The BBC, ITV, Sky and Channel 4 have announced their preferred plans to hold three debates during the 2015 general election campaign. The BBC reports:
One would involve a head-to-head debate between just the Conservative and Labour leaders, and another would include the Liberal Democrat leader. The other debate would involve all three leaders plus Mr Farage. The broadcasters said the proposed formats reflected “changes in the political landscape” since the three prime ministerial debates during the 2010 general election, which featured Conservative Mr Cameron, Labour’s Gordon Brown and Lib Dem Mr Clegg. … The broadcasters have written to the party leaders to invite them to take part. The suggested schedule is for debates on 2, 16 and 30 April, ahead of the election on 7 May.
Here’s how the Lib Dems have responded to the proposal:
“The Liberal Democrats have long argued that the debates last time round were of huge benefit to our democratic process and engaged millions of voters. The Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the fact that the broadcasters are seeking to make progress to ensure that the debates happen again in 2015. The Liberal Democrats, like the Labour Party, have publicly said that we would be prepared to sign up to the same 3-3-3 system we had in 2010. We do not accept the proposal that the Liberal Democrats, as a party of government, should be prevented from defending our record in one of the TV debates. That is the case we will make strongly in the negotiations that will now take place and we urge the other parties to join us around the negotiating table without excuse or delay.”
Three quick points:
1) The controversial bit here is the idea there should be a head-to-head between David Cameron and Ed Miliband as the leaders most likely to become Prime Minister. Had it been proposed in 2010 it might have been seen as fair enough. Yes, I know we have a parliamentary system not a presidential one; but in reality the distinction has become blurred. However, we’re not now in 2010. We’re in 2015, after what will have been a full parliament of coalition government with a Deputy Prime Minister from another party. To exclude Nick Clegg from a debate – and by so doing give him no right of reply to defend the Lib Dems’ actions in government – is clearly unfair, certainly during a campaign period. The party will contest him being excluded and they’ll be right to do so.
2) The inclusion of Ukip’s Nigel Farage is inevitable and right. His party came first in a national election (the Euros in May), have performed strongly in two years’ local elections, are ahead of the Lib Dems in most opinion polls, and have now elected their first MP. However, fairness would then suggest the Greens – a national party of longer standing with an elected MP – should also be included (even if it’s to the Lib Dems’ and probably Labour’s advantage if they’re not).
3) The timing of the debates – clustered within the month-long campaign – is disappointing. David Cameron was right to point out the three debates dominated the campaign in 2010 and sucked the life out of it. Far better, in this era of fixed-term parliaments when we know exactly the date of the next election, to space them out. That said, I’d expect some lessening of their importance this time around (in fact it’s arguable they made little difference to the actual result last time, though ‘Cleggmania’ clearly had a huge impact on the campaign).
* Stephen was Editor (and Co-Editor) of Liberal Democrat Voice from 2007 to 2015, and writes at The Collected Stephen Tall.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
1963: London's summer of the Hoverbus
High Fell by-election leaflet watch 3: the proof is in the reading
Have resignations led to a rethink?
Stefano Brunesci
Robert Doyle
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
48 Comments
What a dire response from HQ 🙁 The inclusion of UKIP should be a given, so to talk about 3:3:3 just shows the leaderships continued detachment from reality.
We should count ourselves lucky if we get this. A Carswell/Lucas/Galloway mini-debate would be fun.
@Caracatus
I’m not saying you are necessarily wrong, but why exactly should the inclusion of UKIP be a given? Is there any criterion you have in mind that justifies their inclusion any more than a host of other 1 (or even a handful) MP parties?
With the Lib Dems not wanting to take part in the 2015 debates with the 2-3-4 format then could Mr. Clegg’s place in the 3rd debate be offered to the Green Party leader? This would solve the problems 1 & 2 listed above although it would change the format to a 2-2-4.
Given that on his last outing in a TV debate Clegg managed to reduce your vote by about a third I would of thought you’d leap at the chance of a 2-3-4 format. Or is this just a bit of bluff and bravado?
Look on the bright side, less exposure could save votes.
I think the format is broadly right. The Lib Dems shouldn’t waste anyones time by trying to get treated the same as Labour and the Conservatives. I think the Lib Dems have a good deal by being on two debates, compared with UKIP’s one. I can understand the Green’s being included, but if you included them then you would probably have to include the SNP and Plaid Cymru too.
I’d recommend just taking the medicine.
The Greens should definitely be there as well. But I think the idea of a 5-3-2 debate makes good sense. It means the three debates will have a different flavour, hopefully maintaining their interest to the general public and the 5-3-2 structure reflects the realities of the importance of the parties.
I can understand why the Lib Dems wouldn’t be too happy about it. But Clegg isn’t going to be PM June next year, and it’s quite likely that UKIP will get a bigger share of the vote at the next election than the Lib Dems.
I don’t think the broadcasters are allowing any ‘negotiation’.
It’s take it or leave it.
I’m with other commenters; this is a decent deal for the LDs and we’re looking petulant in fighting a battle we won’t win; there’s no way we’ll refuse to turn up if the others agree.
I’m confused on the order though; are we going to appear in the first two or last two debates? Nick’s big impact was in the first debate last time and not sure we’d be well served in missing that; by the last one it’s probably too late for a game-changer. Note that the proposed Cameron – Miliband head to head would be chaired by Paxman – is that really the one we want to fight to turn up to? Neither Dimbleby or Etchingham will give as tough a ride.
I expect OfCom to declare UKIP a major party; should they do so then UKIP will have a greater claim to appear more. Getting this format agreed asap might not be the worst outcome for us.
personally, I’m against participation in the debates. The British press are mostly Tory and UKIP fellow travellers. They will declare Nigel Farage and David Cameron the winners no matter what they say or how they perform. Because media people only really listen to other media people you will then get weeks if not months of questions about why this or that leader did badly and why Cameron and Farage are connecting with the disaffected majority. You cannot win a fixed race and you should not kid yourselves that you can.
“……..fairness would then suggest the Greens – a national party of longer standing with an elected MP – should also be included ….”
It is not for me to make he case for The Green Party, but…..
Some might argue that The Greens have an equal claim to air time as Clegg. Based on opinion poll ratings over the last two years The Greens might argue a good case.
The Greens elected more MEPs than the Liberal Democrats, indeed as the SNP sit in the Green Group in the EP one could arguebtavthere are five times as many Green MEPs as Liberal Democrats.
The Greens have as many elected members of the London Assembly as we do and in the London Mayoral election in 2012 the Greens came third and our candidate trailed in fourth ace with a pitiful 4% of the vote.
It might be argued that Clegg had two TV debates all of his own devising in 2014 and that he has therefore used up his share of broadcast time already.
It might also be argued by Liberal Democrats that Clegg is so toxic that the chances of the 35 MPs we all hope will hang on can only be improved if the media keep him off our TV screens.
The Greens could also pay the feminists card — why should these leader debates be exclusively male?
As for the idea that Clegg being an outgoing DPM should have a reserved place in a leader debate on TV is just nonsense.
Clegg should be there as leader of our party if he is there at all, not as a lame duck DPM.
I do not remember anyone suggesting John Prescott should have a place in the leader debates in 2010 — although his ability to strangle the English language might have made them more entertaining.
Liberal Democrats in The Westminster Bubble need to get some perspective on the role of a Deputy Prime Minister.
It was a convenient way for Cameron and the Tories to lock Clegg into sitting next to Cameron in The Commons rather than sitting with Liberal Democrat MPs. Thus giving viewers a weekly reminder (or perception) that there was no difference between Tory and Liberal. That seating arrangement and the “my honourable friend” traditional bull”””t used every time Clegg answered a question from some knuckle-dragging rightwinger on the wilder fringes of the Tory backbencher only served to make ordinary voters hate him and hate us.
The DPM scamwas a good way to tie Clegg down in the minutiae of the work of chairing the Cabinet sub-committee on Home Policy — a task which because of his inability to cope with detail he was clearly unsuited. Remember in particular his memo “warmly welcoming” the car crash of top down re-organisation of the NHS.
Being a lame duck DPM should afford no special privileges to Clegg — let’s face it he has had more media coverage in the last five years than any Liberal leaderin history and look at the result!!!
Clegg is the most unpopular leader (of any party, not just Liberal) since records began. And his poll ratings have continued at that disastrous level for month after month.
5:3:2 (or 4:3:2) not 2:3:5. The important thing is to narrow the field as time progresses, not to open it up. If I had to choose between living in Cameron’s world, and the world of Cameron-with-Farage-on-his-shoulder, I’ll have Cameron’s please. That is probably the choice we are being given. Even if you think Miliband might be the PM and that the choice is Miliband vs Cameron+Farage, then please can we have Miliband? I think we would all agree about that. So get the the big debate in first, either with or without the greens, then narrow it down. Holding out for a three-party presidential debate is just unreasonable and potentially counterproductive.
It’s the Green Party of England and Wales, why should Scottish viewers have to listen to them?
@David Evershed
They have stated they are proposals, not firm plans.
I agree fully with Stephen’s first and second points.
Poll ratings are one thing, but a government party should be given parity with another in defending the actions it his taken in government. The voters will still have the right to ignore or not vote for us, that is proper – but for a broadcaster to to cast us aside before a a signle ballot has been issued is deeply wrong. who are they to decide that a government party should be not allowed to put across its case? For better or worse, we are in government and Sky/Ch4 have no place as a public service broadcaster to ignore that/
They only want a different format so they can stand apart for ratings reasons – three debates of the same format, people lose interest. More likely to keep up numbers if you mix it up.
My first thought is – what happens if circumstances change again ? There are already rumours of possible Coups against both Cameron & Milliband, there could be more Defections & Byelections. What if the Tories form an Electoral pact with UKIP ? How prepared are the Broadcasters to change the plans once they have been accepted ?
I think there’s no point at all in gauging a party’s ‘strength’ for a debate such as this in using opinion poll ratings and any election to any chamber but the one under discussion. And it sets all manner of nasty precedents.
As the largest 2 parties, I can understand (sadly) why Labour and the Tories’ number of seats in parliament get their leaders a debate of their own; it’s nice that as the next largest party, Clegg gets in on the next debate; he is in how-it-is-now numbers terms, leading the party most likely to hold the balance of power. But if you are going to include parliamentary minnows like UKIP in the final debate, then you need to include all parties that the same or more MPs. Which right now is every single party represented in parliament.
Even if Reckless is elected and UKIP’s representation rises to 2, you still need PC, the DUP and the SNP, Sinn Feinn (possibly) and the SDLP. Irrespective of whether they have ‘national’ representation, they could all participate in coalition and in swinging the balance of power. They are all larger than UKIP in parliament right now and will be whether or not Reckless is elected. They are part and parcel of a national politics.
Including Farage without them is London-centric bias (which I though UKIP was against?) and doing his work for him.
@JohnTilley
“Clegg is the most unpopular leader (of any party, not just Liberal) since records began.”
Miliband is currently lower. Not saying much for us, but still!
Opinion polls are not the basis for judging who should be included, seats won should be. I fully support most of what you say about the Greens – they have an MP, to deny them a say wilst giving it to UKIP is not on. But when talking about Westminster elections, we should look to Westinster results. We still have 56 MPs and are part of the government, that is the only concrete Westminster reality we have until May and broadcasters shouldn’t base such judgements on hunches, however valid they might be.
Also, the SNP have strong grounds – certainly for a Scotland only debate.
Liberal Democrats of all people should know that failure to elect MPs under First Past the Post does not indicate a lack of support. The second question is, what are we afraid of if ‘minor’ parties are included ? that they might take “our” votes – very democratic ! Thirdly, some people might even think ahead to the following general election when as the party with the fifth largest number of MPs (after Conservative, Labour, UKIP and SNP)we might want our new leader to take part in the debates. Fourthly some might think it odd that a party that supported the Farage Clegg debates and made a big thing about the other party leaders being absent – now has some convoluted thought process that says UKIP are less relevant now they have more support and more elected representatives.
Some people might have noticed the electorates contempt for the Westminster stitch up – perhaps it’s not the best thing to be playing the pathetic jockeying for perceived party advantage and entitlement.
Speaking as a Ukip supporter, I think the broadcasters suggestion is about right.
I rather think that opinion polls are the political equivalent of audience ratings, so the broadcast companies are on firm and familiar ground. I doubt if the Greens command a high interest rating nationally, even if they do have an MP at Brighton.
The debates are unlikely to be particularly useful or helpful.
John Tilley is dead right about that seating. I do not understand why he sticks to it. I have offered advice.
It is good that several people making comments have remembered Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Although some of those commenting seem to be unaware that different rules seem to apply to TV election broadcasts in different parts of the UK.
There will be a TV debate in Scotland, there will be one in Northern Ireland. David Cameron will play no part in either because his Conservative and Unionist Party has no support it those parts of the UK.
Wales is a bit different It has an Assembly which is a bit like a big city council.
People in Manchester rightly point out that their City makes Wales look like a minnow in all measures other than landmass. The leader of PC should of course be on any TV debate in Wales — but who should the Tories put up?
And then there is Cornwall. Not a lot of Labour MPs in Cornwall, why should Miiband get a look in there?
Nobody has mentioned George Galloway and Respect. But George probably mentions himself often enough and he never seems short of invitations to the TV studios.
Nobody has mentioned the BNP. Good thing too.
Though I would not vote UKIP personally in a general election, UKIP deserves to be included in the TV debates
UKIP got 4,376,635 votes in the European election 27.49% share of the vote, the largest of all parties.
To deny them would be a golden ticket for the 2015 Election, It would push more ukip sympathizers into Farage’s hands as it will look like the other major political parties are running scared,
It is highly likely that the UKIP vote will already have a substantial affect in all of the marginal constituencies.
What all the 3 parties need to do is in engage with Farage and challenge his policies.
That being said, the Greens probably deserve to be included in one of the debates as well, beings they polled over million in the European elections have an MP and 3 MEP
There won’t be any debates. Why would Cameron agree to them? There’s no upside for him in agreeing and quite a lot of risks.
Downing Street will try to find a way to drag the negotiations out (possibly aided by Clegg refusing to concede on a two-upper) until it’s too late, so they can claim to be being reasonable and willing to do them but it’s impossible to find a formula the other parties will agree to; but if it comes right down to it, Cameron will just say no and there’s nothing the TV channels can do to make him.
Clegg should also be included in all 3 debates.
If not rest assured Cameron will use that to his political advantage . He will talk about how the Conservatives has introduced (x) with our coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, knowing that a considerable amount of left of center voters found (x) to be abhorrent. And there will be no Clegg to give his side of the story / argument.
The Tories will be going all out to discredit and attack the Liberal Democrats over the coming months, They need to in order to win their seats they are targeting in 2015.
It would be better for the party, judging by Nick Clegg’s effect on the European Election, for the debates not to take place at all. We need all the help we can get to persuade people to vote locally for our sitting MPs and reminders of his leadership will not be useful to our cause.
And I say that as someone who still supports him as leader, primarily because he is streets ahead of any of the other possible contenders. The voters have decided (wrongly in my view) that they do not like Nick Clegg and that, sadly, is not going to change much in six months.
I agree with Stephen Tall’s article.
In addition to the points he makes I would add that there are people living in more than fifty constituencies in the country who have a Lib Dem MP and even more for whom the Lib Dem is the main challenger. For those people, a debate which excludes the Lib Dems is a nonsense.
I think what I am most concerned about with this announcement when I think about it, is not so much the rise of UKIP, but the fact that the broadcasters now can basically manipulate the criteria to pick and choose who they want.
They can say: Are we using the opinion polls this year? The last General Election seats / votes figures? The Euro election figures? Party membership? Number of candidates? Is it about who might become PM? Or who ight hold the ‘balance of power’ (whatever that means)? What will get us a nice cast of villains and heroes? Who is the underdog? – We’re in Central Casting now…
With Murdoch behind one of the TV channels involved in this deal, such a cherry picking approach should scare us.
Stephen makes an excellent point about a right to reply for a party that has been part of government. If the media really want a head to head between Cameron and Miliband they will have to explain how they will be able to deal with this issue. It would be simply untenable if the leaders of two other parties could make uncontested allegations about the record of a third party in government.
It is up to those who advocate a head to head of this sort to propose a solution.
Im more than happy for the Greens to be involved. Listening to Nathalie Bennett shoudl swing some Lib Dem Green switchers back our way.
If we claim to be democrats (as well as liberal) then we should be arguing that there be only one qualification to participation – that being that your party is running in more than 50% of constituencies nationally (thus theoretically competing for a majority)
Fans of Borgen will remember an episode about the style and content of TV election debates between party leaders.
There may be some lessons there.
Of course the leader of the political party who was the star of Borgen had virtually nothing in common with Clegg, she was principled, quick off the mark and popular with the voters.
It is up to those who advocate a head to head of this sort to propose a solution
No it isn’t; they only need to point out that at the end of the campaign either David Cameron or Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister, so it makes sense to see them head to head so people can make up their minds which outcome they prefer.
A ‘right of reply’ is irrelevant to the decision voters have to make as to who will be their next Prime Minister.
However, there will not be any debates, so really the whole point is moot.
If we want to survive, Clegg should be excluded from all three. Clegg in a leadership debate will simply remind people how optimistic and good he made them feel in 2010, and how bad he makes them feel now. Any chance of them swinging back to us will go for good. The less he is seen and heard, the better for all of us.
“why exactly should the inclusion of UKIP be a given?”
I appreciate that this question has been treated with some derision on this thread, but the fact that it could be seriously asked at all is pretty remarkable. Talk about not having your finger on the pulse. 🙂
” However, there will not be any debates, so really the whole point is moot.”
I tend to this view. Cameron realises that including Clegg last time probably cost him an overall majority and I can see this all being too too difficult to arrange.
The bottom line is that post Nigel’s public evisceration of your leader everyone is terrified of him. I even heard a Tory arguing on the Daily Politics today that since Carswell has a seat and Farage doesn’t only he should be allowed on TV!
An animal can smell human fear. I think we can all smell Tory fear of Nige. That is why there won’t be any debate IMO, because Cameron as the incumbent has too much to lose….
Personally I think they should empty chair him. Or threaten to. But I bet they won’t.
Simon – I shouldn’t be too confident. By the time The Mail, The Sun, and the Torygraph have finished with your man, he will look pretty washed up. As we approach the Election run up, he will have served his purpose for them, and the emphasis will then be to maximise the Tory vote. He’s got far too many holes in his arguments to do anything but low profile crumble from March on, you mark my words.
Dav, simon
“there will not be any debates, so really the whole point is moot.”
I seem to remember several people saying much the same thing last time around, just as confidently. The trouble with that sort of prediction is that nobody remembers if you get it wrong (which would make you look an idiot); and if you happen to get it right, you can tell everybody and look like a sage. Meanwhile, the smart thing for all parties to do is not to treat it as moot, but to plan for the contingency of the debates going ahead.
As the Lib Dem leadership spent the referendum campaign telling Scotland they were a valued part of the UK to attempt to exclude the SNP given the relative votes they polled in 2010 and 2011 is an insult. It’s a UK wide election so 3:3:3 is not appropriate. I’m no fan of the Nationalists or of UKIP but they should be included somehow and a good argument can be made for the Greens also.
This is not a presidential election so I see no logic of there being a debate for only Milliband and Cameron. Labour and the Tories conveniently excluding Clegg (based no doubt on the fact that he was the star last time around) is as bad as the Lib Dem attempts to exclude the Nationalists, Greens and UKIP by suggesting 3:3:3.
Clegg should be permitted in any debate that David Cameron is in, provided Cameron has a pocket big enough to fit him.
Surprised that no-one’s suggested a debate with just Farage and Clegg.
The last one went well… didn’t it?
Seriously, that Farage v Clegg debate unfortunately gave Farage added credibility and set the precedent that a TV debate not involving all three main party leaders was acceptable.
It was inevitable that a proposal for a Prime Ministerial debate, Cameron v Miliband, no Clegg, would follow.
One more reason why Nick shouldn’t have debated with Farage alone.
@Glenn Andrews “we should be arguing that there be only one qualification to participation – that being that your party is running in more than 50% of constituencies nationally (thus theoretically competing for a majority)”
I think that is a good basis for participation in the debates. It allows regional parties to be excluded from the national debate without being overtly discriminatory, and it supports participation when the landscape of politics and public opinion has changed since the last election or is not reflected by the composition of parliament.
“I shouldn’t be too confident. By the time The Mail, The Sun, and the Torygraph have finished with your man, he will look pretty washed up. As we approach the Election run up, he will have served his purpose for them, and the emphasis will then be to maximise the Tory vote. ”
This is predicated on the assumption that Farage (and UKIP) are a creature of the Tory press and can be brought down by them.. That seems doubtful.
Yes, elements of the Tory supporting press definitely promulgate UKIP hot button topics. I don’t deny that, and it is very useful to us. But, the bottom line is that they wanted the Tories to win the European elections, came after Farage and UKIP big time then, (remember all the loonies, all the racism?) and it failed. A monster has been created (in their terms) I posit, which is now outside their control and has a life of its own.
The broadcast media in many ways is more interesting. They have always been felt to be more impartial, and trustworthy in the past. Less parti pris. Certainly the BBC. Quite unfairly so, I would argue they have a very left of centre editorial stance.
But this latter organisation, so earnest and worthy has been badly compromised by the Scottish Referendum debate and the rise of UKIP. Like everyone else they have been scrambling to catch up.
Now, arguably they are going overboard in their coverage of UKIP, in an attempt to compensate and “be a public service broadcaster.”.
The bottom line is the that we are getting wall to wall coverage. Everyone is obsessed by us, and our rise. It is THE story. More defections, as individual Tory MP’s seek to save theirs kin or follow their UKIP heart and it just continues.
Good luck guys in taming the monster in the GE only 200 odd days away. I think we will do VERY well.
I agree with all of Stephen’s points, and with Glenn Andrews: any party contesting 50%+ seats should be entitled to take part.
You can argue in several different ways what would be to our advantage. What we ought to be doing is arguing for the right, long term thing. We think politics should be plural, so let’s do all we can to ensure that the public and the media get used to participating in plural politics. Let’s allow the electorate to make the decision as to who the 2 main contenders should be – by allowing all of the contenders in to the debate. After all, it’s quite possible that in vote share – if not in seats in parliament – the two leaders may not in fact be Miliband and Cameron.
” any party contesting 50%+ seats should be entitled to take part.”
I think that’s unfair to the regional parties; they do after all participate in a UK-wide parliament and their votes and members could be crucial in forming a UK-wide government. Whilst here in Bristol I have little interest in housing policy in Northern Ireland (say), or Scottish social care funding policy as such, I am interested if it they are going to be bargaining chips in the negotiations that might form a stable coalition government of the whole country, or if the DUP’s parliamentary housing spokesperson (do they have one?) suddenly becomes junior arts minister or something…
To this end, I can envisage a 3:3:3 format where in on e of the three debates, instead of a public Q&A, leaders of the smaller parties (and, yes, that would include UKIP … for now … ) get to ask questions of the major party leaders. I’d watch that.
But this isn’t now going to happen because Farage has been invited into the studio already as a full participant.
@simon
“why exactly should the inclusion of UKIP be a given?”
I appreciate that this question has been treated with some derision on this thread, but the fact that it could be seriously asked at all is pretty remarkable. Talk about not having your finger on the pulse. 🙂
I asked that question in posting no 3, and I note that you have no more provided an answer than anyone else on this thread.
In particular I asked if there was any criterion that people have in mind that justifies their inclusion any more than a host of other 1 (or even a handful) MP parties? As far as I know, there are 11 other parties in Parliament that satisfy that criterion.
People seem to have forgotten that voters ONLY elect their constituency MP, so this is another example where attitudes seem to be based on the fallacy UK = England.
The principal place for these debates should be separate ones for the four constituent parts of the UK and this implies a different mix of parties in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. By all means make the ‘other’ debates available for politics wonks (for instance, Northern Ireland debates in England) at a less peak time or on BBC parliament.
If this approach is taken, English voters only considering who to vote for will be spared the sight of the SNP or DUP. (doesn’t mean that they won’t find them later in a UK governing coalition, though.)
The number of places in leaders’ debates at a General Election should surely depend on the number of candidates each party is fielding, not on the number of MPs it currently has? A party contesting less than a high threshold, say 90%, of the available seats would exclude themselves as not broad enough. This could apply in each country as well as in the UK as a whole.