Voting Under the Influence of the British Airwaves
In the lead-up to the United Kingdom’s general elections of May 2015, American-style TV debates will be held to inform the public on the different stances displayed by political parties across various issues. There will be three debates held on the major public channels throughout April, however the problem facing broadcasters in the UK at the moment revolves around deciding which parties should in fact be included in these debates. It’s not as easy as having the two politicians that come out on top for the Primaries of major parties go head to head, especially given how new political movements have held their sway in terms of garnering substantial electoral support.
“The UK does not run on a two party system, so it shouldn’t be represented like that to the electorate.”
A cursory glance may suggest that the UK features a two-party system revolving around Labour and Conservatives, something analogous to the politics of the Republican-Democrat divide in the US. Evidently it is correct that most of the Members of Parliament align themselves either with the government (‘Her Majesty’s Government’) or the opposition (‘Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition). The two sit opposite each other in the Houses of Parliament located within The Palace of Westminster to debate legislation, but each side is not necessarily made up of only one party - a number of other, smaller parties are involved as well.
Moreover, perhaps the fundamental reason why UK legislative politics differ from those in the USA rests in that Britons never directly elect the leader of their executive power. What actually happens is that the Prime Minister is appointed by the Monarch under the assumption that he/she is able to command the majority representation of parties within the House of Commons. The House of Commons, alongside the House of Lords, is one of the two legislative bodies found within the Westminster Palace, and much like the House of Representatives and the Senate, their primary job is to represent the voices of the subjects of the United Kingdom.
When the UK goes to the polls in May next year, the votes in each constituency will count towards electing a Member of Parliament (‘MP’) from that area. They generally (but not always) are aligned with a nationwide party, and whichever party manages to hold the most seats in Parliament (ie. the largest number of MPs) will be able to acquire the majority position. As previously mentioned, the majority party has a leader who might then potentially become Prime Minister, but if no single party has a majority, then a coalition government must be formed such as it is right now.
This then explains why instead of having the Prime Ministerial candidate debate for each major party, we have the Conservative Party leader and the Labour Party leader debate, because the two of them are most likely to be leading the country given their parties’ traditional dominance over voter shares. On the other hand, there are other parties that despite being smaller, still command significant support across different sectors of the population. Some of these parties and their leaders include Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats, Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party, Nigel Farage of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Natalie Bennett leader of the Green Party, and Leanne Wood of the Plaid Cymru (the Party of Wales). There’s nothing preventing any of these parties from forming a significant part of the government after the election. Moreover, each has its own reason to believe that it might hold a greater significance in the upcoming and changing power balance expected for the next elected government.
Despite all the aforementioned considerations, this is only the second general election expected to feature televised debates, and the format of presentation is still being discussed. For example, no one really knows how many party leaders will be displayed. Should participation be determined arbitrarily? Or should it be decided by each party’s particular percentage of voter share? Which ground rules could potentially be considered as fair?
Nevertheless, the initial line up has been selected for the various debates, and there is a suggestion that selection criteria for some of them does indeed hinge on voter support. Chosen candidates should expect to receive an important political boost from this nationwide media opportunity as a large proportion of the voting public watches these debates given their accessibility.
It is important for each party’s public platform that in the lead-up to the elections they are visible to the electorate, and the plurality of modern British politics suggests that a display of political diversity will be demanded by the people. Notwithstanding, public opinion is very divided regarding recent media representation. For example, some believe that part of the UKIP’s current popularity is due to extensive coverage that is not enjoyed by other minor parties. This particularly produced some serious condemnation from the Green Party, who currently happen to enjoy the same number of MPs as UKIP - as well as boasting other equally comparable results in popularity polls, Members of European Parliament, and local council elections. Consequentially, a petition was drawn up requesting to include the Green Party leader in the televised debates, but it was nevertheless rejected by the event’s broadcasters. This is just one example, but serves to prove the point that each party’s justifications for a chance to gain inclusion in the debate, and thus benefit from some widespread free coverage, go on and on.
Would it be easier to only have the two main parties in the debate? I believe so. Including only the Conservatives and Labour would guarantee a simpler, more streamlined argumentative platform with less bickering between smaller parties. In essence, solely televising the political giants would appeal to the median voter. But is it accurate to do so? Not at all. The UK doesn’t run on a two party system, so it shouldn’t be represented to the electorate as such. Furthermore it should be acknowledged that the current political balance of power is somewhat fragile and constantly changing, so the top four parties today might not be as dominant tomorrow.
Granting more airtime to the aforementioned pair would also fail to recognize non-traditional parties’ successes at increasing their electoral support. The modern British voter is no longer satisfied with a traditional dialectical debate involving the usual suspects, and this is precisely what UK leaders should recognize when deciding who gets to be represented in public television funded by none other than the taxpayers themselves.