I'm against it, for the reason of Nixon Vs Kennedy TV debate in 1960. Although 'my' man came through that time, the ends don't justify the means. (Kennedy wore make-up and was viewed positively by TV viewers. Radio listeners prefered Nixon, who wore no make-up).
Sky are far from impartial, so I don't think they would be a good choice of host
This quote is priceless:
"You know, I'm guessing a car salesmen, would do a better job at selling me a Mondeo, than a Ford engineer, but it doesn't mean he knows more about automotive engineering."
Also very interesting:
In regards to Browns performance, I think you people thinking it will be a cake walk for Cameron need to read a bit more.
Most of his slick interviews, TV work, and PM questions works is largely rehearsed, with the help of his very expensive PR team. That's why he's called in some quarters "MR soundbite". Coming out with a juicy quote is his strength.
He is often criticised, even in his own party, for his actual lack of political nouse, and political talent. Many in fact see him as a bit of a lightweight in that respect.
You know - an unplanned, political debate, on policy, and open questions. I'd think brown would be the much backed person in such an atmosphere.
I think Mandelson was probably right, although I dislike the man. Cameron's success has been based on slick TV work, image,and planned speeches and quotes. Almost a PR campaign.
Many people think he's maybe a bit more shallow than he appears, and there isn't actually that much to the man, politically.
Remember, this is a guy fighting the "inexperience" thing.
Mandelson has already said they would relish this sort of thing.
Why? Purely because Brown has nothing at all to lose. Cameron has everything to lose, and really little to gain"