Eddie Barnes - The Great Debate....Barnes v Maddox
In series 5 of the Wire there's a great comment from the news editor at the Baltimore Post that, at their best, newspapers "are places where people constanly disagree with one another". In that spirit, I'm going to go head-to-head with my esteemed colleague David Maddox (and this is risky; he sits behind me) on the subject of the general election TV debate debate, as he calls it.
The story so far.....the broadcasters have said they want a debate, and the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour have all agreed. Last weekend, the SNP - which will not get a podium place - said it would be taking legal action. In a previous post, David declared with typical panache that the SNP was getting its knickers in a twist. He said it was hubristic of that SNP to insist that they got involved, and that it would be absurd for non-Scottish viewers to have to watch the views of Alex Salmond being aired when none of them had the chance to vote for his party.
Well, clearly that would be strange. But I don't see how you can argue that having a debate screened in Scotland involving only Messers Brown, Cameron and Clegg is anything other than anti-democratic. If these debates do go ahead, let no-one be in any doubt about the importance they would hold (there will be 3 of them under the plans being considered by the BBC, ITV and Sky). We in the media would go predictably nuts and they would become easily the most important part of the election schedule. Ofcom recognises the SNP as one of the a main party in Scotland, along with Labour, the Tories and the Liberals. Are we seriously suggesting that in Scotland one of the main parties is going to be excluded? Why not exclude the Liberals instead? Or the Conservatives? Or Labour?
I've spoken to broadcasters in Scotland about this debate idea and they are pretty sceptical about the whole thing meeting the strict rules which cover election coverage. Frankly, the SNP seem to me to have a hard and fast case. Labour has suggested that we have a kind of Division Two clash involving all the leaders of each party's Scottish Westminster group. But would you dash home from work for the chance to watch David Mundell take on Alastair Carmichael? Thought not.
Personally, I would like to watch a TV debate take place. So what to do? I have no idea. Maybe there should be three more debates, to be broadcast in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - in which the UK party leaders stand alongside the leaders of the SNP, Plaid and Ulster parties respectively. It's not exactly likely to happen, I admit. Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Alex Salmond should be the person representing the SNP, given that he isn't standing for the General Election.
But I'm not here to provide answers. I just think that to exclude one party which represents the views of a substantial part of the electorate from such a high-profile occasion -an occasion which could decide the votes of thousands - is plain wrong.
Over to you David.
The story so far.....the broadcasters have said they want a debate, and the Conservatives, the Liberals and Labour have all agreed. Last weekend, the SNP - which will not get a podium place - said it would be taking legal action. In a previous post, David declared with typical panache that the SNP was getting its knickers in a twist. He said it was hubristic of that SNP to insist that they got involved, and that it would be absurd for non-Scottish viewers to have to watch the views of Alex Salmond being aired when none of them had the chance to vote for his party.
Well, clearly that would be strange. But I don't see how you can argue that having a debate screened in Scotland involving only Messers Brown, Cameron and Clegg is anything other than anti-democratic. If these debates do go ahead, let no-one be in any doubt about the importance they would hold (there will be 3 of them under the plans being considered by the BBC, ITV and Sky). We in the media would go predictably nuts and they would become easily the most important part of the election schedule. Ofcom recognises the SNP as one of the a main party in Scotland, along with Labour, the Tories and the Liberals. Are we seriously suggesting that in Scotland one of the main parties is going to be excluded? Why not exclude the Liberals instead? Or the Conservatives? Or Labour?
I've spoken to broadcasters in Scotland about this debate idea and they are pretty sceptical about the whole thing meeting the strict rules which cover election coverage. Frankly, the SNP seem to me to have a hard and fast case. Labour has suggested that we have a kind of Division Two clash involving all the leaders of each party's Scottish Westminster group. But would you dash home from work for the chance to watch David Mundell take on Alastair Carmichael? Thought not.
Personally, I would like to watch a TV debate take place. So what to do? I have no idea. Maybe there should be three more debates, to be broadcast in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - in which the UK party leaders stand alongside the leaders of the SNP, Plaid and Ulster parties respectively. It's not exactly likely to happen, I admit. Incidentally, I'm not at all convinced that Alex Salmond should be the person representing the SNP, given that he isn't standing for the General Election.
But I'm not here to provide answers. I just think that to exclude one party which represents the views of a substantial part of the electorate from such a high-profile occasion -an occasion which could decide the votes of thousands - is plain wrong.
Over to you David.
Labels: BBC, Eddie Barnes, election debate
posted by Administrator at
16:17
2 Comments:
Eddie
That was a tad weak. You didn't even mention the content of the debates. We will hear the 'big 3' argue over reserved policy, but also over the NHS, education, prisons, crime, etc.., but only for England! They will make no distinction over what part of the UK their policy affects and this will lead to confusion and annoyance.
In fact, if BBC Scotland screens a LibLabCon-only debate, I'm sure the story in Scotland will be less about the debate and more about the unfairness of it. Ultimately, it could backfire big-style.
The three important pieces of legislation and guidelines are the Communications Act 2003 ,the OFCOM and the BBC guidelines.
As you correctly point out the OFCOM guidelines define the SNP as major party in Scotland along with the Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems. For any political broadcast broadcast in Scotland unless they are all treated on an equal footing then it will be illegal under the guidelines.
In the BBC guidelines, point 3, 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.
So in the BBC guidelines the different political structures in Scotland are recognised and it is stated that any UK broadcasts must take this into account. Unless they recognise the SNP's position as a major party in Scotland then they will also break their own guidelines.
In a lot of the posts and blogs about the TV debate there are fundamental misunderstandings about the SNP case to be included in a TV debate between the party leaders.
The first one is that the SNP are demanding to be allowed onto the debate. It's actually the other way round. The broadcasters are desperately casting around to find legal ways to disallow the SNP from being on the broadcast because the SNP have the law on their side. Despite the guidelines the broadcasters are trying to impose a partial political broadcast on Scotland.
The second is that the SNP want to be part of a UK broadcast. What the SNP want is to be part of any party leaders debate broadcast in Scotland. If that requires the SNP to be on a UK wide debate that is because the organisers do not have the technology or organisational skill to restrict their English only broadcast to England only. (Plaid Cymru are identified as a major party in Wales in the OFCOM guidelines as well).
The third misunderstanding is that somehow a second debate broadcast with either the respective parties Westminster leaders or the leaders in the Scottish Parliament would make up for the lack of representation on the party leaders' debate.
This wouldn't make the first SNP-less debate legal under the broadcast rules. It would still be a partial political broadcast. It also would mean that the Conservatives, the Lib-Dems and the Labour party would get two bites at the cherry. Their representatives would get airtime on two broadcasts but the SNP only on one.
The party leaders of the four major parties in Scotland are Brown, Cameron, Clegg and Salmond. Unless they all get on a TV debate together that debate will be illegal if broadcast in Scotland.
Remeber that the Lib-Dems and Labour stopped an interview with John Major from being broadcast in Scotland before just before the Scottish local elections in 1995. It means a precedent has been set and that broadcasts have been stopped before by the Scottish courts. It's rather hypocritical of Tavish Scott to accuse the SNP of "bullying" when they are just threatening to follow a legal route his own party trail-blazed 14 years ago.
Post a Comment
<< Home