Substance and soundbites

The BBC's Politics Show today brought together the Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, and his Tory and Lib Dem shadows for a debate on this week's main political story - the row over the funding of personal care.   Presenter Jon Sopel understandably opened the interview by teasing out the sudden divergence of opinion on the subject, after an initial attempt at forging a cross-party consensus appeared to have been shattered by the Tory's "RIP Off" poster last week.   And so the political posturing began, with Conservative Andrew Lansley straight out of his starting blocks.

Andy Burnham's response to a direct question from Jon Sopel about the row was to meander off on a description of the issue itself, rather than focus on the political bust-up - normally an annoying diversionary tactic, but, on this occasion, one which seemed genuine enough.   Sopel was having none of it.   He assured the Health Secretary that the discussion would come round to the substance of the issue soon enough, but not before he had commented on the political fallout from the week's events.   The tenor of the discussion was set and, inevitably, the substance never really made it to the table.

It wasn't the fault of Jon Sopel.   It wasn't the fault of his Producer.   It was my (and possibly your) fault for routinely indulging ourselves in the latest political spat.   However much we might insist, po-faced, that we care only about the issues, our heads are easily turned by a bit of political theatre on the small screen.   

It is for that reason that package-based political programming is so worthwhile.   Ironically, The Politics Show is the only regular example of the genre on television, but it was obviously concluded that this particular topic demanded a three-way thrashing-out and nothing more.   In-depth, well-crafted packages deftly inform and engage - and we can always have our more combative cravings satisfied in a post-package 'debate'.   It is a formula which largely works well on The Politics Show and, traditionally, on many of ITV's regional political programmes - Granada's erstwhile Sunday Supplement being a prime example. 

As the broadcasters make their bold plans for the forthcoming General Election - leadership debates, swingometres and the rest - it's to be hoped they remember to provide an outlet for both the substance and the shouting matches.

Head-to-head hype?

The Presidential-style debates which have threatened to cross the Atlantic for so long will finally put in an appearance in the U.K. during next year's General Election campaign.   It was confirmed today that the three main party leaders will all take part in a trio of a ninety-minute shows to be broadcast by the BBC, ITV and Sky.

The general consensus amongst politicians and commentators seems to be that this heralds a victory for democracy.   To some extent, that will undoubtedly be true - but I'm not altogether convinced that such occasions represent the zenith of democratic debate.  

Surely there is an inherent danger that the theatre of the occasion will take over and very little will be revealed in the way of detailed policy.   The inadequacies of the only comparable event - Prime Minister's Questions - will be magnified.   It will be all soundbites and pseudo anger.   Factor into the equation the heightened level of interest in the occasion when compared with the average PMQs and you are soon confronted with another problem.   The leaders will be so hamstrung by the fear of having their words and every nuance of their performance analysed to the nth degree that they will be more reluctant than usual to deal in the currency of candour.

The issue of fairness to nationalist parties was quickly raised and the suggestion is that there might be other debates scheduled in the nations involving the leaders of the parties in the devolved assemblies.   However, that doesn't address a related issue - namely, the fact that three-way debates like this inevitably skew the political debate in favour of the three main parties.   That seems a shame in an election when minority parties might be expected to put in a strong showing - but it was ever thus.

For me, the pre-election coverage in 2005 had the potential to be far more illuminating than anything proposed for next year.   The one-on-one leadership interviews conducted by Paxman for Newsnight and Jonathan Dimbleby for ITV boasted the kind of forensic interrogation of our political leaders that we only really get during an election campaign.   For some reason, this style of political programme seems to have fallen out of favour over the past five years.

The BBC ditched "On The Record" in the early 2000s for a more package-based affair in "The Politics Show."   Meanwhile, ITV turned Jonathan Dimbleby's one hour, one minister discussion into a sofa-based melting pot which did neither the presenter nor the audience any favours.   When Dimbleby left soon after, ITV attempted a return to the highbrow with Andrew Rawnsley fronting "The Sunday Edition", but this was scheduled into oblivion before the channel decided to jettison its national political programming altogether.   An unwise move for many reasons, not least because they don't now have a seasoned political heavyweight to front their version of leaders debate - luckily for them,  Alistair Stewart is more than up to the job.   Channel Four, inexplicably, has not scheduled a regular political programme for more than a decade.

As for next year's debates, I might be pleasantly surprised by the way in which they engage with and mobilise a mass audience.   Yet even if they succeed on that level, will the viewing public be any better informed by the time credits begin to roll?