Gordon Brown on Woman's Hour

So that is three down (assuming that Nick Clegg's interview counts as a pre-election interview), so when are the other major party leaders going to be interviewed on WH, when will the leader the Greens, the UKIP, BNP and any other party planing to stand candidates in at least 50% of UK wide constancies going to be in the WH 'hot-seat'?

It is interesting that Gordon intends to stay on as leader, Steve, even if that means leader of the opposition. Of course, he could always lose his seat to the SNP.



As for the 3 leaders' wives, perhaps they could be invited to do an interview together on WH.

#2. At 1:44pm on 16 Mar 2010, kleines c wrote:



"It is interesting that Gordon intends to stay on as leader, Steve, even if that means leader of the opposition."



What is so strange about that, it's what always used to happen, it was only after John Major that this "election lose = leadership resignation" idea really became the fashionable option for a party (as if being like a snake and casing off an old skin actually changes anything), Churchill remained Tory leader after the 1945v election to win another term as PM in 1951, Attlee carried on as Labour leader until 1955, Wilson carried on after the 1970 election lose, becoming PM again in Feb 1974, Heath, for until loosing out to Thatcher is a contested leadership election after the second (Oct) election in '74), Callaghan for over a year before resigning as leader, Kinnock (although never as an ex PM) carried on as party leader after loosing the election of 1987, only resigning after the 1992 election lose. But then, pre the late 1990s and 'Blairism', personality wasn't more important than political policy....



Even a wish to carry on as a minority is not new, Heath attempted to form a true minority government in Feb '74, as did Wilson. Whilst both Attlee, in 1950, and Wilson, in 1964 and Oct '74, both formed governments with lest than a 10 seat majority.



[/ranble]



"As for the 3 leaders' wives, perhaps they could be invited to do an interview together on WH."



God forbid even the thought! The BBC should make a point of refusing any such suggestion, not only that but should as far as possible have nothing to do with the personality hustings centred around "Leaders wives", the nation is electing a government for goodness sake, not some perverse 'Readers wive...' sorry, 'Leaders Wives' beauty contest.

I was reading an article in 'The Times' yesterday by William Rees-Mogg, Boilerplated, which argued that because of the intimacy of the web, voters expect to be told more about the lives of their leaders.



"Attention has switched to the wives, who are giving interviews designed to offer insight into their husband’s personalities and characters."



https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article7061650.ece



I would agree with Lord (William) Rees-Mogg that in an age of complicated technical issues, voters are wise to put great store by a leader’s character. How and when to balance the books, for example, is as much an issue of fine judgement as it is of policy. All the three leaders will have to cut public spending severely if they become Prime Minister. Precisely how they do so will impact the future performance of the UK economy.



Of course, from a feminist perspective, it would be better if the forthcoming election were not so much of a 'Judgement of Paris' between the three leader's wives (posing as Greek goddesses), but politics is the art of the possible, and WH could still host a hen party for them.



As for Gordon Brown, he has been remarkably successful at avoiding a leadership challenge to date. I suppose that it could be Dave?



;)

I was looking forward to the Woman's Hour interviews with the three Party Leaders. I want to hear what they have to say. With an election not far away, it's important that I use my vote in an informed way, so I was excited when I heard that these interviews were coming up.



That's why I'm so disappointed. The interviewer, I presume it was Jane Garvey, was so rude to the leaders, that it made very unpleasant listening. She asked a question, and then as the politician was in the middle of answering that question, she interrupted them aggresively. They had to ask her to let them finish answering the question. If this had happened once, or even twice, I could have overlooked it, but she kept on doing it.



I found this extremely frustrating. I would be in the middle of listening to an answer I was interested in, only to have it interrupted, so I never did found our what the answer was.



I was also very unhappy that these leaders were treated in such a rude manner. The interviewer is there to represent the listener - which includes me. I wanted these people to be treated with politeness but firmness. If they avoided answering questions, I would like to hear them guided back to the subject without rudeness.



Unfortunately, I found that the interviewer's manner made listening so unpleasant, that I had to choose to turn the interviews off. So I missed a very important opportunity. I'd like the leaders of the three main parties to know that not everyone approves of or agrees with this aggressive way of interviewing, and I am sorry that they were treated in this way on my behalf.



Kate