Whoever the commentators deem to have “won” this week’s party leaders’ live debate on television, two things are pretty certain. First, no future general election will take place without similar televised leaders’ debates. Second, someone, somewhere will cry “foul”.
Despite all the huffing and puffing in the build-up to the debates, it is amazing that it has taken us until 2010 to get to a stage when, in the course of a supposedly democratic election, voters actually get a chance to measure the potential prime ministers against each other.
Arguments against such debates were invariable conservative (small “c”). We’ve never done it before, so why start now? Also, no sitting Prime Minister has wanted to appear alongside opponents in a way that might appear to give them equal ranking – until now, when Gordon Brown is sufficiently behind in the opinion polls that it is thought he has nothing to lose.
Whatever the final verdict on the debates, they have to be seen as good for democracy and – let’s hope – turnout.
The first debate was broadcast by ITV this week. The BBC hosts the last one. Sky News is due to broadcast the second on April 22. Sky News has deservedly established itself as the third force in British television news. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch, but British broadcasting regulations make it problematic to go down the Fox News road. (Some politicians may wish to change that.) Sky political editor Adam Boulton is one of our most respected journalists.
However, there’s a problem. Sky News is not available to everyone.
Viewers in non-digital homes – and that’s one in 10 across the country – will not have the choice of watching the leaders’ debate next Thursday.
Other channels will carry extensive edited highlights of the Sky debate. However, if you’re an avid politico or a genuinely undecided voter hoping to use the debates to make up your mind but don’t have access to digital TV, then you’ve got a problem. And that means we all have.
In an election in which TV holds centre stage, aren’t several million people being denied the chance to take a full part in the democratic process?
It’s a surprise that, during the lengthy and tortuous discussions which led to the drafting and agreement of the 76 rules of debate, no one seems to have pointed this out. It breaks no electoral or broadcasting regulations. It was all a matter of agreement between the parties and the broadcasters.
But surely someone in the negotiating room should have spoken up on behalf of those one in 10 households that will now only be able to see two of the three live debates?
At least this situation will not arise again after 2012, by which time everyone should have access to multi-channel television as a result of the analogue switch-off and the big switchover to digital.
However, if there is another general election before then – and that’s not beyond the bounds of possibility – the thorny problem will remain.
