Debate of the nation. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Are we any closer to a deal on the televised leaders' debates?

The broadcasters' new offer of a seven-way panel means the Tories are willing to negotiate.

As if the TV debates themselves (if they happen) won't be long and rambling enough, the journey to agreeing the line-up has become the most tedious saga of the general election campaign.

But it finally looks like our leaders might be coming close to an agreement. Last week, ITV and the BBC revealed that they had proposed a new line-up for the debates, with seven-way panels including the SNP, Greens and Plaid Cymru. This plan means the Conservatives, so keen for the Greens' inclusion as a potential drain on Labour support, are close to agreeing David Cameron's participation in the debates.

The Tory party chairman, Grant Shapps, has called the new plan "a lot more sensible" than the initial line-ups, which would have pitted the PM against Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage. "I think we are edging here towards something that makes more sense," he added, on the BBC's Sunday Politics.

The leader of the Greens, Natalie Bennett, has confirmed that she would represent her party in the debates, rather than the only Green MP and former leader, Caroline Lucas. She has been fighting for her party's representation in the debates for some time, and welcomes the broadcasters' new deal.

However, problems remain. The DUP's representative in Westminster, Nigel Dodds MP, calls it a "farcical situation" that his party has not been asked to participate in the multiple-party panels. His party has eight MPs. Also, the Lib Dems believe they should be represented in all four debates; the Channel 4 and Sky News offers each remain a simple Cameron/Miliband head-to-head.

With hints from Shapps that the Tories are inching towards an agreement, it looks like the Prime Minister is very likely to take part, which would mean that – in whatever configuration – the debates are well on the way to our screens.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496