PARTY LEADERS and broadcasters finally agreed the rules this week for the debates in the run-up to the general election, which is expected to be on 6th May.
There will be three debates, one each on ITV, Sky and the BBC in that order. Each programme will last 90 minutes and the first half of each debate will focus on separate themes with the second half as an open forum.
The first debate, moderated by ITV anchor Alaistair Stewart, will place an emphasis on domestic affairs such as the state of NHS, schools, law and order, and immigration.
Adam Boulton will moderate the next debate on Sky which will be focused on international affairs including the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, international relations, terrorism and climate change.
The final programme on the BBC will have the economy as its theme and David Dimbleby as its moderator with questions expected on taxation, the deficit, the recession and spending on public services.
While these debates have been commonplace across the Atlantic since 1960, the three shows in the run-up to the election will be the first of their kind in the UK.
Before the 1997 election, then Prime Minister John Major was in support of having such debates but the parties and broadcasters could not agree on a format so nothing ever took place.
In the meantime, Mr Major's successor Tony Blair argued against the need for them, stating that the weekly Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons was sufficient.
But, lagging behind in the polls in a way in which Mr Blair never was, current PM Gordon Brown had little option but to support the idea when the issue was raised again by Sky News.
The debates have already been surrounded by controversy after the exclusion of the nationalist parties, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and UKIP who finished second in the European elections last June.
The fact is, though, that none of those parties is going to form part of the next government in Westminster whereas even the Liberal Democrats could play a vital role in the case of a hung parliament.
Others have argued that the debates will further encourage a presidential-style of leadership but I personally think that debates are an excellent way to hold leaders and potential leaders to account.
It is a shame, then, that fully 76 points will be used to regulate the discussion, a list of which can be viewed here on The Guardian website.
Of course, there must be rules to a debate but some of the points make it possible for debate to be stifled and others seem to make it too easy for politicians to wriggle off the hook.
For instance, take points 46. to 50. which are based on time limits:
46.Each leader will make an opening statement on the theme of the debate lasting for 1 minute. After the three opening statements the moderator will take the first question on the agreed theme. There will be closing statements of 1 minute 30 seconds from all three leaders at the end of the 90 minutes.
47.Each leader will have 1 minute to answer the question.
48.Each leader will then have 1 minute to respond to the answers.
49.The moderator may then open the discussion to free debate between the leaders for up to 4 minutes on merit.
50.The length of the debate on each question will be decided by the programme editor.
The first time limits in point 46. can be seen as a positive rule in that at least it ensures the opening and closing statements from the leaders will be concise.
But, of the other limits in points 47. and 48., 60 seconds seems a hardly adequate enough period for the most complex questions to be answered.
And even if four minutes of free debate follows, it is unlikely to be long enough if half of that time is spent making cheap shots at each other.
More disappointing still is the level of restrictions placed on the number of questions on each topic. Points 29. and 30. are as follows:
29.half the programme will be based on the agreed theme. Within that portion of the programme, a maximum of three questions will be selected on a single sub-theme.
30.half the programme will be unthemed. In this portion of the programme, a maximum of two questions will be selected on a single subject.
While these restrictions should ensure quite a wide-ranging debate within the theme, it seems to me that it will be all too easy for the leaders to avoid giving a proper answer.
Certainly, it will be interesting to see how often the moderator will use point 62. to seek factual clarification, especially as point 63. emphasises the importance of their role is in moderating the debate, not being part of it.
The other major restriction in the line of questioning can be found in points 25.-26. which state:
25.each question will be relevant to all three party leaders.
26.no question shall focus on one party or one leader.
The inability to question the leaders individually on issues relating directly to them surely goes against a big point of the debate which is to assess the characteristics of each leader.
It will also force the submitted questions to become far too generalised.
Don't get me wrong - I am pleased that British politics has finally opened its eyes to the need for formal debates between the main party leaders before elections.
I expect that from now on the debates will become permanent fixtures in the election calendar, for general elections at least.
But I also expect that, unless any of the leaders makes a tremendous gaffe in these three debates, politicians will become more relaxed about the idea in the future.
Less regulation will follow and that is surely the way forward for the proper free-flowing debate which the public is likely to be denied this time.
UPDATE: For a more light-hearted view on how to improve the election debates, may I direct you to the latest Guardian column by the excellent Charlie Brooker.
No comments:
Post a Comment