Wednesday, 7 October 2009

The TV Debate debate

Legal action, Mr Salmond?


I'm not sure what I think of this development. I mean, I can see both sides of it.

On the one hand, Sky want to tap into the idea of "Presidential politics", the sense that the leader of the party IS the party and answers for them. They want to make it a personal thing - a one-on-one (okay, a ménage à trois) with the men (it's always bloody men eh?) vying to be Prime Minister. They want to allow a clear debate between the leaders of the parties, giving their viewers a clear idea of the differences between them and an opportunity to judge the best candidate for the job of PM. It's a kind of political X-Factor - complete with public vote and everything (though the vote won't be for some time after the show ends).

However, Sky's bright idea doesn't cater for devolved politics. It doesn't take into account that Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish audiences interested in health or education issues may be misled by statements from the candidates on show, who can do nothing about those policy areas. It doesn't allow for regional variations, for parties of government in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have a voice in the debate. And it reinforces the dominant Westminster political culture by excluding smaller parties - and not just those from the "Celtic fringe".

The question of fairness is the one which is being pursued by the SNP. They argue, legitimately, that while the UK election is basically a two-horse between the Tories and Labour (which makes Nick Clegg's invitation all the more questionable), the fight in Scotland is likely to be a straight Labour-SNP battle (though the Lib Dems do currently have more MPs than the SNP in Scotland, their share of the vote in opinion polls is going in the opposite direction). In Wales, the situation is further muddied by the fact that, although Plaid Cymru are in coalition government with Labour, the Tories (!) actually won the European election there, making it a genuine three-way battle. Northern Irish politics, with its division between nationalist and unionist communities, brings with it an extra element which also requires consideration. And those are just the parties that have representation at the moment - what about UKIP, the Greens and (dare I say it) the BNP?

The principle that Sky have (loosely) been adhering to, is the idea that they should invite the realistic candidates to be Prime Minister. That means limiting their invitations to the leaders of the three main parties on a UK level. However, were this principle to be taken to its logical conclusion, David Cameron would have a solitary invitation. So they've widened it to include the also rans - incumbent PM Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, whose Lib Dems have 62 seats and would need to make over 250 gains at the next election to make him PM. Just a thought, but Sky could invite me, Jeff and Caron to the debate - we'd have as much of a chance of being PM after the election as Nick Clegg does. And possibly just slightly less of a chance than Gordon Brown.

So really, Sky's own guidelines are based on loose ideas anyway. I guess it is a case of whether they want to accommodate the SNP (who, I think, are the only ones making any real noise about it) or not. But the legal guidelines regarding political coverage at elections are clear (as Jeff points out - in the case of Iraq!). The televised media has to provide equal and balanced coverage. So what can they do?

Well, I guess there are a couple of options. They can go with Salmond's suggestion and have "regional" debates, with Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond in Scotland, Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Wyn Jones in Wales and... well, I guess they'd figure out something for Northern Ireland. Or, they could ignore Salmond and his legal fight, and have their original debate with Brown, Cameron and Clegg. But where would that leave Alex Salmond?

Kind of reminds me of (yet another) West Wing moment, appropriate really given the US-style TV debate. Freedonia, an episode in season 6, sees candidate Matt Santos struggling to get into a local debate - the invitations have gone only to the two lead candidates. Other events take over, but his original idea is to host his own debate and invite the other candidates to come which (eventually) comes to fruition. I wonder if Salmond invited Brown, Cameron and Clegg to a debate, if they would go? Or would Jim Murphy, David Mundell and Alastair Carmichael be sent instead? Or Iain Gray, Annabel Goldie and Tavish Scott?

Mind you, isn't that supposed to be what A National Conversation was supposed to be - an invitation to debate? Problem with that was, not one of the opposition parties showed up.

6 comments:

DougtheDug 7 October 2009 at 10:45  

Or, they could ignore Salmond and his legal fight, and have their original debate with Brown, Cameron and Clegg.

Then it would be illegal under the Communications Act 2003 and and the OFCOM and BBC guidelines if it was broadcast in Scotland.

In the Communications act, section 320, "Special impartiality requirements", subsection 1(b) and 2(a) are particularly relevant.

In the ITV OFCOM guidelines the SNP are regarded as a major party in Scotland:
At present in the UK major parties are the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. In addition, major parties in Scotland and Wales respectively are the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru.

Which is important in OFCOM rule 6.2.
6.2 Due weight must be given to the coverage of major parties during the election period. Broadcasters must also consider giving appropriate coverage to other parties and independent candidates with significant views and perspectives.

In the BBC guidelines, bullet point 3, where they acknowledge that they must take into account the different governmental and political situation in Scotland:
We should make, and be able to defend, our editorial decisions on the basis that they are reasonable and carefully and impartially reached. To achieve this we must ensure that:
3. they are aware of the different political structures in the four nations of the United Kingdom and that they are reflected in the election coverage of each nation. Programmes shown across the UK should also take this into account.


But where would that leave Alex Salmond?
Holding an injunction to stop the broadcasters broadcasting a politically partial broadcast in Scotland.

PJ 7 October 2009 at 11:02  

The clear winner in this debate so far is Sky. They've managed to create a position for themselves as the podium that every leader apparently wants to be seen speaking from. Quite a spectacular marketing coup, regardless of who ultimately is involved.

Malc 7 October 2009 at 12:23  

PJ,

Absolutely.

DougtheDug,

Maybe. But those regulations only cover ITV and BBC I think, and not Sky.

Also, couldn't they allow the debate to go ahead, and give the SNP the same air time, just in another format - thereby preserving their impartiality but continue with their intended plan?

DougtheDug 7 October 2009 at 13:16  

As far as I'm aware Sky do come under OFCOM.

Also, couldn't they allow the debate to go ahead, and give the SNP the same air time, just in another format...

I'm sure that is what they plan to offer but in a Scottish context if you have a high profile debate between the party leaders going out on a prime time TV slot in Scotland and the SNP leader is excluded then it is a very politically partial broadcast, whether or not the SNP is offered more airtime later on.

I can't see any judge disagreeing that the SNP's exclusion from a party leaders' debate broadcast in Scotland is direct discrimination.

Imagine the furore in England if they suggested that Labour and the Tories would get a debate but Nick Clegg couldn't appear. He had to appear on his own in a following program. Extra airtime does not alter the fact that a debate in Scotland which only involves the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems is partial.

Their are five parties in the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood. Unless the five party leaders, Brown, Cameron, Salmond, Clegg and Harvie get onto the same broadcast it is not impartial.

Malc 7 October 2009 at 13:21  

DougtheDug,

Sorry, it was the way you'd presented it that made me think you were just referring to ITV and the BBC.

And I'm not really disagreeing with you. I reckon it is clear discrimination against a prominent political party.

But really, it is evidence that a TV debate doesn't work with the system of devolved politics that we have.

DougtheDug 7 October 2009 at 13:41  

Sorry, it was the way you'd presented it that made me think you were just referring to ITV and the BBC.

You're right. I should have been clear and mentioned Sky in the first post.

Post a Comment

Contact

Feel free to get in touch with me if you have an issue with something you've read here... or if you simply want to debate some more! You can email me at:

baldy_malc - AT - hotmail - DOT - com

Comment Policy

I'm quite happy - indeed, eager - to engage in debate with others when the topic provides opportunity to do so. I like knowing who I'm debating with and I'm fed up with some abusive anonymous comments so I've disabled those comments for awhile. If you want to comment, log in - it only takes a minute.

Disclaimer

Regrettably, this is probably required:
This blog is my own personal opinion (unless otherwise stated) and does not necessarily reflect the views of any other organisation (political or otherwise) that I am a member of or affiliated to.
Related Posts with Thumbnails

  © Blogger template The Business Templates by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP