Tv

Do voters care about David Cameron’s decision to avoid some of the TV debates? A new poll from ComRes/ITV News out today suggests that although his reputation may be suffering from his current position, it won’t make any difference to how people will vote on May 7. Just under two thirds agreed that Cameron had damaged his reputation over the debates furore, while 59 per cent thought he was being ‘cowardly in trying to avoid the debates’. According to the poll, 71 per cent said they thought the debates should go ahead if Cameron does not take part and 63 per cent believe there should be an empty chair left out for the Prime Minister.

I wish I could get worked up about the televised election debates (or lack thereof). I can understand that it's a very important to the broadcasters, who don't mind reducing the campaign to three US-style standoffs. But if they don't go ahead, is it really an outrage? Is our democracy really the poorer for it? When broadcasters are angry, they have a platform to vent - which is why the furore is been given disproportional coverage. But without the debates, the election will go on in the way that every election before 2010 went on. And I rather welcome that. The TV debates do make good entertainment but they do rather take over the campaign - and put the whole thing a little more in the hands of the political and media elite.

So David Cameron won’t debate anyone unless the broadcasters agree to his exact specifications, Ed Miliband won’t debate Clegg in Cameron’s place and has instead offered Harriet Harman, and the broadcasters are threatening to empty chair anyone who refuses to turn up to any of their debates. It’s fair to say that the TV debates are firstly very unlikely to happen and secondly in the most unimpressive mess. Though the Prime Minister is ducking out of them for the selfish reasons outlined here, the blame must ultimately lie with the broadcasters for making it possible for him to do so. They have managed to mess up at every stage of the process.

The broadcasters have now said they could be willing to host a TV debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband on another date if that means the programmes will actually take place. Though this shows willing on the part of the broadcasters, who have messed up the debates with proposals that would inevitably end up mired in a row, it does not make them more likely to happen. It would be easy for any of the parties who feel hard done by, particularly the Lib Dems, to apply for an injunction against the head-to-head taking place on the grounds that they will have no chance to respond to any claims made about their party. And the Prime Minister could simply move on from complaining about the dates to arguing that they must be held as a set of three before he agrees to the head to head.

Ancients would have been astonished that parties never debate against each other in open, public forum except on the telly before general elections — and even then they do their best to resist. The reason is that politicians understand ‘debate’ only in terms of internal parliamentary procedures where the outcomes are entirely predictable. The result is usually one long exercise in freedom of screech. Look at PMQs. In democratic Athens, the subjects for debate were determined by a people’s Council of 500. These were appointed by lot, 50 from each of the ten tribes, from among the male citizens of Athens over 30. They served for one year, never more than twice (and not in succession).

TV debates became a little less likely to happen today. The broadcasters have announced that their proposed timetable is for the two seven party debates to come first with the head to head between Cameron and Miliband as the final instalment. This schedule will make the Liberal Democrats even more reluctant to agree to the debates. For one of their main worries has been that in the two way debate, Cameron could say anything about what the Liberal Democrats have blocked in government without them having any chance to respond. With no seven way debate following the Cameron Miliband head-to-head, this problem has been compounded: there is no venue for Clegg to challenge Cameron directly on what he says in that two way debate.

This is an extract from this week’s magazine, available from tomorrow Just three months into Ukip’s shock victory as the party of government and already Nigel Farage’s mob are starting to show their true colours: morris dancing has been made compulsory for every able-bodied male between the age of 30 and 85; in ruthlessly enforced union flag street parties, brown-skinned people are made to show their loyalty by eating red-, white- and blue-coloured Battenberg cakes until they explode. And what is that acrid smell of burnt fur now polluting Britain’s hitherto gloriously carbon-free air?