Daily View: Televised leaders' debate
Newspaper columnists make their conclusions about the forthcoming televised debate between party leaders in the run-up to the election.
• See who the political bloggers think will come out best.
The what took the UK so long:
"We should not expect too much of them - experience in many countries suggests that they rarely change the public's already-half-made-up mind. Despite the politicians' collective insistence that they will thrash out the issues that matter, there is bound to be a good deal of cheap point-scoring. Even so, they should not be so regulated that they become boring. For all the predictable flaws, the new debates are a step forward."
the style of the debates will be key:
"Whether Cameron, Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown will face direct questions from voters, vetted if not scripted, or be quizzed by pundits in the American fashion while the live audience sits in silence with no clapping allowed, is one of several important details still being negotiated.
Naturally the broadcasters want as much audience participation as possible to help make 90 solid minutes more bearable to the X Factor generation."
The the televised debates offer a tonic to apathy:
"At home and abroad, televisual skill is an asset for a politician. There is no point in lamenting a supposedly purer form of politics. Televised debates could be just the tonic British politics, and the jaded British public, need."
sceptical that the debates will pull in viewers:
"The stunning bore scenario should certainly not be ruled out. A modest wager on a rapidly declining number of viewers might be worthwhile."
However, the the debates are necessary and long overdue, even if imperfect:
"Children, children! Enough! Yes, the Mail accepts that the three-way debates will not be wholly fair. And, yes, regional and minor parties may have a legitimate grievance, which the broadcasters must do all they can to redress elsewhere during the election.
But in this less than ideal world, it's impossible to devise a format to please everyone, from the mainstream to the Monster Raving Loonies, without producing an unwatchable and unilluminating cacophony that would drag on for days."
The where the US debates and the UK differ:
"The American (or the French) presidential debates work because the nation is choosing a person; in this country, we choose parties even if they rely heavily on the popularity and competence of their leaders."
Nick Clegg will shine and Gordon Brown will not:
"He's a telly catastrophe. Disturbingly unnatural and unnervingly weird, with the top lip of The Joker, eye bags the size of Caligula's imperial couch, waxen flesh the hue of unwashed grey flannel, and the rictus grin of a jackal in its death throes, he is by light years the least accomplished television act of the trio."
The Alex Salmond is wrong to insist the he should take part if the debates will be aired in Scotland:
"Televised leadership debates will make for a welcome and long-overdue innovation in the run-up to our next general election. Mr Salmond will not be standing in that election. The debate will be between candidates to be the UK's next prime minister. This is not an office to which Mr Salmond aspires."
:
"These debates are nothing to do with proportionality and everything to do with the presidential style of election we now have, like or hate it. In that sense Alex Salmond and his Welsh counterpart stand no chance of being PM and their value in them is limited at best."
Links in full
