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 deputy web editor at the New Statesman.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.