The Great Debate; A General Election Special

Willi's News Review 3.1

All three of the main political party leaders in Britain will go head-to-head in a series of televised debates, it was officially announced today. All three leaders had previously agreed to participate in principal and now the defined format has been agreed. Labour's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Conservative David Cameron and Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg will get their chance to convince the electorate of their parties' ability to lead Britain through some of its most challenging times since the Second World War. In the first instance of its kind, broadcasters Sky, ITV and the BBC will screen three debates from the northwest and southwest of England plus the midlands too.

So, in the final weeks before the anticipated May 6 poll, which leader will glean the biggest advantage from TV debates? As it stands, we're heading for a 'hung' parliament with no party having an overall majority. The Conservatives have seen their lead slip to as much as 2% over Labour as the party struggle to convince voters of their credentials. David Cameron's recent keynote speech in Brighton attempted to display what his core values are to deflect Labour criticism that he lacks substance. Cameron conducted his speech without the aid of notes and he will no doubt be feeling confident ahead of appearing on television. Out of the three leaders, his slick approach and delivery may hand him the advantage though he will have to balance style with substance to strike a sincere note with audiences and vital swing voters. Indeed, the Tories have hired the same advisors used by President Barack Obama as he prepared for his round of TV appearances with John McCain. The Tory slogan for the upcoming election is 'Vote For Change', echoing Obama's campaign and with his team of advisers, at least Cameron will be able to match New Labour's spin department.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's confidence must be boosted by latest polls suggesting that he could remain in power, something that seemed unimaginable just half a year ago. Despite lurching from one crisis to another, it appears an increasing number of voters are placing their faith in his government to help Britain emerge further from its worst recession in years. The kings of spin, Labour will have to work hard to dislodge the dour image that he has suffered from since assuming the role of PM. No doubt Brown will attempt to rally support from the public sector, keen to emphasise to them that a future under the Conservatives will inevitably mean cuts and job losses. Playing on fear is nothing new to electioneering and both Cameron and Brown will aim to depict bleak imagined futures should the other party triumph.

Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats could prove valuable should the spectre of a hung parliament become a reality. Labour and the Tories may wish to court their affections to agree a consensus for policy making. Not much has been heard recently from Nick Clegg. Some of the key Lib Dem proposals involve an overhaul of the tax system, an issue that Clegg thinks will be "one of the key dividing lines" between the parties. Clegg's respected Treasury Spokesman Vince Cable devised the plans, which include abolishing income tax for the first £10,000 earned.

These landmark television debates may not reveal anything wholly original about all three parties' plans though they will offer a fascinating opportunity for the leaders to be scrutinised before a television audience. Will either man crack under the pressure? And will we see Nick Clegg sidelined as Cameron and Brown trade insults? It would be nice to think that the debates won't descend into a comparison of past ills. What we need is a blueprint for the future, backed up by decisive action, not a petty examination of every aspect of a past we cannot change.

Are We all Free to Make our Mind up About the BNP?

The BBC has defended itself against those who have criticised their decision to allow the British National Party leader Nick Griffin to appear on its flagship show, Question Time, this evening.

The director-general Mark Thompson has argued that not allowing the BNP on television would be 'censorship'. Meanwhile up to 300 police officers will line the television centre to prevent any disturbances from anti-racist campaigners escalating.

The BNP's recent success in this year's European elections, where they won 2 seats in the continental parliament, raised the extreme party's profile whose leader Griffin has made comments in the past such as 'the ultimate aim...still remains an all white-Britain' to the Financial Times in 2002.

He has also encouraged ferocious chagrin from the mainstream media fundamentally opposed to the party's principles. In the build up to the show, Griffin has already courted controversy this week by criticising former Army generals, including General Sir Richard Dannat, accusing them of being akin to Nazi war criminals for their involement in Afghanistan and Iraq, even going so far as to provocactively state that those Nazi generals were eventually hanged for waging illegal wars.

No matter what Griffin says and whatever reaction he provokes, should he be free to espouse views of hatred, often neatly packaged for the media he loathes to give them an acceptable facade, or should we censor and restrict partys like the BNP, in direct opposition to the spirit of democracy?

There is of course, as demonstrated by BNP successes at the ballot box, a danger that the propoganda machine of the far-right will cherry pick key issues that some members of the electorate can relate to; immigration, over-population, resource competition to name a few, thereby promoting the BNP's position on these subjects as an attractive one to those who are vulnerable and fearful of their own seat in society.

Democratically, despite protestations, the BNP are a legitimate political party and voters are entitled to choose to support them.

Most decent folk know that the veneer of respectability that the BNP have worked hard in recent years to cultivate, is nothing more than a sham with many newspapers exposing the often disturbed, criminal and downright weird element that reside in the inner sanctum of the party.

This is despite BNP claims of support from teachers, professors and other high ranking officials who the party count as their sympathisers. I am in no doubt that there are probably those who inhabit the lofty echelons of society who may sympathise with the BNP.

Immigration, multi-cultralism and British national identity are key issues that have been carefully tip-toed around for too long by the mainstream political parties. A population of 70 million in Britain within 20 years apparently does not keep Home Secretary Alan Johnson 'awake at night'.

But what of the issues surrounding infrastrucure, supply of resources and everything else this would entail?

It is these topics that the BNP touch upon that merit discussion, not the party's crude line on racial purity and immigrant repatriation. In allowing Nich Griffin on Question Time, a leader of a party whose constitution is inherently racist, the BBC awared him perhaps the finest political platform.

In their opinion, this may be democracy in action, but at what cost? Will the BNP attract more voters dissatisfied with the mainstream who might be looking for a protest vote or will Griffin be rightly exposed?