've ever had the misfortune to watch them, are almost always bore-fests of titanic proportions. The last interesting thing that happened in a US TV debate was Lloyd Bensten's immortal put-down to Republican VP candidate Dan Quayle ("Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".) Nowadays, in the era of endless prep work, it can be said with almost total conviction that none of the three combatants will be tripped up by one another. They will have anticipated every single possible line of attack from their opponents. I fear we will simply witness all three playing a conservative game, parroting out their pre-prepared lines, with some rubbish jokes sprinkled here and there in between.
There's a semi-serious point here. The most damaging thing to have happened to any leadership candidate in the election campaign so far has been the accusation of "air-brushing" levelled against David Cameron following his now notorious poster. I suspect air-brushed is what we are going to get in these debates, unless one of the threesome has the guts to ad lib. So, watched by a sour and scunnered electorate, none of them is likely to come out of particularly well. Perhaps the SNP might just benefit from not being part of something which, I suspect, most of the population will resent for getting in the way of their evening viewing.
On the downside for the SNP, the fact that Messers Clegg, Brown and Cameron will be on our screens vying for our votes - with no sign of the SNP - can only help the other three parties in their efforts to show that the SNP isn't really involved in what is a UK general election.
But, as I read through the 76 (count them!) rules which are going to govern these debates, there are actually going to be some upsides as well. Obviously, the SNP can play the victim card, rousing its support by accusing the Beeb and the other broadcasters of unfairness. But on on top of that, they can join the rest of the country in now royally taking the mick out of the whole affair. Those 76 rules - which will bar applause, booing, hissing or heckling - look set to ensure that the UK debates will follow the example of the US TV debates which, if you've ever had the misfortune to watch them, are almost always bore-fests of titanic proportions. The last interesting thing that happened in a US TV debate was Lloyd Bensten's immortal put-down to Republican VP candidate Dan Quayle ("Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy".) Nowadays, in the era of endless prep work, it can be said with almost total conviction that none of the three combatants will be tripped up by one another. They will have anticipated every single possible line of attack from their opponents. I fear we will simply witness all three playing a conservative game, parroting out their pre-prepared lines, with some rubbish jokes sprinkled here and there in between.
There's a semi-serious point here. The most damaging thing to have happened to any leadership candidate in the election campaign so far has been the accusation of "air-brushing" levelled against David Cameron following his now notorious poster. I suspect air-brushed is what we are going to get in these debates, unless one of the threesome has the guts to ad lib. So, watched by a sour and scunnered electorate, none of them is likely to come out of particularly well. Perhaps the SNP might just benefit from not being part of something which, I suspect, most of the population will resent for getting in the way of their evening viewing.
Labels: Eddie Barnes, TV debates
posted by Administrator at
13:52
3 Comments:
I'd tend to agree,
You may be right Eddie, but is that really the important point?
The SNP are a major party in Scotland, as are Plaid in Wales, and neither of the so-called major parties are represented in Northern Ireland. So surely this would breach the broadcasting rules. Furthermore, if there is no challenge, based on your assumption that the SNP would be better out of it, a broadcasting precedent would have been set which may prevent legal challenges over similar future TV electioneering situations.
And if you go down the 'potential PM debate' scenario then Nick Clegg shouldn't be part of these debates either.
I sometimes wonder whether we really believe in democracy.
Eddie, isn't it time that you wrote to tell us why comment on Labour story's is often censored, confirmation of the legal challenges that Scottish labour have invoked to silence the publics view on their shenanigans?
Or has Simon Pia got your goat.
Post a Comment
<< Home