What if we had a TV debate about whether we should have a TV debate and invite all the leaders to that? Maybe we they could show a documentary about the TV executives' long and fruitless quest to get grown adults to stand in front of a microphone instead? Sound ridiculous? Well, sadly, that's because we're in a ridiculous situation.
If anyone needs evidence of why many members of the public are disengaged with politics then look no further than the current row over the TV election debates.
They were introduced to great fanfare at the last election and, while they may have had their plusses and minuses, they did at least prove a platform to bring the election to the widest possible audience.
Despite knowing that they were popular last time around, pretty much everyone involved has made an almighty mess of arranging something which should be simple. With fixed term parliaments we even had the benefit of knowing the date of the election almost five years ago. I'm not sure how many other TV programmes have the benefit of knowing a broadcast date that far in advance.
Sadly personal interest comes well before democracy for everyone involved.
David Cameron should be utterly ashamed of himself. He's come out and criticised the broadcasters for not consulting on their plans yet he wants to dictate what they do with no 'consultation' of his own. It seems he's being advised that Ed Miliband's ratings would only be enhanced by sharing a stage with 'Dave' so he's trying to duck a head-to-head showdown, despite waxing lyrical about debates before their inception in 2010. Worse still he's feigning concern for other parties who are missing out.
Not only is that a blatant case of putting self interest ahead of the voters' interests but it also undermines his party's drive to paint Miliband as a weak leader. Labour's simple retort can be: "If he's that weak why not take him on?". Whatever you think of Ed Miliband, is someone really suited to leading the country if they can't back themselves to come out on top in a debate against him?
The icing on the cake came when 'Lord' Michael Grade weighed in in favour of the PM accusing the broadcasters of being arrogant in what was surely the biggest case of a pot calling a kettle black ever.
Still, Ed Miliband hardly did himself any favours by promising to enshrine TV debates in law if he was to become Prime Minister. I happen to think they should be held but I also think that politicians shouldn't be telling broadcasters what to screen. It smacked of a petty cheap shot to get a headline because that's precisely what it was.
The broadcasters haven't helped either. They were far too slow to recognise the new era of party politics that is upon us and have come up with imperfect plans. You can't help but feel the papers have revelled in their misery given that they're in no rush to see their broadcast rivals be at the centre of attention during the campaign and have stirred it all up.
The broadcasters must hold firm now, though. The Prime Minister - and anyone else who can't be bothered to turn up - should be 'empty chaired' and the show must go on. These politicians want us to vote for their parties and we deserve to know when they've put themselves first and spurned the chance to talk to us. I also don't agree with the suggestion, covered in this weekend's Independent On Sunday, that the PM should get his own separate show to 'be fair'. If he turns down his platform then it's 'fair' that he misses out - he can't be allowed to get his own way by throwing a tantrum. Unless, of course, having his oen show means being locked in a small room with an angry Jeremy Paxman.
It's all a sorry state of affairs and shows little sign of being solved. It doesn't auger well for possible coalition building after the ballot if our politicians can't agree when to go on the telly together. Maybe we should empty chair the whole lot. We might get more sense that way...
No comments:
Post a Comment