He said there is more cynicism about politics than ever before and said political interviewers were partly to blame.

Others blame the first past the post voting system which forces politicians to win at all costs. They say it encourages political parties to rubbish the opposition and that proportional representation would allow minor parties to flourish and encourage more debate.

Are political interviewers too cynical? Or do politicians need to be fully held to account by journalists? Do political arguments get in the way of proper debate about policies? Would proportional representation help improve political debate?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments. You can read a selection of them below.

The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:

I think politicians come across as manipulative and self publicising not because they desire to be so but because the media - for all its cynical probing - necessitates a self publicising approach. It's actually extremely rare that we as the public get the chance to hear them put forward any genuine thinking behind their policies.
Stephen, Leeds, UK

The moment our political parties stop being cynical about each other is the moment we'll stop being cynical about our politicians Tim, Bolton, UK

The moment our political parties stop being cynical about each other is the moment we'll stop being cynical about our politicians. Our system is adversarial, but the constant sniping and personal attacks turn voters off.
Tim, Bolton, UK

No, the interviewers are not too cynical. I think most of us realise that politics is now all about spin, sound bites, pinching the opposition's ideas and never taking responsibility for anything. Interviews are the only time we the public can see politicians asked the hard questions we all would like to ask but are unable to. If politicians actually gave straight answers and admitted when they were wrong instead of bluster and obfuscation, it wouldn't be necessary for interviewers to be so aggressive.
Nick, Reading, UK

Call it cynicism or scepticism; if a politician can't answer a straight question, asked fourteen times in a straight way, journalists have every right to adopt any means to get truth out of them. As for the public's cynicism towards politicians, in general, they have earned every bit of it by their hard work.
Prabhat, UK

The words "Yes" and "No" have no meaning to politicians.
Danny, UK

The good won't stand and the bad won't stand down.
Ted, UK

The people we are asked not to be cynical about are the people who invented 'spin'. As journalists have become less deferential, the politicians have become more devious.
Jill, East Yorkshire

I do not blame the politicians for what they do. The people only spoil them. To get some favours from the politicians some people fall on their feet then the politicians make use of the chance.
Gamal Pushpa Raj, Muscat, Oman

This self-serving government needs more than anything to be held to account for the lies they propagate on a daily basis. However, am I the only person who thinks Jeremy Paxman has had his day? Nothing constructive is ever going to come out of an interview with him. Isn't it about time we had a political interviewer who is actually interested in the debate instead of scalping whomever they come into contact with to further their own career? Having said that if ever there was a man more deserving of this kind of treatment it's Blair, and I eagerly await his turn in the hot seat, it will be a thoroughly enjoyable Paxman interview for a change!
Rachel, Preston

Politicians and media interviewers are as bad as each other Mark Gugan, Dorchester, UK

Politicians and media interviewers are as bad as each other. Yes politicians are often "economical with the truth", but the aggressive interviewing style adopted by Paxman and Humphreys etc. often seeks to score a few sound bite hits in a 90 second slot that in no way aid understanding of the truth or reflect a balanced appreciation of sometimes complex subjects.
Mark Gugan, Dorchester, UK

It all boils down to trust, all parties promise the earth and fail to deliver Perhaps we are tired of listening to the same promises over and over again. It makes no difference who is in power. Be hard on the interviewees, make them squirm, make them face up to their lies and false promises.
David Ellis, Southsea, Hampshire

Cynicism on the part of both interviewers and the general public is largely due to the antics of politicians who manoeuvre around in an increasingly narrow space in order to gain or retain power. In the current climate where there is little ideological difference between parties it might be more healthy to have PR. This would give more representation to people living in non - marginal seats (the great majority of us) who cannot hope to dislodge an incumbent MP who has never achieved more than 50% of the vote. The media have a right to ask difficult questions and nobody is better at going for the throat of a politician than another politician.
Bob, Cheshire

If politicians would actually answer the questions asked, they would not be given such a torrid time by some interviewers. Maybe Blair's unwillingness to share the truth with the British public explains why he appears more with Ant & Dec and Richard & Judy than Paxman, Humphreys, et al. If our local candidates happened to communicate with local voters more, it might help too. We owe a debt to these so-called aggressive interviewers, as they are in a position to ask the questions we want, but never get the chance to.
Steve Tymms, Welwyn Garden City

I don't think there is balanced reporting of politics. Anyone off-message (e.g. Howard Flight) is quickly ripped apart by the media and ceased upon by their opposition. Negative reporting far outweighs positive, leading to mass cynicism. We've heard very little about the pledges Labour made and kept in both 1997 & 2001, and in fact, if you ask most people they have an incorrect assumption that they didn't keep they're pledges. Give more credit where its due and we may see cynicism decline.
Kevin, West Midlands

I believe Jon Snow has a point. I get fed up with John Humphrys' belligerent nit-picking on the Today Programme in the mornings, the interviewee tries not to get drawn in, and the result is completely uninformative. A good interviewer should not put someone immediately on the defensive. What we need is a cross between Michael Parkinson and Robin Day.
Douglas, Milton Keynes, UK

No! They all lie and never keep to election pledges, Labour or Tory.
Adrian cannon, Edinburgh, Scotland

The quality of our politicians and interviewers is as good as the quality of our culture and values today. This is to say, not much. Proportional representation systems degenerate into weak coalition led governments which can take no strong action for good when it's needed and overall go nowhere. See Germany for a good example. PR will make no positive difference to British politics. Veritas and UKIP get rubbished just as much in proportion to their size.
Pete, Essex

The truth is that we have the politicians we deserve. In this day and age everything is about 'equality' and 'merit' and small-minded political correctness. We get mealy-mouthed careers men who care only about being re-elected, not about doing what is right. We need to elect politicians from the classes where people are bred to lead and govern and take decisions about what is right for Britain, not for the party - cynical enough for you?
Henry, London

Politicians over the centuries have earned themselves this reputation of being untrustworthy. It seems bizarre that clean persons who enter politics end up sleazy and calculating. Maybe it is the nature of the business or indeed power corrupts. Whichever it is, it's sad for the voters.
Murli, Vienna

Cynical? I should say so! Once these politicians have got your vote, you can go to hell as far as they are concerned. The biggest load of liars in the business, and all in it for their own ends. Our present leader is a classic example of a politician whom the British public have seen, many times, to have no truthful credibility whatsoever.
Ken Thompson, UK

There is no excuse at all for ill-manners on the part of interviewers N Rhodes, Leicestershire, UK

There is no excuse at all for ill-manners on the part of interviewers. Once asked the interviewee must be allowed to speak without interruption or heckling from the interviewer. On the other hand, it makes for some of the most memorable TV moments when politicians need to be asked the same question over and over again while they go off on some obscure tangent of rhetoric that bears no relation whatsoever to the question. When they learn to give straight answers, they will have earned the respect of interviewers and public alike. Until then, Jeremy Paxman and Jon Snow are duty-bound to give them a grilling. If they refuse to answer a question, or cannot answer, they interviewer must draw our attention to the fact.
N Rhodes, Leicestershire, UK

In the run up to the election I keep reading the tired old mantra that most politicians are useless and/or liars, but nobody seems to spare a thought for the poor politician who has to deal with an electorate that is inconsistent. Today's voters want better services but do not want to pay more tax, want to be safe but do not want to pass security laws, complain that they are not being listened to when what they really mean is that they cannot have their own way, moan about their own problems without considering what is best for the common good, believe what they read in their choice of media without considering the counter-arguments, do not want the unqualified to receive state benefits but refuse to accept the introduction of identity cards and can always spend tax money more wisely than the government while getting themselves into massive personal debt! If I was a politician I'd want to throw out the electorate rather than vice-versa.
Al, Weybridge, UK

Cynical no! I have some sympathy for the interviewers as none of the politicians seem able to answer a direct question these days. I'm always concerned about what they don't say rather then what they do say.
Clive, Woking

If Politicians had nothing to hide, nothing to be scared of and they knew they were being totally honest, then they wouldn't need to avoid answering direct questions.
Glen, Welling

It's difficult not to be cynical when we have politicians like Jeffrey Archer, Peter Mandelson, Jonathan Aitkin and Neil Hamilton. There seem to be so few honest politicians is hard not to be cynical. What do they expect us to do - blindly tow the line like sheep? No thanks.
Matt Evans, Ashford, UK

We aren't nearly cynical enough SH, Nottingham

We aren't nearly cynical enough. And the blame for all of the spin in politics shouldn't lie solely with Blair. It should also be placed on the British media, whose sycophants have allowed new Labour to spew their propaganda into the public subconscious. Remember how in the days before the 1997 election the news programs had a running counter of job losses this week? We elect the government that the media tell us to.
SH, Nottingham

I think the problem is one of expectations. People expect their politicians to be perfect and never to contradict themselves or change their mind. If they do, the opposition or media tear into them. Thank goodness we don't inflict such standards on each other in everyday life. If we just took a more realistic view of these poor individuals, most of whom are trying to do the best they can and realised that sometimes they will cock it up (as we all do) then perhaps we might get some honest politicians, a little less afraid to say what they really mean.
Ged, Liverpool

I don't think that anyone can be too cynical about today's crop of self-serving politicos. Someone said, "If crime doesn't pay, why do politicians seek re-election?" Given the lies, cover-ups and spin that issues forth from these people, it's a valid question.
Gareth, Bermuda

Cynical or sceptical, it is easy and necessary to be suspicious about the motives of our politicians. No-one seems to question that there is one subject which should be high in all the parties' manifestos but which seems to be a given a wide body swerve - truth and honesty. Until truth and honesty are seen as the primary issues we must always remain at least sceptical but more often that not cynical.
Willie, Edinburgh, Scotland

Of course we're cynical, especially anyone over 40 who can still remember when the government promised a chicken in every pot. What a promise to break! Short of crushing human nature, it could never be kept and should never have been made.
Paul Connor, Toronto, Canada

After last night's savaging of Charles Kennedy on BBC1 the distinction between Jeremy Paxman and a Rottweiler is beginning to blur. He should be put down.
Hazel Norbury, London

What has happened to the UK when we think everyone is genuinely out to get us? Jennifer, Netherlands, ex-UK

Absolutely. I have met people who genuinely believe that MPs are taking taxes from the treasury for their own pockets and that speed cameras only make money for the politicians to buy new holiday homes. No surprise that most of these people don't vote. What has happened to the UK when we think everyone is genuinely out to get us?
Jennifer, Netherlands, ex-UK

When you see Tony Benn, Clare Short or Billy Bragg on the panel of a discussion programme you know it's going to be an interesting debate. So many politicians run terrified of party whips and toe the party line like their lives depended on it. We need more Clare Shorts and Tony Benns lobbing grit into the political oyster - that way we may get some debating pearls.
Lorraine, St Albans

The last person I want in power is someone who wants to be in power. Yes, it's cynical, but I would much prefer to have a powerful monarchy than the present system.
John Atkins, Bridgwater

I think it's a disgrace the way Jeremy Paxman spoke to Charles Kennedy - there's nothing big in trying to humiliate politicians; this only shows what a bully you are. Sometimes I'm squirming in my seat, at the thought of how can you get away with that tone!
Susan, London

The real answer is the very successful Swiss system of direct democracy Stephen, UK

The real answer is the very successful Swiss system of direct democracy. When the people vote directly on their laws, they can hardly blame politicians - or anyone else - for getting it wrong. This would be truly "responsible" government.
Stephen, UK

Political parties operating as brands and selling through front men with a script should be treated like other 'utilities'. They should be regulated by an organisation that can examine their records and accounts, demand proof, expose false selling and punish unfair practices. Time to add some power to the interviewers by giving legal status to demands for information and clarity. Bring on OFPOL!
Sal, Uk

I have lived in various countries, some autocratic and some democratic. What strikes me about Britain is how healthy our democracy is. The British media is sceptical and intelligent (overall), which really challenges our politicians to do their job well. How often have you watched President Bush on television and thought 'he'd never get away with saying that in Britain'?!
Jonathan Owen, Cannock

In Britain we have the finest and funniest political spectacle in the world. The cynicism, rowdiness are at the centre of the entertainment value.
Alex, Leicester

If we want voters to turn out we need to give them something they can believe in Bob Morrell, Tonbridge

The truth is that party politics has had its day. If we want true democracy we must disband the parties and then try again, with new groups representing true opinions of the public. We need MPs who truly work for their constituents' interests and are accountable to them alone. The world is changing, and if we want voters to turn out we need to give them something they can believe in.
Bob Morrell, Tonbridge

Politicians deserve to be put under the spotlight. They never answer questions put to them. Proportional representation is essential to avoid the police state we are heading for at the moment. Political interviewers are akin to politicians - in it for their own ends.
Nigel, Copthorne

I've noticed when somebody from the Labour party is being interviewed they continuously say the interviewer's name - it's a clever way of getting the interviewer to soften their approach to them.
Sylvia Himus, Beckenham

Political interviewers have not affected my view on politicians. People can see with their own eyes how Britain has deteriorated over the past 10-20 years. The government failing us is common knowledge Political interviewers are just saying what the public has felt for a long time.
Brenda Lyall, Bedford

It's the party politics system which is rotten - politicians should stand on their own merits Jon G, Huddersfield

A lot of politicians are basically sensible and well meaning, but they have to toe the party line. If they try to express their own opinion, they get criticised for opportunism. It is the party politics system which is rotten, and I have believed for a long time that politicians should stand on their own merits rather than being the representative of a particular party. That would end the idea of a safe seat too.
Jon G, Huddersfield

Being from Canada with the current debacle going on, I feel that politicians should REALLY be grilled. Journalists should have their gloves off and take no prisoners. Politicians seem more oriented to winning than helping to give their country a better future. Why not have some sort of council with a leader who is rotated every few years? His goal would be to follow a clear plan that is outlined by the people.
Omar Singh, Montreal, Canada

I, for one, believe that our politicians get an unfair deal. In the last 15 years the public perception of politicians has nose-dived. This has little to do with their lack of integrity, but rather the media's relentless campaign to belittle our democratic system. MPs are often very hardworking, honest individuals - regardless of their political stance. The media, on the other hand, consistently pedals poisoned myths on issues such as asylum and Europe and misrepresents political comment. I wish the general public could see through the anti-politics propaganda. Its very unhealthy and, in the end, nobody wins.
Shaun Parker, London

'Cynical' is the wrong word. We have a duty to be 'sceptical', particularly in view of our politicians' record. Proportional representation would be a good start.
Chris King, London

Being interruptive and talking over the top of people is just plain rude Tim H, UK

After Paxman, Jon Snow is the worst offender. No wonder there's never anyone available for interview when something controversial happens. Being interruptive and talking over the top of people is just plain rude. Asking the right question and wording it the right way is a far more effective way of getting to the truth.
Tim H, UK

I don't think interviewers are too cynical. Politicians claim they want more transparency but how many times does Jeremy Paxman have to ask the same question over and over before he gets an answer that remotely addresses the question?
Jonathan, Thorne

The blame lies 100% with Blair and his spin doctors. The public are sick of being treated like fools by this self-serving government, who will say anything to cover up for their own dishonesty and incompetence. Think of Mandelson, Blunkett and Foster if you need reminding. Quite rightly, journalists are holding these con-men to account - keep it up, Paxo and Humphrys!
Harry Lee, London

Politicians are 100% responsible for their moral standing. Archer, Aitken, Hamilton, Jo Moore, Blunkett, Major, etc etc. Add to this an illegal war based on lies and deceit and the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Who would be foolish enough to believe anything they say?
Kosh, Reading

When Paxman interviewed Charles Kennedy, he ripped his policies to pieces James Murphy, Dorest

The interviews are essential to help us choose. When Paxman interviewed Charles Kennedy, he ripped his policies to pieces. Charles had no facts or arguments to support his expensive spending plans. Frankly I would be surprised if anybody would vote Lib Dem after watching it!
James Murphy, Dorest

I don't think you can be too cynical about politicians. History proves you should never judge a politician on what they say, only what they do. The media makes politicians more accountable to the public as the media is more easily accessible as a voice for the people than parliament.
Cat, Cambridge

There's a difference between scrutiny, which is vital, and cynicism, which obscures proper scrutiny by propagating assumptions that may not be true. I think that the attitudes of those who sneer at politicians because they are "all the same" say more about us than individual MPs, the majority of whom work exceptionally hard for a cause they strongly believe in. Important debates deserve a calm appraisal of the facts. The media have an important role in ensuring that the public have all the information, but not alienating voters with insinuation and hyperbole.
Catherine, Exeter

I don't think they get a hard enough time. They never answer the question asked but spin it to what they want to say. I have to say I'm not a Jeremy Paxman fan, but I was cheering him on last night with Kennedy and hope to see the same with Blair and Howard.
David, Chelmsford

Politicians need to be held accountable, not just by journalists but by the voting public Daz, Basingstoke

Politicians need to be held accountable, not just by journalists but by the voting public. I suspect that the cynical political interview does reflect wider public distrust leading to disengagement with politics. Do we really trust what the politicians say when they say one thing to get elected then do another? Are they really public servants when many have other jobs with big business interests? This surely leads to compromised decision making. Proportional representation is a fairer system to truly represent the electorate. Parliament would not have such a majority to push through policy.
Daz, Basingstoke

Two things worry me about proportional representation. First, the balance of power could be held by a tiny minority of those elected. Secondly, with the current system there are strong links to your constituency MP and I'm worried that these could be lost. One thing political interviewers should remember is that although they need to get straight answers, they're not there to put forward their own agenda.
Martin, Basingstoke

Politicians have fallen in our esteem so fast it's quite breathtaking Steve, UK

Politicians have fallen in our esteem so fast it's quite breathtaking. I find myself assuming that what the political establishment tells me is at best misleading, and at worst.
Steve, UK

As long as the politicians use focus groups to determine policy in order to win the marginal floating voters' constituencies, with the rest of the country struck off the election campaign timetable then MPs deserve all the bad press. Proportional representation would definitely help to re-engage the electorate because then ever vote would make a difference and we could vote for ideology rather than marketing gimmicks.
Phill C, Sheffield, UK

Politicians have forged their own chain of cynicism through lies, broken promises and self interest. Little wonder that political interviewers and the public at large have such distaste for them.
Allan (Wales), Delta. BC. Canada

The interviewers are just reflecting the public's cynicism. I'm not so sure that proportional representation would improve the debate but it certainly would be fairer, and thus help to reduce cynicism. How can one talk about democracy when it is quite possible that the Labour party, with 35% of the vote, could still have a working majority? The public would be rightly cynical having to listen to Mr Blair afterwards proclaiming that this was an overwhelming mandate, as I am sure he will.
Brian Bailey, Winterthur, Switzerland

In our democracy, why do we allow people from a self-governing profession to be in the Parliament? I think that the voters should NOT vote for the lawyers as they have allegiance to the brethren first, and Parliament next.
Roy Wilson, Nottingham

Too many interviewers are unable to differentiate between a probing question and a snide, sneering confrontation Brian, Derby

Recent research shows that politicians answer questions more directly when they are asked by members of the public. Why? Because professional interviewers phrase their questions in such a way that whatever the answer it can be made to look bad. No wonder politicians are cautious. Too many interviewers are unable to differentiate between a probing question and a snide, sneering confrontation.
Brian, Derby

Cynicism is both healthy and necessary, but to be effective, it must be measured. The attitude that politicians can never be right does more harm than good, as it causes so many people to abstain from voting at all.
Daniel, Wales

Politicians are people who want power. They apply for the position of the ultimate law-giving authority in this country. Anyone who wants power should be treated with at least a degree of cynicism if not downright suspicion.
Eric Pritchard, Clevedon, UK

Politicians are supposed to be acting in our interests (not their own) so they should expect to be questioned about anything and everything they do that affects our lives, including what they say, do and how they spend our money. Sadly they have lost a lot of respect over the years partly due to their policies, political correctness and the compensation culture that now seems to dominate our society, so it is always everyone else's fault and never our own. This may also be due to the large number of lawyers that seem to dominate parliament. Common sense however seems to no longer exists and with an army of pen pushers and analysts it is not surprising life is now so complicated. Thanks politicians.
Michael, Beaconsfield, UK

I don't think there is such a thing as 'too cynical' when it comes to assessing those who ultimately have a large degree of control over our every day lives. Plus, it keeps them on their toes!
Melissa, Guildford, Surrey

Politicians should be addressed with respect J Westerman, Leeds

Politicians, especially those in high office, should be addressed with respect. They do get too hard a time on occasions, but at others a 'hard time' is justified. There's little doubt they do exaggerate and sometimes set out to mislead.
J Westerman, Leeds

On the basis that it's common knowledge that you can tell when a politician is lying when his lips are moving, the cynicism is justly earned.
Jeff, Telford

No, if anything they get an easy ride. How often do they answer the question asked?
Pez, Eastleigh

I don't believe politicians should get an 'easy ride'. However I find it quite disgusting the way that the media, particularly tabloid newspapers, manipulate the opinions of a large section of the public with their cynicism, exaggeration and, sometimes, bare-faced lies.
Ben Callear, Rotherham

If politicians were more honest, then I would respect them a lot more Chris Kisch, Milton Keynes

If politicians were more honest and answered a direct question with a direct answer, then I would respect them a lot more. If they actually led by example and enthused the nation with facts and not spin then we would not be so hard on them.
Chris Kisch, Milton Keynes

As politicians are our servants, they can never be under enough scrutiny.
Oliver, UK

Proportional representation might help to improve debate by forcing all parties to be willing to compromise, rather than hoping for an outright victory. However, I don't believe things will really improve much until we have a system by which electors can vote on specific policies, rather than only being able to vote for a party. The trouble is that, for all their talk about democracy, few of the current crop of politicians would be keen to support such a system, because it would reduce their power.
Ken Ricketts, Wokingham

If the interviewers aren't cynical then it just becomes a reverential chat with the honourable gentleman, or lady. I suspect it's the politicians who cynically try to use the media, rather than the interviewers who cynically use the politicos.
Chris, Monmouthshire