Why Cameron can’t be allowed to scupper televised election debates
|
Version 0 of 1. The broadcasters showed every sign of being jolly pleased with their announcement last week that they had agreed a format for TV party leader debates for next year’s general election. Pleased because they’d managed to integrate Channel 4 and, critically, come up with a “2:3:4” format – Cameron/Miliband head-to-head, Cameron/Miliband/Clegg three-way and a Cameron/Miliband/Clegg/Farage four-way – that they believe will make the debates most likely to actually happen. Nigel Farage is included, but only in one, and Nick Clegg (last time’s big winner, much to the Tories’ chagrin) is down from three appearances to two. On the face of it the BBC has drawn the short straw, getting neither the big head to head nor the entertainment value – and potential for really serious political embarrassment to the main parties – of Farage’s first and only appearance. But privately the BBC feels less exposed to the controversy that is just starting to unfold since its debate is in the same format as last time. Which, remember, was subject to an unsuccessful legal challenge from the SNP. BBC bosses will also hope that, assuming the debates happen in more or less this form, theirs might be last in the sequence and therefore closest to the poll. But events since the announcement suggest the broadcasters’ back-slapping might prove premature. And look no further than the reaction of David Cameron to begin to see why. The PM’s reaction is key because as the incumbent he almost certainly has most to lose. Farage could cause him real difficulty and Ed Miliband might do better than expected. Because debates afford participants equal status, they usually favour the underdog – especially ones with little to lose. So, in terms of cold political calculation, giving airtime to any of his challengers might appear to offer Cameron mostly downside risk. Privately the broadcasters acknowledge that their 2:3:4 format was preferred over the other options (3:3:3 and even 4:4:2) as it was reckoned to be the hardest one for him to reject – given his public position in favour of televised debates. Cameron’s reaction was to welcome the broadcasters’ proposal as “interesting” but then to wonder aloud not about the inclusion of Ukip but about the fairness of excluding the Greens and even the SNP. Given that this is most unlikely to be on account of any desire on his part to actually debate with either the Greens or the SNP, it is perhaps best seen – and it is certainly viewed this way by the broadcasters – as Cameron’s best hope of messing up their best-laid plans. The broadcasters are reasonably confident about seeing off any legal challenge from the SNP – they are, after all, not a UK-wide party, and TV debates in Scotland in which they will be invited to participate might be thought sufficient to deal with the issue. However, they are less certain about the Greens who have already declared their intention to go to law if necessary. The broadcasters will hope that although, like Ukip and Respect, the Greens do have one sitting MP, the idea that they are in any sense as significant a force as Farage’s party (or the Lib Dems) really just won’t hold water. But who wins the argument if it ends up in court probably matters less to Cameron than the uncertainty and confusion resulting from any lengthy delay occasioned by legal action. Months of wrangling between the broadcasters and other would-be participants might be just what the PM wants. If he’s lucky the whole thing might start to appear too complex and difficult and none of that will be his fault. In short it won’t be Cameron putting up what Miliband called “false obstacles”. And remember there is another proposal in the wings – a YouTube-hosted online debate, backed by the Guardian and the Telegraph. Supporters of this “Digital Debate” say it will “rewrite the rules” and be much more flexible, with audience involvement and much greater interactivity. In reality, of course, any format that free and open would most likely itself struggle to get consent from all the leaders too. But a lengthy TV-style online debate, featuring all parties – including Greens, nationalists, Northern Irish parties and even maybe George Galloway, organised by the Electoral Reform Society, would be a far lower risk proposition for Cameron than any of the TV debate options on offer, while at the same time getting him off the hook of appearing to resile from his previous commitments to TV debates. If that happens questions about the wisdom of the broadcasters’ tactics – offering a firmly agreed format as a take-it-or leave-it option this early in the process – will surely be called into question. Ultimately we might end up being deprived of the one piece of political television that last time actually appeared to make a difference to public engagement with our democracy – especially amongst the young. |