David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband attend a ceremony at Buckingham Palace to mark the Duke of Edinburgh's 90th birthday on June 30, 2011. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The opportunity for Cameron to avoid the TV debates is growing

The more parties, broadcasters and papers pile in, the greater the danger of a non-agreement. 

If David Cameron was confident that he would win the TV debates, he would have already signed up for them. That he is not even willing to begin negotiations until October is evidence that he is reserving the option to avoid them. By the same measure, Ed Miliband would not be pushing for an agreement if he did not believe that he would emerge the victor. 

It is the fear that the debates would advantage one or more of his opponents that explains Cameron's hesistancy. Labour figures rightly regard them as an opportunity for Miliband to speak directly to the country, unmediated by a hostile press, and as a means of countering the Tories' financial advantage. Having performed credibly against Cameron at PMQs in his three-and-a-half years as leader of the opposition, they are confident that Miliband would surpass expectations. As the papers demonise him as the most dangerous man in Britain, voters may warm to the moderate figure who wants to freeze their energy bill and build more homes. It is Cameron, as both the Tories and Labour recognise, who has the most to lose. 

The latest attempt to inject momentum into the discussions is a joint proposal by the Guardian, the Telegraph and YouTube to host an online debate. The aim is to engage young viewers for whom the internet is the main source of news and who are alienated by traditional broadcasters. It is a worthy one. But by adding a new element to the negotiations (and encouraging others to make similar proposals) it increases the possibility that Cameron will find an excuse to avoid them altogether. A Miliband source told me: "This shows why we need the talks to begin now, with 3-3-3 as our starting point." 

Both Labour and the Lib Dems regard a repeat of the format used last time - three debates between three party leaders over three weeks - as their best hope of securing an agreement. Cameron's alternative proposal of a "2-3-5" format with a head-to-head debate between himself and Miliband (before the campaign proper begins), another with the addition of Nick Clegg, and another with the addition of Nigel Farage and the Greens' Natalie Bennett is regarded with suspicion as an attempt to muddy the waters. As Labour's Michael Dugher has pointed out: "It’s nonsensical for Cameron to say he wants to start the debates early, but the negotiations late." 

The more parties, broadcasters and papers pile in, the greater the chance that Cameron will eventually announce with faux sincerity that "We tried really hard, we really did, but it just hasn't been possible to reach an agreement." 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

An alternative Trainspotting script for John Humphrys’ Radio 4 “Choose Life” tribute

Born chippy.

Your mole often has Radio 4’s Today programme babbling away comfortingly in the background while emerging blinking from the burrow. So imagine its horror this morning, when the BBC decided to sully this listening experience with John Humphrys doing the “Choose Life” monologue from Trainspotting.

“I chose not to choose life: I chose something else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you’ve got Radio 4?” he concluded, as a nation cringed.

Introduced as someone who has “taken issue with modernity”, Humphrys launched into the film character Renton’s iconic rant against the banality of modern life.

But Humphrys’ role as in-studio curmudgeon is neither endearing nor amusing to this mole. Often tasked with stories about modern technology and digital culture by supposedly mischievous editors, Humphrys sounds increasingly cranky and ill-informed. It doesn’t exactly make for enlightening interviews. So your mole has tampered with the script. Here’s what he should have said:

“Choose life. Choose a job and then never retire, ever. Choose a career defined by growling and scoffing. Choose crashing the pips three mornings out of five. Choose a fucking long contract. Choose interrupting your co-hosts, politicians, religious leaders and children. Choose sitting across the desk from Justin Webb at 7.20 wondering what you’re doing with your life. Choose confusion about why Thought for the Day is still a thing. Choose hogging political interviews. Choose anxiety about whether Jim Naughtie’s departure means there’s dwindling demand for grouchy old men on flagship political radio shows. Choose a staunch commitment to misunderstanding stories about video games and emoji. Choose doing those stories anyway. Choose turning on the radio and wondering why the fuck you aren’t on on a Sunday morning as well. Choose sitting on that black leather chair hosting mind-numbing spirit-crushing game shows (Mastermind). Choose going over time at the end of it all, pishing your last few seconds on needlessly combative questions, nothing more than an obstacle to that day’s editors being credited. Choose your future. Choose life . . .”

I'm a mole, innit.