Steve Richards: A televised debate between party leaders would be a disaster for democracy

Published: 06 September 2007

A row erupts once more about whether there should be a televised debate between the party leaders at the next election. This pre-debate debate has a familiar rhythm.

Broadcasters and others claim that the unique event would bring politics to life, making the great issues of our times accessible to voters. Opposition leaders join in the calls for a debate with an apparently self-confident flourish. The incumbent Prime Minister rejects the demands. The incumbent is accused of cowardice and hypocrisy. After much jousting between leaders and sweaty hand-wringing in media circles, there is no debate.

Thank goodness for that. I am all for bringing politics to life, but here is what would happen if the televised feast got the go-ahead.

The debate would dominate the entire election. The first news story, making the front pages for weeks, would be speculative reports about who would chair the debate. The army of BBC managers would be in agonies of indecision about this, and their insecure reflections would be reported extensively too.

Should it be one of the Dimblebys? Or in this age of celebrity, where politics is made more "accessible" by seeking out the views of stand-up comedians, perhaps the event could be chaired by Jonathan Ross? Would the presenter wear a tie? Probably he should not do so, in order to be more representative of younger people. But wait a moment. Brown would wear a tie. He always wears a tie. He used to wear a red tie. Now it tends to be blue. If Brown wears one, perhaps the presenter should too.

Help! The presenter or presenters must include a woman, especially as there would be three male leaders on the stage. Who would that be? Kirsty Wark should do the trick. But perhaps she is too mainstream. How about Ms Wark and Gaby Logan, the sports presenter who would attract all those viewers more bothered about the fate of England's football team than the state of the schools?

That's it then. The debate would be chaired by a Dimbleby, Ross, Wark and Logan. Admittedly there would be more presenters than party leaders, but that leaves still a crowd of presenters fuming that they were not part of the team. There would be plenty of news stories about the excluded ones too. For a time the party leaders would not get a look-in. The focus would be on the more powerful and better known presenters.

The debate about the presenters would take up a large chunk of the pre-election campaign. Once the campaign was underway the huge amount of attention would move to the event itself. There would be a range of frenzied issues. We have already agreed that Brown would wear a tie. Probably he would get a haircut at the new smart hairdresser he used before the launch of his leadership campaign earlier this year. We would soon know.

David Cameron would not wear a tie for the event, but he would also get a haircut to deal with his slight, Blair-like, receding hairline. Personally, I think he looks best when he brushes it back, again Blair-like, rather than going for a parting on one side or the other. I try the same technique sometimes although currently I am combing mine forward in an attempt to look even more youthful. Maybe Cameron should try that one, a Paul McCartney at his youthful middle-age peak look.

As for Ming Campbell, his age will be an issue in the campaign, which is why he continues to mention that he was once an athlete. Perhaps he should appear in a tracksuit. But he will not make such a move. He would be in an elegant and expensive suit, more lavish than Cameron's, who would let it be known that his jacket and trousers were purchased modestly at M&S.;

Once these issues were addressed, there would be several previews in the nail-biting build-up, assessing the mood in each camp. Everywhere, there would be predictions of who would perform best. Body language experts would become household names. A few psychiatrists would be even more famous than they are now. Fashion designers would move from studio to studio.

After the debate, no doubt Gary Lineker would be asked to host a special with Messrs Hansen and Shearer on which leader scored the best goals and which deployed the best defensive techniques (that one would be for Hansen to analyse).

Political journalists would be on hand to give their assessments too. We are always on hand. But the broadcasters would be constrained to the point of banality because of the strict election rules in relation to "balance".

What about the substance of such a debate? If it were held tomorrow, the top lines would be Brown claiming to be the leader on the centre ground, but committed to investment in public services compared with the cuts that would be implemented under the Conservatives. Cameron would deny allegations of cuts, but would still find the cash to cut inheritance tax and taxes for families while stressing that he was bothered about the poor and the "broken society".

Campbell would insist he is the genuine green while reminding those who had not noticed that it was his party that opposed the war on Iraq. Some pundits would argue that Cameron had won. Others that Brown had been more authoritative. There would be no knock-out blow. Thank you and good night.

Advocates of a televised debate point to the dignified and enlightened equivalents that are held in the US and in France. But these people ignore the difference between presidential contests and party-based elections. In Britain such an event would be a distortion. Already British politics seems more presidential than it really is, with the focus almost exclusively on the leaders.

Parties matter much more than is widely realised. Leaders are constrained and shaped by their parties as much as the other way around. Ask David Cameron or Neil Kinnock. Reflect on Blair's departure from Downing Street earlier than he had hoped. Look at Ken Clarke, who would have been a popular and formidable Conservative leader if he had not held sensible views on Europe. A televised debate would make leaders seem mightier than they often are.

There is another reason why such a debate should not go ahead. Personally, I would love it. I have debated for hours with friends about Brown's hairstyle and presentational approach, and more recently analysed at length Cameron's looks and demeanour. The theatre of politics is part of its joy.

But let us not pretend for a second that in the current media culture the debate would be a means of engaging voters with the great issues of the day. The event would be an almighty diversion, and afterwards there would be endless debates about why the debate trivialised politics and turned off voters. Britain's fragile democracy would become more fragile still.

s.richards@independent.co.uk

Interesting? Click here to explore further