How do we know what the electorate actually wanted from EU Leave vote?

Photo: Unsplash

Life very rarely throws up questions that have a black and white ‘yes/no’ choice does it? I can’t quite help think that this hasn’t helped with the EU referendum. With a question of such complexity and magnitude boiled down to one simplistic question, chaos was probably always likely.

I last blogged on the eve of the ballot. A lot has happened since hasn’t it? Yet one thing is clear, no-one really knows what to do next.

Whether I like it or not (and I’m still convinced that it’s a terrible decision) the electorate chose to Leave. The trouble was, while there is a mandate to negotiate an exit, it’s not clear what else there is a mandate for. What did the people actually vote for?

The black and white nature of a yes/no referendum also allows people to make sweeping and inaccurate statements about both camps. Remainers aren’t all whiners just as much as Leavers aren’t all racist. Yet, because the cap fits for some in those respective sides, others are tarred with the brush.

Some Leavers want a strangely very similar relationship to the EU to that we have now. Others want a Norway style deal, some are keen on a more distant position and others want us to be as far away as possible. Some won’t countenance ‘free movement’ of people, others are happier to accept this. All of this variation is under the umbrella of the ‘no’ in the yes/no vote... and that’s not even considering the shades of grey within those arguing for yes.

So, what do we do? Blunder along into a position that is bound to be unsatisfactory? That’s the way it seems. Consider this: a negotiation that adopts a Norway-style relationship is likely to upset the 48% who voted to Remain AND all of the most vehemently anti-EU elements of the Leave voters. The mandate suddenly becomes a little flimsy.

People like Boris Johnson certainly don’t have the answer. Having been royally shafted by his fellow Leaver Michael Gove, Johnson ducked out of the race. Yet, let’s face it, he had no idea how to implement the result he’d helped to win anyway. He’s probably relieved to be able to snipe from the sidelines rather than having to do anything, passing the poisoned chalice to a colleague in the process.

Gove is a man who regularly repeated the assertion that he doesn’t think he is up to the job and proved too toxic to run the Department for Education. I still don’t think he really wants it. He’s probably achieved what he wanted by dashing Boris’ dreams. A playground-style rivalry played out at the highest level.

It’s certainly a precarious position. David Cameron – having let loose a yes/no question to this tricky topic – is the lamest of lame ducks. A decision on Heathrow and a debate on Trident have been parked until his successor is named. Nothing, it seems, can be achieved until the politicians sort out their squabbles. A final failure that will surely define Cameron’s premiership.

Then there’s George Osborne. The Chancellor had failed to wipe out the deficit in five years of ‘the coalition’ as promised and now, post Brexit, says it won’t happen by 2020 either. His sole purpose destined to be left unachieved. He now seems to think that by repeating the phrase ‘I want to offer reassurance’ that people will actually feel reassured. Why not try giving us some words and ideas that are actually reassuring George? Is it because you’re keeping your powder dry in the hope of clinging on to a job?

And what to make of the mess on the opposition benches? Right now, in the country’s hour of need, there is no opposition and no Government. Cheers guys.

I know some people feel Jeremy Corbyn has been hard done to in recent days but I can understand why his parliamentary colleagues have lost faith in him. His performance during the referendum debate was poor. We’re told he’s a man that sticks to his principles and convictions yet you get the impression he is a Eurosceptic and is happy to leave. So, why not say that? Irrespective of that, the man doesn’t command enough of a party to form an effective opposition any more and has to go. It might not be nice but that’s politics.

I can understand why some people have chosen to march, demonstrate and protest. It seems ridiculous that others now say they shouldn’t do so having argued that they are ‘pro democracy’ during the referendum. The trouble is that I doubt there’s a consensus solution among the marchers about what they think should happen next either.

We’re left awaiting the result of the Conservative Party leadership election to see how we’ll go forward. The final two candidates will, at least, offer differing visions of the future relationship with the EU but it feels a little unsatisfactory that 150,000 party members will get to choose that vision (having had their ‘final two’ whittled down for them). Some grim irony given that we apparently voted to end the rule of unelected and unaccountable figures.

Maybe we should’ve been given a better range of choices in the referendum? Maybe we should never have had one in the first place, leaving the politicians we choose to represent us to make the tough decisions on our behalf? Maybe we should be given a chance to say whether we agree with the final deal thrashed out with the EU? Maybe we should all pretend this never happened in a very British way and try to move on? Maybe Remainers should just step back and hope things aren’t that bad? Maybe Johnson and Farage should’ve had the decency to see through what they started?

So many maybes, so few answers. We’ve said ‘no’ to a question that really wasn’t a yes/no problem and all it has done is throw up other more complex questions. Questions of the nature that probably should’ve been thrashed out before the vote instead of tawdry nonsense, spun statistics and guff written on buses.

Audience on song to grill election trio

Fair play to the BBC. When it comes to an election people line up to say it's biased. I often think that if the sheep from all sides are bleating then you're probably doing as good a job as possible of being fair and balanced. The Beeb came in for some criticism for the audience assembled for the five-way leader debate and, while I think that was possibly a tactic, it's clear that it raised its game with tonight's Question Time special. This time the audience seemed not only balanced but also energised and up for the challenge of holding Cameron, Miliband and Clegg to account.

Cameron kicked off Question Time with his half-hour. He frustrated the camera-man by instantly stepping off the large 'Q', and walked straight into a grilling about welfare and benefits. He was clearly prepped but still dodged the chance to offer more detail on the cuts to come. On the economy and NHS he drifted into 'pumped up Dave' territory but this was not the occasion for full-on sleeves-up arm-waving mode - not least because sweating under lights isn't pretty. This was like the second half of the now-distant Sky News debate and, just as in that slot, he enjoyed the format. That's not to say he was comfortable - the benefits non-answer was rumbled, the umpteenth brandish of 'the note' fell flat and the daft 'law to ban tax rises' was exposed - but he survived and will look back on a performance that at least ticked the 'Prime Ministerial' box at the same time as not forgetting which football team he apparently supports.

Ed stepped up second and found that the crowd was in no mood to forgive and forget the past. He floundered a little here, struggling to address this 'overspending blamed for recession' line. By now Ed and his party really ought to have forged a stronger retort to the narrative established by their opponents. Why doesn't he talk about how the money had to be spent to save banks and therefore people's mortgages and savings. He'll grab headlines over his promise to govern as a minority - even though he's already mentioned it - rather than go for an electoral deal and stuck strongly to his guns on the EU and immigration. Still, that pesky raised Q might still overshadow his half-hour, with his stumble off it as he left the stage at the end proving fodder for creators of Gifs, Vines and memes everywhere.

The audience was in no mood to let Clegg off the hook either - slapping him straight around the chops with 'that' tuition fees question. The Lib Dem leader's hours spent answering calls on LBC will have helped here as he was adept at addressing the interrogations from the clued-up crowd.He defended himself and was able to play his 'i'm different to them honest' card, sounding like he was answering the 'coalition question' more openly than the others even though he wasn't. As damage limitations go this was a decent effort.

The snap poll crowned the Prime Minister the winner. In the long term it'll be interesting to see if Ed Miliband's risky sounding 'i'll govern alone' line has any impact though.

It's a cliche to say that the audience was the winner but this was a crowd that asked tough, testing questions and didn't let any of the trio get away with their standard spin. All three were at it - using the questioner's name, the obligatory 'that's a great question' when they realise they've got no response and saying 'let me address that directly' before doing anything but - and the crowd was in no mood to let them off the hook. The BBC needs to bottle this audience and take it on tour to future Question Time episodes. Led by the excellent David Dimbleby they helped give us an entertaining and challenging 90 minutes that outstripped most of the regular series shows from recent weeks. There's life in the Beeb - and political debates yet it seems...

Ed and Nicola's dating game dominated BBC debate

So, Nicola fancies Ed but Ed's playing it cool even though a lot of Ed's mates like the sound of Nicola and are even starting to prefer her to him. As burgeoning relationships go, Ed and Nicola isn't exactly Ross and Rachel from Friends but it's clear that it's an increasingly important dynamic in this multi-layered election.

At the end of 'manifesto week' came the BBC Debate and one of the clearest pitches yet from the SNP as Nicola Sturgeon turned to Ed Miliband and called for a deal to 'lock the Tories out of Number 10'. Like her or not she spoke with passion and determination and while Ed did his best to be non-committal it wasn't easy for him to repel a powerfully put plea.

In truth he was never going to say yes to a deal with the SNP, not least for the fear of helping what will surely be a miserable election for Labour north of the border (unlike Nigel Farage this blog won't get confused into thinking Hadrian's Wall is still the border. Unless of course UKIP intends to return us to the Roman times?). Oddly, by being so anti-Tory, the SNP has helped Labour. There's no need for Miliband to offer a formal coalition with Sturgeon, Salmond et al because they've made it clear they wouldn't prop up the Conservatives, the only other plausible big party. Begrudging or otherwise it's clear that the SNP would support Labour even if it made no deal after May 7. Ed will just need to hold his nerve and hope he isn't too reliant on the SNP - something that won't be easy against his feisty Celtic counterpart.

It's difficult to know whether the truth behind the impasse between Labour and the SNP, which neither of the parties will wish to utter in public, will have filtered through from this debate, however. It's always difficult to know if anything at all will change from a TV debate. Will, for example, the simple of fact of not seeing David Cameron on such a stage backfire on him, or help him distance himself from a situation he'll now be able to portray as chaos. The comments from the contenders and watchers on social media suggest it was wrong for the PM to duck the challenge but the important thing is the long-term perception and he'll be hoping that people prefer a chicken to chaos, or at least that it's the latter piled of mud that sticks.

I also wonder what will happen to the Greens. Natalie Bennett, once again, struggled to look as formidable as Nicola Sturgeon when it came to flying the anti-austerity flag. However, I wonder if any English viewers who were impressed with either Sturgeon or Plaid Cymru's Leanne Wood will, in time, be won over to voting Green as the 'English alternative' to the SNP or Plaid. Bennett tried her best - at one point over zealously barking her point down the microphone to be heard - but struggled to make an impression once people saw the fascinating game of political footsie between Nicola and Ed emerge. The Scottish First Minister's vow to force Ed and Labour to be better will have spoken to many Old Labour voters, but how will that translate to votes?

And then there's Nigel. Farage fired off with a plea to stand up for the people - making a plea to speak common sense and say what real people are thinking in his opening gambit. I thought this was strong ground for him, the sort of stuff that his 'man in the pub' shtick is made for. And then he chose to attack the audience for being left-wing. I hadn't really heard him booed or jeered so I'm not sure whether this was prompted by anything in particularly or merely a tactic. The anti-BBC stuff will be lapped up by readers of the Mail and his new best mates at the Express, whose owner Richard Desmond handed him a £1 million cheque yesterday. It also feeds the anti-establishment, outsider rhetoric that actually goes down really well in Farage's public speeches. Intended or not, it got the UKIP leader a headline that was only topped by the SNP/Labour exchanges. It was the equivalent of Millwall Football Club's 'no-one likes us, we don't care' manifested as a political campaign and it probably went down well with his core vote who, according to pollsters, are considering returning to the Tory fold.

On the whole Miliband will come away telling himself that the fact it almost turned into 'Ed Miliband's Question Time' for large chunks will be good for helping to paint him as Prime Minister material. The fact that his trio of female questioners will have appealed to his core voters might still undermine his chances though. Given that he's not exactly winning Tories over, he can't really afford for the working class to abandon him. The 'Cameron failed to turn up to his job interview' line from Labour was predictable but strong. Whether that lasts once the debate fades in the past remains to be seen. What's clear, however, is that Nicola won't go away. Can Ed keep his cool and hold her at bay? Only time will tell.

Sturgeon emerging...but Cameron will consider himself TV debate winner

I wasn't able to see the much-hyped seven-way TV political showstopper live. I was out at the time but as I supped a pint in a pub I looked over and saw that the one proper 'leader's debate' was on the screen. The sound was off and the subtitles were on. Nigel Farage's face was on the screen and the text simply read 'controlled immigration'. Not at all predictable then. 

I caught up on ITVPlayer later (how modern) and sadly that one glimpsed shot across a Wetherspoons bar probably summed the whole event up - a little bit predictable. It felt slow, 'safe' and didn't really offer up much of a free flow debate outside of the odd fleeting moment.

That's not to say the whole thing was insignificant. We've come a long way in quite a short space of time since the last election. In 2010 it felt novel that Nick was there alongside Gordon and 'Dave' but now here we were with seven leaders, five years of coalition seemingly proving that the old Red v Blue, Labour v Tory battle is over. Or at least it seems to be for now.

In 2010, 'Cleggmania' was the result of a strong showing by a man smartly able to portray himself an outsider - a fresh face to give us 'new' politics that the expenses and recession hit Westminster bubble badly needed. Buoyed by that, the ITV face-off saw all four new arrivals on the debate podiums try to paint themselves as outsiders offering change. It sometimes seems the race to be the best 'none of the above' candidate is the most hotly contested one these days.

Farage says he offers 'real change' by being anti-EU but I felt he was a little subdued on the night. At last year's European elections he took on Nick Clegg but now, surrounded by a bigger crowd, he offered less gusto and passion. He tried to tell us the others were all the same but they clearly weren't. In fact he seemed more like 'one of the blokes' next to a fresh trio of female contenders. 

I thought maybe he was trying to temper his performance but then came the slightly bizarre 'HIV' line. You fear that there was more than just an 'NHS cost' motive when talking about foreigners with HIV. People from overseas with diabetes, for example, will also cost the health service but that's a condition his supporters might have. This seemed a murkier brand of dog whistle politics.

Leanne Wood flew the flag for Plaid Cymru but her Scottish counterpart proved the most formidable of the new recruits. Nicola Sturgeon managed to speak to voters beyond Scotland and put the anti-austerity case better than Natalie Bennett, Leanne Wood or, indeed, Ed Miliband. 

But while the post-debate spotlight has been on Sturgeon - thanks in part to a hotly contested leaked memo - I can't help thinking David Cameron will be the happiest of the lot.

The format meant Ed Miliband got little time to face off with the Prime Minister and, as a result, the Labour leader's efforts to land blows on Cameron felt too forced and fell flat. The odd line resonated but more people probably came away from this feeling Ed still looks a little awkward in the way he uses his hands when he speaks and his tone of voice. It's sad that image counts but in these 'beauty contests' viewers will make their minds up, at least sub consciously, on image and not many people will changed their view on Ed from this.

Cameron must have been standing on the end smiling at the fact that while Ed tried to strike a tone that said 'sensible, prime ministerial, fair', the three ladies all wooed Miliband's core voters with a pitch to the anti-austerity vote. A strong Sturgeon showing is good news for the PM as it reaffirms the belief that the SNP will grab many of Labour's seats in May. Meanwhile, there was less time for Cameron's right-wing to be wooed by Farage. If anything, the most aggressive attacks on the Prime Minister came from Nick Clegg, who set on his coalition partner straight away in a bid to distance himself ahead of the vote.

The other way Cameron wins here is that, through engineering just one debate, he created a situation where all seven leaders played it safe. They knew this was their only chance to wheel out the soundbites and state their case so no-one really took a risk. It all felt a little too stage managed - with very few, if any, stand out lines or moments. Instead I grew tired at the number of time 'balance the books' etc were wheeled out by more than one of the panel.

If anyone emerges as 2015's Clegg it might well be Sturgeon. Many of the papers are now gunning for her and she seems keen to try to get Ed to agree to an anti-Cameron alliance. Miliband must worry that many of his voters might prefer Sturgeon at the helm of their party. In fact, if Sturgeon's anti-austerity pitch does go down well with English voters then Natalie Bennett's Greens are probably better placed to capitalise, even if Bennett does lack a little of the leadership strength of her predecessor Caroline Lucas.

While Cameron will be happy to have diluted Ed Miliband's chances and fended off a potentially difficult situation, he won't have done much to have boosted his own party's appeal. Still, that probably sums up the defensive outlook the Prime Minister has had, from the start of the negotiations on the format of the debate right through to the night itself.

David Cameron and Ed Miliband get the Paxman treatment

Well, David Cameron asked for that. Having dodged a full on head-to-head with Ed Miliband he went into the slightly odd format of the first TV debate and walked straight into Jeremy Paxman.

Not everyone likes Paxman's style but I do. Frankly, if you can't withstand 20 minutes of his sort of questioning from TV's toughest interviewer then you have to wonder if you're up for the 'top job'.

The former Newsnight man showed us what we had been missing by tearing straight into the Prime Minister - knocking the normally Teflon Cameron right off his stride. It was the most uncomfortable I'd seen the PM for some time and he must have been thinking 'why didn't I just do a head-to-head with Ed?'.

He recovered a little from a shaky start but was clearly rattled throughout.

Then came the Q&A with the crowd. It's a little harsh to expect the same level of electrifying grilling from the audience that Paxman had just managed and it'd be arrogant to suggest voters shouldn't get their chance to ask whatever they want. Still, this section flagged, Cameron was calm and collected and breezed through a largely forgettable 20 minutes. For me it showed the benefit of having a trained journalist at the top of his game - and also that the PM is a smooth operator who is relaxed when dealing with the public.

Still, to be fair, the audience found its feet with Ed Miliband. The Labour leader faced a trickier test - as well as more interruptions from Kay Burley - making it a far tougher Q&A. It probably helped Miliband prepare for what was to come but he was less accomplished with the audience than Cameron. He stumbled a little when faced with a question on his brother - but recovered and took the knocks relatively well.

There were, predictably, more knocks to come when he sat across the ridiculously over-large table from Paxman. The seasoned broadcaster gave Miliband a lesson early on - exposing the well-worn tactic of the media trained politician that is 'posing and answering your own questions'. Jeremy was having none of it and Ed found it hard going.

He admitted mistakes from the previous Labour Government, floundered a little on immigration and then, surprisingly, recovered when the spotlight fell on his personality. It's odd that this is seen as his weakness yet it's where he did better - batting off criticism relatively well, even taking Paxman on. I do think people might start to feel sorry about him having to face too many more questions about his family too.

In some respects Miliband was the winner. He was expected to be savaged by Paxman yet actually did better with him than with the crowd. Cameron was expected to do better yet was clearly thrown out of his comfort zone at the start. There were low expectations of Ed so it's perhaps unsurprising that he topped them while Cameron struggled to live up to his billing at the start but still came on on top in the first snap poll, probably after his comfortable Q&A.

It'll be interested to see how Miliband copes with the aftermath. Yes, he landed two lines that will be remembered - namely 'you're not that important Jeremy' when refusing to discuss an SNP deal and 'am I tough enough? Hell yes'. The latter made me wince but might well get some attention - especially on social media. He was a little more proactive than Cameron in the audience session - I guess he has to be as the challenger - but looked less relaxed and more unnatural as a result.

But what about the policies? There was little detail from either side but there are some papers that might want to make a lot about Miliband's words on immigration and the fact he labelled an EU referendum 'unlikely'. He's likely to face some scrutiny on those two issues.

The race is well and truly on and I still can't help but thinking Cameron made the biggest mistake for agreeing to this show in the first place. His saving grace was that his worst moments were at the very start - but he'll be less pleased that Ed's better moments were at the end.

After Clegg in 2010, it's maybe a poisoned chalice to win these early exchanges anyway. Brace yourself, there's plenty more of this to come.

David Cameron's end game. Why now?

With the election coverage now well and truly in full swing, David Cameron wrong-footed the hack pack this evening with an interview with the BBC that raises the question of his departure at the end of the next parliament. He says terms of office are like Shredded Wheat - two are 'wonderful', while three are too many.

It's a great bit of product placement for Shredded Wheat - and probably cheaper than wheeling out Ian Botham again. It also got me wondering what other breakfast items can be compared to terms of office. Ed Miliband's buggered if his are like bacon sarnies - struggling to manage one.

Still, on a serious note, commentators have rushed to debate whether the PM was right to be so loose lipped in his kitchen (is the the kitchen election??) or whether he should've side-stepped a discussion his own future since barely anyone was debating that anyway.

The suggestion goes that Cameron, having raised his own departure, risks making himself a lame duck (that pillock from Sleaford would claim his house on expenses, presumably) and opens up a leadership debate that they could do without during an election campaign.

As a pretty slick PR man I doubt the PM was wrong-footed. Certainly not in a cosy kitchen interview. He too shrewd for that. So, assuming he meant to say it, why now? Aren't the commentators right? Doesn't this threaten to disrupt his whole campaign?

Here's why I reckon he took the plunge:

*From the very start, the Conservatives have been keen to make this election a question of leadership. The TV debates have blurred this issue a little bit, making Cameron look scared to take on Miliband in a head-to-head challenge, a decision calculated so not to let his rival get exposure. I think, in part, he wanted to get back the leadership agenda and what better way to do so than by making the story about himself? Seem daft? Well, don't forget that Cameron polls as well if not better than most of his rivals when it comes to approval ratings. If we're all focusing on the leaders as personalities, the Tories think they're in safe electoral territory.

*By openly mentioning three possible successors he's probably also trying to show that the Tories have 'bigger beasts' waiting in the wings than Labour has on its front line. The likes of Theresa May, George Osborne and, in particular, Boris Johnson will be much more well-known to the wider public than Labour's front bench. It's all part of the 'long term plan' and 'safe pair of hands' message.

*He's also potentially dampening the enthusiasm of any potential plotters and openly discussing what everyone has known for a long time - that Boris is being lined up for a tilt at the top job after he walks into a safe seat. There's no need for any furtive talk on that score any more - and the potential for BoJo to attract a headline for doing something divisive may have been diluted too.

*By starting to talk about a third term, he's getting it in voters' heads that he could be around for another five years, getting them to consider him to be Prime Ministerial and looking beyond this election. possibly also deflecting short term embarrasment over the TV debates or the Afzal Amin story. It might also be a way of telling more hardline members of the party that he wont 'go on and on'.

I know it's not a foolproof case, but it maybe goes some way to explaining why Cameron spoke so openly about his future. Of course, the questions don't stop there. What if he doesn't win an outright majority? Will that, presumably, be the end of him in frontline politics since he doesn't wish to fight for another term in 2020? Does he favour any of that trio in particular? Would he not have to go if he lost the EU referendum anyway? These are questions, of course, that keep the spotlight firmly on him and the Tories and less on Labour and his rivals. It was once said of the Blair/Brown era that the talk of their rivalry was tolerated because it meant no-one was focussed on the Tories.

It's odd that, when it comes to politics, we spend so long asking politicians questions and hammering them for not answering and yet when they do we spend ages debating whether or not it was the right move to answer the question in the first place. I guess that's largely because why someone says something is probably as important as what they've said. This was certainly a headline grabbing move by Cameron - but maybe that was his intention after all.

On Thursday he's away from the cozy kitchen and into Jeremy Paxman's bear pit. It'll be interesting to see what he says there...

Debating the TV debates

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...