From this year's campaign one would think that it had suddenly become mandatory for all party leaders at the election to be interviewed by Andrew Neil. I'm a long term admirer of Neil but it would clearly be anti-competitive for one broadcaster to be given this status and impractical for every leading channel to have its main interviewer confront all the candidates. The Andrew Marr interview with Johnson was appalling, perhaps because Marr felt slighted that he was seen as a softer option. As a result he spoke over every one of Johnson's responses in the latter part of the interview (maybe all of his responses, I only watched the second half).
There are two problems I see here. The first is a lack of structure which means that there is always an argument about who is hiding from who. The USA has tackled this by having a Commission on Presidential Debates. That is more formal than it sounds, however, as the "Commission" is a carve-up, sorry "non-profit corporation" between the Republicans and Democrats which sponsors and produces the debates and related activities. They have a rule that candidates must have scored at least 15% support across five national polls to keep out third party candidates. That said, the multi-way debates we have here, often including people who aren't even standing at the election (e.g. Sturgeon, Farage) are never very edifying and rarely add much, being far too fragmented to allow development of any point or argument of substance. Indeed why on earth regional parties are given time on UK wide tv I can't fathom. They have their own regional debates.
However, I think there is a case for there being some arrangement between parties and broadcasters about how debates should be staged. In the US system each candidate is asked a question and has two minutes to reply. The other candidate then gets a minute to respond, extendable by 30 seconds at the moderator's discretion. There is a traffic light system which counts down the time remaining for the candidates' responses. I think there is some evidence that this works better than our non-system, even though in recent years the debates have been generally dull, as candidates go for the equivalent of a 0-0 draw rather than avoid risking defeat in open play.
But my big problem with the way we do it at the moment is that I don't believe Channel 4 were correct in insisting on only having party leaders. We are electing a government not a prime minister after all. I think the competence of the prospective cabinet is as important as that of the PM. The main reason I have voted Conservative in recent elections has been my perception that they generally have greater competence at running government departments, probably due to the broader "gene pool" that their candidates are drawn from. There are competent politicians in all parties but there isn't much depth of competence in any other than the Conservatives as far as I can see.
Therefore I consider it important that we see a range of party leaders, not just the leader. Gove would have been a very appropriate participant in the Channel 4 climate debate. He was a very effective SoS for environment, just as he was an effective justice secretary and education secretary. I accept his occupancy of the last of these was not without controversy - indeed, I've been berated for my admiration of Gove's achievements by many in the teaching profession in recent years. I have to admit I discount most of those objections as "producer interest"; even more so after the publication of the recent OECD PISA international student assessment which showed a significantly improved international ranking by the UK, especially in reading. I am not the only one to link this 100% with Gove's reforms.
It is interesting that the Tories chose to try to field Marmite Gove, who Cameron kept out of sight in 2015 as he is by no means electoral catnip. Be that as it may, we really should see other party leaders like Gove being quizzed on the tv. So the Tories are to be commended for fielding Rishi Sunak in the BBC 7 leaders debate. Some tried to denigrate the fact that he was only "number 2" at the Treasury but the Chief Secretary role is important and has been a cabinet minister post for as long as I can remember. (Actually I've just checked: since 1961, though since 2015 it has been downgraded to "attending cabinet"). Former holders of the post include Leon Brittan, John Major and Alistair Darling, all of whom went on to hold high office. And anyway, we know what the Saj sounds like, whereas many wouldn't have heard Sunak.
Three of the last four Parliaments have seen a change of PM between elections so there is a strong argument for us seeing more than just the party leader, as another in the winning team might easily become PM before we vote again. America also has this more right is as there is also a vice-presidential debate, though this is straightfoward for them as the VP candidates are "on the ticket".
So I find the argument about Boris Johnson not turning up for the Channel 4 debate fabricated. What I want to see is more of the party leaders on tv. Adam Boulton made a similar point when he said that the reduced access for journalists to party leaders at daily press conferences and other election events compared with previous decades was harmful. Andrew Neil made the point that the BBC's reason for having Johnson on Marr's programme, that the pubic should hear what the PM had to say about the London Bridge terror incident, was fallacious: it should have been Home Secretary Priti Patel. Quite - and Diane Abbott should have been on with her: we still want to know if the putative Labour Home Secretary can count, after all.
The Lib Dems, to be fair, have fielded someone other than their leader Jo Swinson at many media events: the promiscuous (in political party terms) Chuka Umunna. I can understand this since the opinion poll survey which revealed the more the public sees of Swinson the less they like her. However, I am left wondering how someone, however photogenic, gets to be foreign affairs spokesman for a major party after only being with them for what seems like five minutes. (Umunna joined the LibDems in June, his third political party in 2019). Even stranger is the fact that Umunna will struggle to win the seat he is standing for and get returned to parliament. Meanwhile the competent Ed Davey is nowhere to be seen or heard.
There are plenty of channels gagging to cover the election. So we should have had debates on the economy; the environment; policing, justice and prisons; education; foreign policy and of course Brexit with the party spokespersons for each of these areas appearing, not the party leader, on programmes spread between the main channels.
Speaking personally, I'd have paid money to see Keir Starmer quizzed on Labour's Brexit policy and Diane Abbott asked about anything for entertainment value alone. And it would have been more revealing for the electorate than a melting ice sculpture.
Coming soon - my verdict on the biggest lies in this election campaign.......
No comments:
Post a Comment