In recent weeks, broadcasters' proposal to televise a number of live debates between the leaders of the dominant parties
David Cameron has received staunch criticism from numerous members of the opposing parties about his reluctance to partake in the debates, and many have been left questioning the basis of his refusal.
In the current age, the press
Furthermore, a televised debate would (hopefully) allow individuals to find a party leader that they are confident in, and policies that they agree with, thus restoring a sense of trust in politicians. To hide from public debate, which is what Cameron is supposedly doing, is only going to detract from his ability to instil a sense of confidence in the public.
It must be noted that there most certainly are risks associated with partaking in public debates. The leader of the Green Party - Natalie Bennett - recently received a barrage of abuse following a radio interview on LBC, where she found herself unable to answer questions on the Green party's housing policy. Branded as a "car-crash interview" by The Telegraph, it is safe to say that she has received a fair amount of criticism for questions that she probably should have prepared for. However, more than anything, it shows that she's trying to radically change the system, and despite stumbling in her interview, she is trying to connect with the public by participating in these broadcasts. She has proven something that many politicians find difficult to do: that she too, is human. She
Taking part in a televised debate could be risky, but it can certainly be argued that the benefits far outweigh the cons - especially when all the other party leaders have been brave enough to agree.