This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/media-blog/2015/mar/23/election-debates-jeremy-paxman-david-cameron-ed-miliband

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
We may not get head-to-head election debates, but at least we've got Paxman We may not get head-to-head election debates, but at least we've got Paxman
(1 day later)
In the last few weeks the debate about the election debates has become rather more fractious than any version of the real thing was ever likely to be. David Cameron has been accused of cowardice and the broadcasters of “bullying” and “sheer arrogance”.In the last few weeks the debate about the election debates has become rather more fractious than any version of the real thing was ever likely to be. David Cameron has been accused of cowardice and the broadcasters of “bullying” and “sheer arrogance”.
Opinion is sharply divided about where the balance of advantage lies between the broadcasters and the political parties, and between the parties themselves.Opinion is sharply divided about where the balance of advantage lies between the broadcasters and the political parties, and between the parties themselves.
It has long been clear that David Cameron had potentially most to lose by agreeing to any formula that put him head-to-head with Ed Miliband. To cut a long story short Miliband had nothing to lose and, in the face of an overwhelmingly negative press as to his suitability for high office, everything to gain. Truth be told, he would almost certainly have been perceived to have done better than expected. It has long been clear that David Cameron had potentially most to lose by agreeing to any formula that put him head-to-head with Ed Miliband. To cut a long story short, Miliband had nothing to lose and, in the face of an overwhelmingly negative press as to his suitability for high office, everything to gain. Truth be told, he would almost certainly have been perceived to have done better than expected.
And so it was that Cameron and his aides set about trying to undermine the broadcasters’ original proposals for a 2:3:4 sequence of televised debates featuring Cameron and Milliband, then the addition of Clegg and then Farage.And so it was that Cameron and his aides set about trying to undermine the broadcasters’ original proposals for a 2:3:4 sequence of televised debates featuring Cameron and Milliband, then the addition of Clegg and then Farage.
Initially it appeared that by focusing on the exclusion of the Green party, Cameron had found the achilles heel of the broadcasters’ proposal. But in reality he had raised an issue the broadcasters could, and did, resolve – albeit with the inclusion eventually of Plaid Cymru and the SNP.Initially it appeared that by focusing on the exclusion of the Green party, Cameron had found the achilles heel of the broadcasters’ proposal. But in reality he had raised an issue the broadcasters could, and did, resolve – albeit with the inclusion eventually of Plaid Cymru and the SNP.
That resulted in a 7:7:2 formula on the table and Cameron was reduced to trying to pull the same trick by arguing for the inclusion of the DUP, and once it became clear that wasn’t going to work effectively he threatened to boycott the whole shooting match.That resulted in a 7:7:2 formula on the table and Cameron was reduced to trying to pull the same trick by arguing for the inclusion of the DUP, and once it became clear that wasn’t going to work effectively he threatened to boycott the whole shooting match.
This didn’t play well for Cameron and left him exactly where he didn’t want to be – appearing to be running scared of debating with Miliband – and facing questions internally about his tactics.This didn’t play well for Cameron and left him exactly where he didn’t want to be – appearing to be running scared of debating with Miliband – and facing questions internally about his tactics.
Eventually the prime minister said he would do one seven-handed debate but only outside of the formal election campaign period. Initially the broadcasters stood their ground with the implied threat that the debates would carry on without him and the prime minister would be “empty-chaired”.Eventually the prime minister said he would do one seven-handed debate but only outside of the formal election campaign period. Initially the broadcasters stood their ground with the implied threat that the debates would carry on without him and the prime minister would be “empty-chaired”.
Cue extremely hostile outbreak of press and other comment on the “arrogance” of the broadcasters and in the face of an apparent impasse with the potential to damage the broadcasters – and especially the BBC – as well as David Cameron, the intervention of the BBC’s director of news, former Times editor James Harding.Cue extremely hostile outbreak of press and other comment on the “arrogance” of the broadcasters and in the face of an apparent impasse with the potential to damage the broadcasters – and especially the BBC – as well as David Cameron, the intervention of the BBC’s director of news, former Times editor James Harding.
The proposals that were finally confirmed at the weekend contain significant new elements in the form of one-on-one interviews in front of live audiences. This is remarkable because extended one-on-one interviews with an interviewer such as Jeremy Paxman are specifically what senior politicians have for the most part taken every opportunity to avoid.The proposals that were finally confirmed at the weekend contain significant new elements in the form of one-on-one interviews in front of live audiences. This is remarkable because extended one-on-one interviews with an interviewer such as Jeremy Paxman are specifically what senior politicians have for the most part taken every opportunity to avoid.
Indeed, it was one of the criticisms of the TV debates last time that the leaders were able to avoid the kind of detailed scrutiny long-form interviews with skilful interrogators would bring. Although the public might be more entertained by the TV showdowns, were the party leaders really tested and were we really better informed?Indeed, it was one of the criticisms of the TV debates last time that the leaders were able to avoid the kind of detailed scrutiny long-form interviews with skilful interrogators would bring. Although the public might be more entertained by the TV showdowns, were the party leaders really tested and were we really better informed?
So the current plan – one-on-one Cameron and Miliband interviews with Jeremy Paxman to be held later this week and hosted by Channel 4 and Sky News, a seven-handed debate including Cameron on ITV on the2 April (note inside the election campaign period), a five-way debate featuring opposition leaders but not Cameron or Clegg on 16 April hosted by the BBC, and an extended Question Time a week before polling day featuring Cameron, Miliband and Cleggtaking questions from a studio audience conducted by David Dimbleby – really does look like back to the future.So the current plan – one-on-one Cameron and Miliband interviews with Jeremy Paxman to be held later this week and hosted by Channel 4 and Sky News, a seven-handed debate including Cameron on ITV on the2 April (note inside the election campaign period), a five-way debate featuring opposition leaders but not Cameron or Clegg on 16 April hosted by the BBC, and an extended Question Time a week before polling day featuring Cameron, Miliband and Cleggtaking questions from a studio audience conducted by David Dimbleby – really does look like back to the future.
It might not be quite as entertaining as election debates and may not do as much to encourage popular participation in the democratic process but it surely offers the prospect of much more rigorous scrutiny of the key players and, given the presence of live audiences, considerable potential jeopardy. Which when you think about it is quite a result – and an unexpected one at that.It might not be quite as entertaining as election debates and may not do as much to encourage popular participation in the democratic process but it surely offers the prospect of much more rigorous scrutiny of the key players and, given the presence of live audiences, considerable potential jeopardy. Which when you think about it is quite a result – and an unexpected one at that.