Peter Kenyon

Dear voter: Your choice - faces or policies

On polling day - and if you are a postal voter that could be from Monday 26 April right through to 10pm on Thursday 6 May - every voter's choice is described on the ballot paper by the name of a candidate, a party logo if the candidate remembered to authorise its use, and the registered party name.

As I sought to highlight here on this blog, the prime ministerial TV debates are between the prospective parliamentary candidates for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, Sheffield Hallam and Witney. Regulation of most other aspects of human activity is intense and subject to scrutiny, except politics - until recently. So when exercising our democratic rights to vote in a General Election, we are only electing a person to represent the parliamentary seat in which we live. The rest - government, and prime minister - is by proxy.

The party with most seats has expectations to form the next government. Its leader (who has already been elected by its members) is invited to do so and, if successful, appointed by the constitutional monarch as prime minister.

As we have seen in the 2010 campaign to date, more vividly perhaps than ever before the medium of television -together with competition between television channels - appears to be quickening the transformation of our parliamentary democracy into a presidential-system of government. The appearance of the party leaders, their body language, facial mannerisms, we are told, account for the vagaries of their respective party's standing in opinion polls more than their party's manifesto policies.

Party politics for me is defined by motivational values - personal greed (Conservatives) vs the common good (Labour). The Liberal Democrats seem to err in Tory areas more towards sating greed, and in Labour areas more towards the common good, through so-called neighbourhood politics. So their existence as a separate political party today for me reflects more the personal ambitions of its relatively small membership base and elected representatives than a distinctive value set that shapes its policies.

This simple categorisation has been thrown into disarray by presidential creep, or the advance of the elected dictatorship. Instead of being encouraged to focus on the policies, we are being bombarded with images of the leaders and invitations to watch debate, rather than participate. The results of round one of the 2010 'prime ministerial' TV debates has been an unprecedented convulsion in public opinion as measured by the opinion polls - showing a meteoric 50% rise in possible support for the Liberal Democrats from 15 - 20% up to 25% - 30% or more. Under Britain's current electoral voting system, it is possible that Labour could win the largest number of seats with the smallest share of the popular vote. Some say that would strip the largest party of democratic legitimacy. I say that's what you get if you allow TV moguls and professional politicians to pervert parliamentary democracy.

TV debates: why not apply The Spirit Level to our political leaders?

Last night I went to hear Richard Wilkinson (again) talk about The Spirit Level, the book he co-authored with Kate Pickett, which has just been published in paperback. He was the guest of the Newham Fabians. The previous night the BBC staged a discussion about the proposed TV debates between the three political leaders ahead of the general election. It occurred to me how much public understanding about inequality and its causes and consequences might improve if the BBC, if not ITV and Sky, were to abandon their current plans and offer Professor Wilkinson and his co-author the opportunity to apply The Spirit Level to Messrs Brown Cameron and Clegg, separately. I asked Professor Wilkinson, before he left, whether he would appreciate the opportunity. After a moment's reflection, he said: "Yes, I'd like that." I would too. I suspect the viewing public would as well. If nothing else it would raise, rather than demean, the level of public debate ahead of the General Election.

TV debates: will Brown repeat you are voting for your future, not mine?

Confirmation here of the details being finalised for three TV debates between the three mainstream political party leaders offers Brown a great political education opportunity. Will he take it? There was an excellent line in his 2009 Labour Party Conference speech.

And so I say to the British people the election to come will not be about my future – it's about your future.  Your job.  Your home.  Your children's school.  Your hospital.  Your community.  Your country.

Or are we going to be bombarded with more - I, I, I, me, me, me?

In the UK the electorate votes for Members of Parliament. Political Parties choose their leaders. It's a small detail, a constitutional nicety. But one which in the wake of Chilcot's grilling of Blair could be well worth developing. In the meantime, there is a campaign-a-day job to be done to link leadership back to party policies that define our values.To mobilise opinion that means Labour has to redirect its paid staff to retention and recruitment, and halt command and control - regional directors and general secretary, please take note.