The future and format of TV debates
So what happened to Gordon Brown's agreement to TV debates, which we thought might feature in his speech yesterday?
I understand he certainly has accepted the idea, and so such debates are now likely to happen. There was quite a last minute tussle amongst his advisers over whether the idea should be included in the speech. The view which prevailed was that such an announcement would dominate the coverage, and overshadow the other important things that he had to say, especially on policy.
So expect more from Brown on debates in the next few weeks.
Mind you, even when Brown publicly accepts the idea, that doesn't yet mean they will happen, even though David Cameron initially challenged him to debate.
The problem will be the detailed format, and especially what to do about the Lib Dems. I can't see the broadcasters accepting a debate with just Brown and Cameron, and the Lib Dems would almost certainly challenge it in the courts.
My solution would be to have no format, and no rules. Just put the three party leaders in a room for an hour or two, cameras rolling from several angles, and see what happens.
Who would dare speak first? Would anybody try to dominate the discussion? It would be just like a few blokes having a heated discussion in a pub, and much more natural.
We would learn a lot more than from from some highly structured discussion, with two minutes of this followed by one minute of that, and chaired by a famous TV presenter.
Everyone agrees that if there are debates for this election they will happen at every election from now on, with the basic format set now.
My fear is that if the debates follow the American pattern they could turn out to be pretty dull, as they often are in the US.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 30th Sep 2009, leftieoddbod wrote:I would watch a TV debate, firstly it would be all Gordon talking and talking and talking and the other two would clam for sixty minutes as to reveal what horrors they are planning for the British electorate will condemn them to mute gobsmacked silence...so it would be pretty one-sidedbut a rough guess is .....hard-working British people....cannot trust the conservatives with our health service...as soon as the Afghan people are ready for.......cannot stand by and watch.......page 94
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 30th Sep 2009, mikesnow wrote:I sensed the same about Gordon Brown yesterday that he was gearing up for a TV debate with the Tories and the Lib-Dems, as it would be a good strategy to be seen coming out fighting way before the next election. It might counter-act the effect of the Murdoch newspapers as they throw in their lot for the Tories.
What Brown needs is more exposure, a central image to anchor himself around, and TV debates might be his trip if not to success at least drawing closer to the Conservatives in the polls.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 30th Sep 2009, barriesingleton wrote:I THINK I MIGHT WATCH IT WITH THE SOUND DOWN
We know they will have gone into a huddle with their Weasel Tank, and covered most of the likely points to be raised with a crafted, devious ripost. Thus the words mean little or nothing. However, the twitching facial nerve, the flick of the eye and THE NOSE-TOUCH (run those Clinton and Scotland clips again) can only tell the truth.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 30th Sep 2009, Mistress76uk wrote:Although the concept of a format free discussion for an hour or two sounds like a "few blokes having a heated discussion in a pub," would it end up merely being an attack on the other side as opposed to what their own policies were?
How about using the same format as the London Mayoral elections, where potential PMs would be subject to rigorous questioning, each one subjected to the same questioning but given a limited time to answer it, followed by a group discussion, where each potential PM could have the opportunity to argue against each other? (I can imagine certain potential PMs moaning that whatever they had said was "edited" to make them look bad.)
Even if it isn't with one presenter, why not have a panel of journalists who quiz each with potential PM with their own expertise? Just a thought.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 30th Sep 2009, Phillip wrote:Brown will 'agree' to do the debates but have so many conditions as to make it unworkable, especially on the 91Èȱ¬.
He will then try and spin that Cameron chickened out.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 30th Sep 2009, JunkkMale wrote:Only yesterday on Nick Robinson's (now closed - there's a thing) blog I was getting to grips with the fact a debate was all, in fact the PM's latest idea, so anything is possible.
I am just waiting for a sperm whale and bowl of petunias to land nearby, with the words "Oh no, not again!' ringing in my ears.
As the 'leaders' of the world have, patently, gone mad, I guess it's only fair I should be allowed to as well.
/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/09/will_he_or_wont_1.html
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 1st Oct 2009, Quietzapple wrote:The question is wether Murdoch's empire should be permitted to decide much of our politics and its terms.
Chameleon say "Oui!"
Just as he told Ashcroft he could have the Tory Party if he paid for it.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)