Instead of choreographed leaders debates, let's just broadcast lots of local hustings...

****

More froth and bother has been expended over the matter of TV debates than on any number of things that actually matter in our lives. Partly this is because the big broadcasters dominate the agenda with newspapers and the hordes of spinners, PR men and political hangers on toddling along behind. The 'Westminster Bubble' some call this - a place where debate is conducted on the basis of triangulating political careers and pulling the wool over the electorate's eyes rather than with the intention of seeking solutions.

The voters are sitting there - in as much as they're paying any attention at all - looking bemusedly on as shouts of 'chicken' are interspersed with ever more complicated explanations as to whether this or that format for a TV debate is most appropriate and even more occult explanations about the reasons a particular date or location is wrong.

I think we need to move on from this sterile sideshow to real political decisions. A grand televised showpiece was always a bad idea (it was in 1966 when Harold Wilson refused a debate with Ted Heath and remained so in 2010 when Gordon, Dave and Nick graced our screens). Not only does it undermine the premise of our democracy - the election of representatives - but it trivialises debate. The format is set up to focus on presentation and style rather than content or the sharing of argument. Most people won't watch but rather will see a few carefully chosen soundbites on the evening news while listening to the so-called 'political reporter' analysing the leaders' hair, ties and body language. This is not debate but yet another example of politics as show-business, the triumph of gloss over substance.

In these days of the Internet, of easy live broadcasting and of social media interaction, we need to rethink what we want from debates. Do we want, over the period of the campaign, two or three grandstand events carefully orchestrated to shine nothing on the real issues of the campaign? Or do we want to sent the broadcasters - the big guys and the little guys, radio and TV - out into the UK's 350 constituencies where real debates might be taking place? Every constituency has a few local hustings - usually organised by a local church group or a voluntary organisation - that bring the candidates together to debate subjects raised by the local audience. Why don't we broadcast lots of these rather than a sterile and preening debates between a load of leaders who aren't on the ballot paper for most of us?

Instead of a debate moderated through carefully planned national events, we'd see a more untidy campaign where sometimes the 'wrong' thing gets said and sometimes candidates stray from the approved line. It would be invigorating and would perhaps involve more people in debating the issues rather than treating the election as a sort of beauty contest between leaders or manifesto slogans moderated by the broadcast media.

...

When you think about it, the Speaker's an irrelevance.

****

Any given group of people will – in their debates and discussions – tend to focus on the things that are of direct personal concern. And our politicians are no different in this respect. Councillors indulge in vigorous debate about the precise structure of scrutiny panels, the details of how we arrive at an upper chamber (and who gets the particular sinecures therein) a great contention and members of parliament think that the speaker of the House of Commons is important. And that the public might be remotely interested in what those MPs think of him and, indeed, what he might think of them.

And – in a truly joyous twist to this irrelevance – the Speaker’s Wife (I’ve capitalised it as I think she sees it as some kind of official and therefore important position) has weighed in:

The wife of Commons Speaker John Bercow has accused Conservative MPs of running a "whispering campaign" against him. Sally Bercow said many in the party could not accept he had been elected to the role "fair and square".

Mr Bercow, himself an ex-Tory MP, has had several run-ins with former colleagues unhappy at their treatment. But Mrs Bercow told Sky News such rows were "ridiculous" and that her husband was not biased towards Labour but "on the side of backbenchers".

A sorry tale for sure – backed up as it is with terrible tales of certain backbenchers “not being called” by Mr Bercow, of confrontations in corridors and of sleights and snubbing. I feel so sad for those MPs having such a terrible, terrible man overseeing them. Except for one simple fact – the Speaker is not important. Not in the slightest. All he does is decide who speaks and doesn’t speak on the floor of the House and oversees the rather messy system of discipline for MPs. To us out in the real world he is little more than a curiosity, a ceremonial position of almost no significance.

Just like us councillors discussing the membership of committees or arguing about who does or doesn’t get to speak in a debate, the matter of how parliament orders its business matters little. There’s no indication – for example – that it alters the manner in which the business is conducted and it certainly doesn’t change the nature of parliament’s decisions. Yet MPs – because the Speaker matters to them – get all agitated, pompous and self-righteous about the position.

Frankly the whole debate is ridiculous. But then I just spent best part of an hour talking about what time we should hold Council meetings so maybe I’ve no room to talk!

....

Why the arguments for "the great leaders debate" are wrong and dangerous

***

I gave ten reasons why the “great leaders debate” is a bad idea some while back – non-one has challenged any of those reasons. All I get is the ‘bestseller syndrome’ – “other democracies have them so must we”. This is a ridiculous approach and a truly crass argument.

However, it seems we are to have these debates so what to make of them...

Argument One: Only Gordon and Dave should debate as they are the only “candidates for prime minister” says Charlotte Vere, Tory Candidate for Brighton Pavilion (who I guess doesn’t want the Green Party leader in on the debates either). Sorry Charlotte, much though I want you to win, you have to find better arguments – we aren’t electing a prime minister. In your case the voters of Brighton are electing an MP – hopefully you.

Argument Two: This is a bad idea because we’re ahead/behind in the polls. The cynics approach to politics – we’ll agree to something because it’s to our political advantage not because it’s right. So a big fail to Tim Montgomerie for his “Christmas comes early..” post.

Argument Three: It will rejuvenate politics by getting the otherwise unengaged involved again through the goggle box. Well I’m with Constantly Furious on this – it ain’t gonna happen guys. Those good idiots, my neighbours won’t be watching so long as there’s something else to watch – and there will be for sure. Only the already interested will watch and it will be accompanied by a ghastly, frothing, ignorant and self-serving barrage of political point-scoring, name-calling and bigotry. I really can’t wait!

Argument Four: Every body else has one so we should – or as Dave put it: “I think it's a step forward for our democracy and I think it's something that, in such a bad year for politics and Parliament, we can proudly celebrate. We've joined the 21st century, when every other democracy seems to have leader's debates, we're now going to have them right here in Britain and I think that's a very good thing.” So places with party-run pseudo-democracies have leader debates – and this advances democracy? I don’t think so – in fact it’s a backward step. What about the smaller and regional parties – Scots Nats, Plaid Cymru, UKIP, BNP, Greens? Or the independent candidates? Are they to be crushed by the Westminster steamroller? How exactly does that enhance democracy?

All the political anoraks out there will look forward to the debates – not because they make democracy better but because it’s more of what we like on the telly. Just as the football fan applauds more football and the music fan more music, the politics fan wants more politics. Hiding behind “enhancing democracy” simply doesn’t wash – debates are a retrograde, anti-democratic, controlling, demagogic innovation that will not get a fairer election, a better government or an improved turnout. It would be better to have no election coverage at all and make candidates go out on the doorsteps and into the high street to make the case rather than merely regurgitating the party line that trots out in these debates.

...