Doubtless some arrogant broadcasters have not, in the words of Lord Ashdown, covered themselves in glory over the handling of the negotiations with the political parties over TV leader debates. Doubtless their plans were disturbed by the sudden arrival of the Greens and Ukip on the national stage, but no one needs to look far for the individual responsible for the apparent collapse of the election debates this time around.
Anyone close to Downing Street knows that David Cameron’s aides had made the calculation months ago that appearing to run away from the debates was damaging, but not as bad as appearing on TV alongside Ed Miliband. The only question was how credible Cameron could look when he pulled out, and whether the public really minds whether the debates take place or not.
At present Cameron does not look that credible. His sudden desire for the nation to listen to the views of the Green party on social housing, or hear Nigel Dodds, the DUP leader, set out his views to a grateful nation on the future of Ukrainian conflict, is inherently absurd. The real reason is that despite the stickiness of the polls, Cameron calculates he is on course to win without the TV debates. The economy will see him home and any cynicism about his refusal to debate will add little to pre-existing cynicism about politicians.
In that context, such debates merely become a gamble where none is necessary. A central feature of the Tory campaign is that Miliband is just short of a laughing stock. It would be deeply disturbing if, unmediated, Miliband appeared less dopey than Wallace and more worldly than Mr Bean. Moreover, incumbents normally struggle in election debates and, however naturally Cameron has donned the authority of a prime minister, he would have been on the defensive. Such debates would have been as much about his record, as the risk of Miliband.
Miliband has been investing time and resources into preparing for the debate, including a day-long coaching session last Sunday. If Labour’s single biggest weakness is Miliband, it hardly makes sense to give him a 90-minute opportunity for voters to take a second look at him.
Cameron makes a legitimate point that in 2010 the TV debates intruded too much. The buildup, the debate itself, the following poll, the reports from the spin room and the postmortem became the weekly cycle of the campaign at the expense, for instance, of much necessary discussion on the deficit, or indeed the possibility of a coalition. But that was in part due to the debate’s novelty, and their proximity to polling day. Some of the faults could have been ironed out before we were left with Cameron’s final offer to the nation on his availability during the campaign.
There is a broader and important point about the accountability of politicians. Tony Blair, ever the showman, held monthly press conferences in an attempt to explain himself. Sometimes, if the timing was right, these events were a very difficult hour for the prime minister. Gordon Brown broadly continued the tradition. Cameron abolished them. He remains available for the occasional newspaper interview with a friendly proprietor and, at conference time, finds time for a 20-minute breakfast inquisition. But his favourite forum is Good Morning Britain, a revealing discussion with a woman’s magazine about his cooking prowess or three questions on regional radio interspersed with a Barry Manilow song. Some of that is understandable. The Westminster lobby can be a distorting prism for politicians.
By comparison, in the 80s and 90s most political parties would begin their day’s campaign with a 45-minute press conference. Most newspapers and broadcasters got to pose questions for a party spokesman and the party election chairman. Lord Patten, the Tory chairman, would occasionally cut off an overeager inquisitor, saying this was a press conference not a Socratic debate. Thereafter the party leader would undergo lengthy interviews with expert interrogators, as well as phone-ins, regional radio and newspaper interviews. British leaders are now protected, sanitised and risk-averse, which is why figures like Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and Kenneth Clarke have followings that transcend their parties.
The irony is that we have more media than ever before, but less insight.
