I’m sure we’re all familiar with the traditional party political broadcasts that are transmitted in the run up towards a general election. It is an easy, failsafe way of broadcasters guaranteeing they meet their target of impartiality. Provide the three main UK parties with three minutes and thirty seconds to fill and as a broadcaster you’ve pretty much achieved your goal. Fair, if not slightly dull.
This year’s general election, however, will see a change. Live debates will take place between the three candidates aiming to lead the country. As they will be televised, all three parties will have to be dealt with by the broadcasters in an impartial way.
An agreement has been thrashed out between BBC, ITV and Sky and the three largest UK political parties which will see one debate take place on each broadcaster over a three week period. This does, however, pose potential impartiality problems.
How can impartiality be guaranteed during a live debate? Question Time is pre-recorded, moderated, and still receives complaints about the amount of airtime its panellists are afforded.
Well, the broadcasters have agreed to give each leader equal treatment throughout the programmes, which will be moderated by Alistair Stewart for ITV, Adam Boulton for Sky and David Dimbleby on the BBC. These moderators will not be allowed to press or challenge the politicians, their role is to encourage a smooth debate.
Questions will be taken from a “selected” audience, as well as receiving questions from email and social media sources, which will be assessed by a panel of the corporations’ senior journalists before being slotted in to suit the content of the programme.
If anything, it promises to spice up the electoral campaign and at least provides an alternative to formulaic party political broadcasts.
Yep the BBC’s impartiality elves are going to be working night and day on this one. How are they going to select the audience? How are they going to ensure each leader gets the same airtime?
I can imagine it turning into a wierd version of Just a Minute in which they all try speak for a minute before one or the other presses their buzzer for deviation, repetition avoiding the question or misleading the public. There should be a huge digital clock which Carol Vorderman keeps an eye on and an alarm goes off when they’ve spoken for a minute and David Dimbleby has to say ‘that’s a minute David, next up, with all to play for, iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiits Gordon! The audience will be on constantly rotating ‘diversity’ wheel to ensure a broad spectrum of British society at all times, even if someone has to go for a toilet break. They’ll probably have to redesign Television Centre especially.
Even so, thousands of people will write letters and every newspaper will run the headline ‘Live Debate Shambles’ the next day.
Seriously, it’s going to be a nightmare.
… but electrifying TV hopefully! I’m really looking forward to it.
It’s interesting that regarding the potential impartiality problems the televised election debates face, your focus is on the choice of audience and handling of the live debate.
Surely the choice of parties is more problematic. The SNP is the most popular party in Scotland, yet Alex Salmond will not be taking part. Of course a debate involving the SNP would be not so relevant to may English viewers but a debate without the SNP would be irrelevant in Scotland. And the same argument is applicable to Wales.
I don’t imagine that they are only planning on broadcasting the debates in England.
So far, Alex Salmon has directed his anger towards the BBC
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/7481963/Alex-Salmond-rows-back-on-general-election-TV-debate-demands.html
I think he’s right to be angry. No one gives two hoots about David Cameron in Scotland – they still haven’t got over Margaret Thatcher taking away their milk.
Emily
That’s a very good point Emily. I for one don’t see how they could include the SNP whilst keeping to the 3 debates format, as well as whether those already involved would be keen to extend the amount of time they’ll spend getting interrogated. Also, if the SNP or Plaid Cymru get involved based on proportional popularity, what happens when the BNP decide they want to join in because they have high support in certain areas? I’m not denying them a platform to air their moronic views (give them enough rope etc.), but pointing out the technicalities of allowing one party to join in because of support & opening the floodgates to others with claims that they are not being fairly represented.
As for Milk Snatcher Thatcher, I think it was the destruction of jobs & traditional industries that annoyed them!
“Milk snatcher thatcher”….please remain impartial Mr Haden!!!
I think this is a growing problem in UK politics. Remember the party debates are so successful in the US, because voters elect the legislative and executive on different ballot papers. The leaders of the UK parties are quite simply MPs in strong seats, elected by party members, not the electorate.
Its dodgy ground, how can you deny the SNP or Plaid Cymru the opportunity. And the BNP surely are not big enough yet?!!! But if you are saying let them all into have their say (andy)- bring back the monster raving looney party too!
I’m perfectly impartial
As for the BNP size, I was trying to demonstrate some of the problems which could arise if all political parties demanded participation. Would you base it on overall national popularity, or could parties claim they are not being represented fairly if they have particularly strong support in certain areas?
Monster Raving Looney Party? Right up my street
It’s a shame about the death of Screaming Lord Such, the man had some amazing policies:
* Refusing to sign up to the euro, but inviting the rest of Europe to join the pound.
* Drivers can go straight over a roundabout when there’s no traffic coming “to make driving through Milton Keynes more fun”.
* Traffic cops “too stupid” for normal police work to be retrained as vicars.
* Withdrawal of MPs’ £118,000 expenses allowance, and the money “in future be distributed to the poor and needy so that they can waste it instead.”
* Any MP whose constituency sells off a school playing field for development will be required to relinquish their own back garden as a replacement sports facility for the school.
* All motorways to become massive cycle tracks instead
* All speed cameras will be abolished and replaced by a new device fitted to cars which will automatically slow down to the speed limit when driven though an infra-red beam.
* The introduction of a 99p coin to “save on change”.
( source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_Monster_Raving_Loony_Party)
On a more serious note, the ‘Putting Parliament on Wheels’ policy seems like a damn good idea to me.