Prime Ministerial Debate or farce?

Tonight, we’ll get our first US-style live political TV debate, between the three main party leaders, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Unfortunately, we’re more likely to see a posturing contest than a genuine discussion. The participants will have been briefed on all the questions in advance and the audience aren’t even allowed to applaud, cheer, or boo.

Sadly, UK politics exists in an environment where telling the truth is perceived to be hazardous, changing a plan – even when it’s the right thing to do – is condemned and no-one dares stray too far from the overcrowded and confused centre ground.

Probably, we all bear some degree of responsibility; the media for its ‘witch-hunt’ mentality, politicians for questionable integrity and lack of conviction and we, the electorate, for wanting a better world, but refusing to vote for any party which is prepared to tell us what it really costs. Events such as tonight’s Prime Ministerial Debate, or even the impending general election, are unlikely to resolve this situation.

How do we prevent a government ’scorched earth policy’?

Although the result is far from a foregone conclusion, the favourites for victory in the 2010 general election must be the Conservative Party. Given that the current Labour government are as aware of this as everyone else, their planning and decision making can’t fail to be influenced by that knowledge.  As we mentioned in our ‘The recession isn’t ending‘ post, this sort of situation could lead to a ’scorched earth policy’, or similar.

Our current constitution includes no mechanism for penalizing an outgoing government, which acts against the best interests of the nation, rather than act in a way, which might help the incoming administration. Whilst ’scorched earth’, or ‘poisoning the water supply’ policies might be more drastic and easily recognisable, even abdication of responsibility is undesirable. It is conceivable that an incumbent administration might fail to respond to the needs of a nation, rather than allow their soon to be victorious rivals to take the credit.

Unsurprisingly, the possibility of such a scenario has been noted in Tory circles:

• The most dangerous thing in Britain is the nothing-to-lose Labour Party
• The start of scorched-earth policy?

It is unlikely that any weak, outgoing government hasn’t been influenced in this manner to some degree. The question is, how do we modify our constitution to ensure governments actually act in the best interests of the people they represent, regardless of political circumstances? This should be a fundamental tenet of natural politics.