This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/16/david-cameron-tv-debate-should-not-be-option

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
You can't wriggle out of a TV debate now, Mr Cameron You can't wriggle out of a TV debate now, Mr Cameron
(7 months later)
Arguments about televised leadership debates have long been as familiar a part of the British pre-election ritual as the first mention of a soapbox, the inauguration of a "secret weapon" wife, the latest strategist's coinage of an insulting term for a hard-to-please demographic, a la "Worcester woman", "Mondeo man", etc.Arguments about televised leadership debates have long been as familiar a part of the British pre-election ritual as the first mention of a soapbox, the inauguration of a "secret weapon" wife, the latest strategist's coinage of an insulting term for a hard-to-please demographic, a la "Worcester woman", "Mondeo man", etc.
And thus far this year's debate appears to be following a self-serving pattern unchanged since well before 1997, when it became the turn of Tony Blair, a star performer even before he started unbuttoning his shirt down to his waist, to wonder what was in it for him.And thus far this year's debate appears to be following a self-serving pattern unchanged since well before 1997, when it became the turn of Tony Blair, a star performer even before he started unbuttoning his shirt down to his waist, to wonder what was in it for him.
On the way to Islington one night, Alastair Campbell records, Blair "suddenly said he didn't think it was really in our interests to have a television debate. Bizarrely, Gordon, Peter and I had all come to pretty much the same conclusion".Actually, it wasn't remotely bizarre for the three to regret Blair's 1995 challenge to Major, "any place, any time". The risk, all realised, was that "Major was now seen as the underdog, and therefore a TV debate was likely to help them [the Tories]". On the way to Islington one night, Alastair Campbell records, Blair "suddenly said he didn't think it was really in our interests to have a television debate. Bizarrely, Gordon, Peter and I had all come to pretty much the same conclusion".Actually, it wasn't remotely bizarre for the three to regret Blair's 1995 challenge to Major, "any place, any time". The risk, all realised, was that "Major was now seen as the underdog, and therefore a TV debate was likely to help them [the Tories]".
Today, with Miliband acknowledged to be, in terms of his personal ratings, among the most doleful little mites in recorded underdog history, the same difficulty obviously confronts Tory strategists, with the complication that in 2010, at the time of Britain's first such debates, David Cameron was their passionate supporter. The better to goad Gordon Brown, who only capitulated when battered, underdog status was thrust upon him, Cameron never ceased advertising his belief in the importance of such contests, and duly threw out the virile challenge – "any time, anywhere" – now standard when a rival debater looks evasive. Ditto the word "frit", allusions to balls/cojones, the expression mano-a-mano, and belligerent/humorous conjecture about what one might put on an empty chair, in the tradition of that other test of bring-it-on dudehood, Have I Got News for You.Today, with Miliband acknowledged to be, in terms of his personal ratings, among the most doleful little mites in recorded underdog history, the same difficulty obviously confronts Tory strategists, with the complication that in 2010, at the time of Britain's first such debates, David Cameron was their passionate supporter. The better to goad Gordon Brown, who only capitulated when battered, underdog status was thrust upon him, Cameron never ceased advertising his belief in the importance of such contests, and duly threw out the virile challenge – "any time, anywhere" – now standard when a rival debater looks evasive. Ditto the word "frit", allusions to balls/cojones, the expression mano-a-mano, and belligerent/humorous conjecture about what one might put on an empty chair, in the tradition of that other test of bring-it-on dudehood, Have I Got News for You.
"I will even pay for the taxi to take him to the studio," the pro-debate iteration of David Cameron told his (then) friends at the Sun, when Brown looked reluctant. "In fact, I'll even drive the cab!" In less gladiatorial mode, he declared himself, both before and after the event, as strongly invested in debates, on principle. "I think we will have them in every election in the future," he said, "and I think that is a really good thing for our democracy"."I will even pay for the taxi to take him to the studio," the pro-debate iteration of David Cameron told his (then) friends at the Sun, when Brown looked reluctant. "In fact, I'll even drive the cab!" In less gladiatorial mode, he declared himself, both before and after the event, as strongly invested in debates, on principle. "I think we will have them in every election in the future," he said, "and I think that is a really good thing for our democracy".
On mature reflection, which may have set in as early as the first reviews hailing Clegg's extraordinary, never-to-be repeated Spartacus moment, Cameron and his team seem to have decided that televised debates can actually be quite the distraction. Also, they happen at the wrong time. How about having one last year? Cameron says the 2010 debates "sucked all the life out of the campaign", an observation that, at the same time that it would severely test any programme-makers tasked with producing debates of officially approved tedium, makes you wonder what Cameron, that respected scourge of hypocrisy, thought they were for in 2010, when he worried about voter boredom. Exercise?On mature reflection, which may have set in as early as the first reviews hailing Clegg's extraordinary, never-to-be repeated Spartacus moment, Cameron and his team seem to have decided that televised debates can actually be quite the distraction. Also, they happen at the wrong time. How about having one last year? Cameron says the 2010 debates "sucked all the life out of the campaign", an observation that, at the same time that it would severely test any programme-makers tasked with producing debates of officially approved tedium, makes you wonder what Cameron, that respected scourge of hypocrisy, thought they were for in 2010, when he worried about voter boredom. Exercise?
But he was right, of course, in that the debates, while easily the liveliest part of the 2010 campaigns, were equally illuminating, thereby attracting audiences as big as 9 million and, having what turned out, and this was with Twitter less extensively used, to be a measurable impact on the engagement of young voters. By way of a reminder, the recent encounter between Alex Salmond and Alistair ("any time and any place") Darling has just demonstrated that experienced and exhaustively prepped politicians can still unravel in debates, to revelatory effect. So the Tories' next problem is to convince voters that their determination to deny them an event that might constitute a fixture in around 80 other countries results from something other than dismal self-interest or as Ed Miliband has put it: "The same old games that prevented TV debates for almost half a century."But he was right, of course, in that the debates, while easily the liveliest part of the 2010 campaigns, were equally illuminating, thereby attracting audiences as big as 9 million and, having what turned out, and this was with Twitter less extensively used, to be a measurable impact on the engagement of young voters. By way of a reminder, the recent encounter between Alex Salmond and Alistair ("any time and any place") Darling has just demonstrated that experienced and exhaustively prepped politicians can still unravel in debates, to revelatory effect. So the Tories' next problem is to convince voters that their determination to deny them an event that might constitute a fixture in around 80 other countries results from something other than dismal self-interest or as Ed Miliband has put it: "The same old games that prevented TV debates for almost half a century."
Indeed, the game, so far, is reminiscent of the Blair camp in 1997: prevarication and stringing everyone along behind a show of impartial, genuine interest. That, and defining the argument as essentially between political and broadcasting interests, as opposed to strategists v voters. "We should start to brief," Campbell wrote in 1997, "that the Tories are just pissing around, focusing on this because it was a process, not policy issue, and our general view was that whilst we could see it would be good for TV, we were not convinced it would be good for politics."Indeed, the game, so far, is reminiscent of the Blair camp in 1997: prevarication and stringing everyone along behind a show of impartial, genuine interest. That, and defining the argument as essentially between political and broadcasting interests, as opposed to strategists v voters. "We should start to brief," Campbell wrote in 1997, "that the Tories are just pissing around, focusing on this because it was a process, not policy issue, and our general view was that whilst we could see it would be good for TV, we were not convinced it would be good for politics."
After Blair again dodged debates in 2001, his adviser, Lance Price, confirmed: "We were never up for it. We were way out ahead in the polls. It wasn't a question of whether or not we would agree; it was a question of when and by what means we would get out of it." High among the Tories' current tactics is exaggerating the Farage complication to justify a new format, in which an arbitrarily chaotic opening debate, too populous to enable proper argument, would be whittled down to a final, one-on-one encounter, a non-co-operation wheeze known as "5-3-2".After Blair again dodged debates in 2001, his adviser, Lance Price, confirmed: "We were never up for it. We were way out ahead in the polls. It wasn't a question of whether or not we would agree; it was a question of when and by what means we would get out of it." High among the Tories' current tactics is exaggerating the Farage complication to justify a new format, in which an arbitrarily chaotic opening debate, too populous to enable proper argument, would be whittled down to a final, one-on-one encounter, a non-co-operation wheeze known as "5-3-2".
But you can appreciate their anxiety. Outside the horror of PMQs, Miliband might well, being a more appealing figure when unscripted, emerge better than the blustering Cameron, whose struggle for self-command made for such delicious viewing back in 2010. And Miliband has little to lose. Strategic wisdom, reported in Double Down, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's compelling account of the last US election, holds that, on top of the underdog theory: "Incumbents almost always lose their first debate." Gordon Brown showed that it was easy for an incumbent to lose the second and third ones too. The explanation being: "Challengers had ample time to prep; incumbents were, well, busy." Knowing this, Obama still had no option but to perform at an opening confrontation so disastrous that the political blogger Andrew Sullivan accused him of being "too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously".But you can appreciate their anxiety. Outside the horror of PMQs, Miliband might well, being a more appealing figure when unscripted, emerge better than the blustering Cameron, whose struggle for self-command made for such delicious viewing back in 2010. And Miliband has little to lose. Strategic wisdom, reported in Double Down, Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's compelling account of the last US election, holds that, on top of the underdog theory: "Incumbents almost always lose their first debate." Gordon Brown showed that it was easy for an incumbent to lose the second and third ones too. The explanation being: "Challengers had ample time to prep; incumbents were, well, busy." Knowing this, Obama still had no option but to perform at an opening confrontation so disastrous that the political blogger Andrew Sullivan accused him of being "too arrogant to take a core campaign responsibility seriously".
In reality, Obama had rehearsed for days, but somehow had entirely forgotten, mid-debate, about his strategist David Axelrod's instruction to be visionary, not mean: "The bigger you are, the harder he falls," (a line he has of course entirely refreshed for his English protege, Ed Miliband). As we know, Obama recovered his bigness in time for a second engagement, in which a well-rested, super-confident Mitt Romney assured the nation that he had "binders full of women".In reality, Obama had rehearsed for days, but somehow had entirely forgotten, mid-debate, about his strategist David Axelrod's instruction to be visionary, not mean: "The bigger you are, the harder he falls," (a line he has of course entirely refreshed for his English protege, Ed Miliband). As we know, Obama recovered his bigness in time for a second engagement, in which a well-rested, super-confident Mitt Romney assured the nation that he had "binders full of women".
If Tory strategy really is, courtesy of Cameron's Australian controller, to return the British public to elections without such insights, the debate-shaming should go far beyond testicle disparagement and prominent, if Dave-free, events in which on his empty chair sits, say, a navy polo shirt and a note reading "gone swimming". Cameron was right the first time. Those late-staged election debates were a great democratic advance: turning up is no longer a choice, or even a test of manhood, but an obligation.If Tory strategy really is, courtesy of Cameron's Australian controller, to return the British public to elections without such insights, the debate-shaming should go far beyond testicle disparagement and prominent, if Dave-free, events in which on his empty chair sits, say, a navy polo shirt and a note reading "gone swimming". Cameron was right the first time. Those late-staged election debates were a great democratic advance: turning up is no longer a choice, or even a test of manhood, but an obligation.