Matter of debate

I’m no apologist for Theresa May but I believe she was right to pass on Wednesday night’s televised election debate.

These TV events( they hardly meritthe term“debate ”) have been imported from the US and area relatively new development in British politics. They are more to do with entertainment th an edifica - tion, always, it seems, poised on t he brink of chaos, often de generating into shouting matches. It’s a format where the glib rejoinder counts for more than integrity, and one thatencourages simplistic answers to often complex questions. I’m reminded of fairground barkers or marketstall holders bawling out the polished phrases of spin doctors. It’s all very shallow and unsubtle.

These events, moreover, are intrinsic ally loaded against the party in power, which is stuck with the realityof its record and is naturally going tobe the focus of criticism from all the other leaders. Five of the seven parties represented on the platform have no hope of forming a UK government in the foreseeable future. They are free to indulge in piein- the - sky promises they are never going to have to deliver on, focus on aspiration rather than achievement, or make pretty speeches with all the positive buzzwords.

Mrs May had everything to lose by participating and very little to gain. She has undergone TV grilling sfrombo th Jeremy Paxman and Andrew Neil; had she ducked out of these, that would have been a different matter. This one - to- one intensive format is the b est way to test politicians. Much better than seeing who can shout the loudest.

PAUL WRIGHT Davidson’s Mains, Edinburgh