A most unusual thing happened in British politics this week. Three party leaders wrote separate but identical letters to another leader about the forthcoming election campaign and what many regard as the most crucial event in it: the televised debates.
Their letter went to David Cameron and in essence they accused him of trying to torpedo the debates for his own selfish reasons by threatening not to turn up. Mr Cameron said he was happy to do so but not in the form proposed because it was simply undemocratic. So who’s right? And what should the broadcasters do if the politicians can’t settle their differences?
Televised debates between political leaders have been standard fare in the election campaigns of most advanced democracies for decades. But in Britain they happened for the first time only at the last election, in 2010. Up till then politicians from all parties had, at different times and almost always simply for reasons of party advantage, deployed lofty arguments to justify their refusal to take part. We were told that debates between leaders would transform our parliamentary elections into something akin to presidential combat and prove alien to our constitution. We were told that the televising of Parliament had given the public ample opportunity to see their leaders in action against each other, so debates were unnecessary. There was even, early on, the suggestion that television was too vulgar a medium for the serious matter of politics properly to be discussed.
But all that changed in 2010 and the key to the change was the decision of the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, to take part. Previously it had been opposition leaders who had been keenest to participate in order to be able to present themselves as being on a par with the prime minister – which was precisely why the prime minister declined. But in 2010 Mr Brown was so far behind in the polls that he calculated he had little to lose by taking part.
In fact it is generally believed that the person who lost most was David Cameron. That is because the combat was not just between Brown and Cameron but also included the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. Mr Clegg was able to play one off against the other and pose as the reasonable man in the middle. “I agree with Nick” became the most quoted line of the campaign and the debates helped the LibDems secure 23% of the vote on polling day, enough to deny either of the other parties a majority.
Some Conservatives blame their party’s failure to win power outright on their leader’s willingness to agree that Mr Clegg should take part. Those who defend the decision say he had little option, given the LibDems’ standing in the polls, but few dispute that sharing the spotlight with Mr Clegg helped the LibDems at the Tories’ expense.
This time round it would be even more difficult for the debates to involve only the leaders of the two main parties. Not only have the LibDems been part of the government for the last five years, but UKIP has marched on to the political scene. They have won two by-elections and they came first in the local and European elections last year. Their leader, Nigel Farage, has earned his place in the debates.
So the broadcasters – the BBC, ITV, Sky News and Channel Four – have come up with a plan for three debates in April. One would exclusively be between David Cameron and Ed Miliband, the Labour leader. A second would also include Nick Clegg, and in the third the three would be joined by Mr Farage. Debates in Scotland and Wales would also involve the nationalist parties.
The broadcasters’ plan emerged after the broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, ruled that the Green Party did not have ‘major status’ and should therefore be excluded from the leader debates. David Cameron has seized on this. He said: “You can’t have some minor parties in and not other parties in.”
Those who agree with him point out that with around 8% in the polls, the Greens are well above the threshold that countries using proportional representation set for deciding which parties should automatically have seats in their parliaments, and they add that the Greens have consistently been polling at or above the level enjoyed by the LibDems. So of course the Greens should take part.
But the Prime Minister is accused of cynically using this argument only for his party’s ends. His critics say he has an interest in Green involvement in the debates because the Greens are more likely to take votes off Labour and the LibDems than they are to deprive the Tories of support. But, even more, they say that he is trying to scupper the debates altogether because it is most unlikely, given Ofcom’s ruling, that the Greens will now be included. By saying he won’t participate unless they are, the Prime Minister is in effect saying that the debates should not take place.
Hence the letter written by the other three part. Each of them wrote to the Prime Minister: ‘I believe it would be a major setback to our democratic process if these debates were not repeated in 2015 because of one politician’s unwillingness to participate. It would be unacceptable if the political self-interest of one party leader were to deny the public the opportunity to see their leaders debate in public.’ They challenge the broadcasters to go ahead with the debates and to leave an empty podium for Mr Cameron should he change his mind and decide to turn up.
Unless the political leaders can settle this problem themselves, the decision about what to do will be very much up to the broadcasters. Some will argue that to have the debates without the Prime Minister would be like putting on Hamlet without the prince. Some will argue too that the broadcasters should not presume too great a role in the running of the election: after all, televised debates are not a part of the constitution.
Others, though, argue that our democratic system cannot be held hostage by the narrow interests of one political leader and that the broadcasters, with responsibilities to the health of that system, have a duty to stage debates that are taken for granted in other countries as a necessary part of election campaigns and may be becoming so here.
How both the politicians and the broadcasters respond to the current impasse may well depend on what they think the public wants. So this is your chance: what do you want?
How important do you think the televised leader debates are in the overall election campaign? Are they likely to affect the way you vote? Do you think the debates should be only between the two men most likely to emerge as our next prime minister, David Cameron and Ed Miliband, or should they include leaders of other main parties? Do you think the Green Party should be represented? Do you think David Cameron’s refusal to take part unless the Greens are included is genuinely based on his claim that it is unfair to exclude the Greens or is a cynical ploy either to wrongfoot Labour and the LibDems or to scupper the debates altogether? Equally, do you think the acceptance by Labour, the LibDems and UKIP of the exclusion of the Greens is principled or cynical? What do you think the broadcasters should do if the politicians can’t agree? And which debate do you most wish to watch… if any?
