Ed Miliband will likely be denied the opportunity to speak to David Cameron one-on-one on air. (Photo:Getty)
Show Hide image

TV debates: Will Miliband and Cameron ever meet on screen?

A new proposal from Downing Street has thrown the debates into confusion.

The debate around debates has taken another confusing turn. James Forsyth reports that Downing Street has agreed to a single seven-way debate on 2 April.

Under a new format, Ed Miliband and David Cameron would be grilled by Jeremy Paxman before facing questions from a studio audience on Channel 4 on 26 March. Crucially, however, the two leaders would be interviewed separately – they wouldn’t tussle directly.

They would then be joined by the leaders of Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the Greens, Ukip and the Liberal Democrats on 2April. Then on 16 April there would be a so-called “challengers debate” between the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Greens and Ukip.  Finally, on 30 April, Cameron, Miliband and Nick Clegg would each have half an hour with David Dimbleby on the BBC.

There is widespread confusion. None of the smaller parties who would appear in the so-called “challengers debate” appear to have heard of the change in the rules. As for Labour, they are maintaining that they have already agree to attend the debates under the old 7-7-2 format, saying:

Based on the broadcasters’ proposals we have accepted and plan to attend all three debates on April 2nd, 16th and the 30th. If the Tories have confirmed they are to attend to one of these debates then that is progress. It is one down, two to go. But no-one should be fooled: David Cameron is still running scared of a head-to-head televised debate with Ed Miliband.”

Frankly if this new format goes ahead it will be a setback for Ed Miliband – the optics of the seven-on-seven debate will favour the Prime Minister against his opponents. (“To every question, all you would have to do is say ‘Look? This is the chaos that’s on offer’” one Tory mused recently.) And the new alternative to the one-on-one gives the Labour leader all of the disadvantages of being directly compared to David Cameron without the opportunity to take him on.

What appears to have happened is that the broadcasters, faced with the unappetising prospect of an hour of also-rans or a duel between Miliband and an empty chair, have blinked first. Cameron has avoided his two nightmare scenarios – a four-way debate with Nigel Farage and a one-on-one with Miliband. And with the Liberal Democrats appearing to accede to the new format, it looks as if Team Miliband’s dream of the head-to-head clash between their man and David Cameron simply won’t happen.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

Getty
Show Hide image

Richmond is a victory for hope - now let's bring change across the country

The regressives are building their armies. 

Last night a regressive alliance was toppled. Despite being backed by both Ukip and the Conservative Party, Zac Goldsmith was rejected by the voters of Richmond Park.

Make no mistake, this result will rock the Conservative party – and in particularly dent their plans for a hard and painful Brexit. They may shrug off this vote in public, but their majority is thin and their management of the post-referendum process is becoming more chaotic by the day. This is a real moment, and those of us opposing their post-truth plans must seize it.

I’m really proud of the role that the Green party played in this election. Our local parties decided to show leadership by not standing this time and urging supporters to vote instead for the candidate that stood the best chance of winning for those of us that oppose Brexit. Greens’ votes could very well be "what made the difference" in this election (we received just over 3,500 votes in 2015 and Sarah Olney’s majority is 1,872) - though we’ll never know exactly where they went. Just as importantly though, I believe that the brave decision by the local Green party fundamentally changed the tone of the election.

When I went to Richmond last weekend, I met scores of people motivated to campaign for a "progressive alliance" because they recognised that something bigger than just one by election is at stake. We made a decision to demonstrate you can do politics differently, and I think we can fairly say that was vindicated. 

There are some already attacking me for helping get one more Liberal Democrat into Parliament. Let me be very clear: the Lib Dems' role in the Coalition was appalling – propping up a Conservative government hell bent on attacking our public services and overseeing a hike in child poverty. But Labour’s record of their last time in office isn't immune from criticism either – not just because of the illegal war in Iraq but also their introduction of tuition fees, privatisation of our health service and slavish worship of the City of London. They, like the Liberal Democrats, stood at the last election on an austerity manifesto. There is a reason that we remain different parties, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't also seize opportunities like this to unite behind what we have in common. Olney is no perfect candidate but she has pledged to fight a hard Brexit, campaign against airport expansion and push for a fair voting system – surely progressives can agree that her win takes us forward rather than backwards?

Ultimately, last night was not just defeat of a regressive alliance but a victory for hope - a victory that's sorely needed on the back of of the division, loss and insecurity that seems to have marked much of the rest of this year. The truth is that getting to this point hasn’t been an easy process – and some people, including local Green party members have had criticisms which, as a democrat, I certainly take seriously. The old politics dies hard, and a new politics is not easy to forge in the short time we have. But standing still is not an option, nor is repeating the same mistakes of the past. The regressives are building their armies and we either make our alternative work or risk the left being out of power for a generation. 

With our NHS under sustained attack, our climate change laws threatened and the increasing risk of us becoming a tax haven floating on the edge of the Atlantic, the urgent need to think differently about how we win has never been greater. 

An anti-establishment wave is washing over Britain. History teaches us that can go one of two ways. For the many people who are utterly sick of politics as usual, perhaps the idea of politicians occasionally putting aside their differences for the good of the country is likely to appeal, and might help us rebuild trust among those who feel abandoned. So it's vital that we use this moment not just to talk among ourselves about how to work together but also as another spark to start doing things differently, in every community in Britain. That means listening to people, especially those who voted for Britain to leave the EU, hearing what they’re saying and working with them to affect change. Giving people real power, not just the illusion of it.

It means looking at ways to redistribute power and money in this country like never before, and knowing that a by-election in a leafy London suburb changes nothing for the vast majority of our country.

Today let us celebrate that the government's majority is smaller, and that people have voted for a candidate who used her victory speech to say that she would "stand up for an open, tolerant, united Britain".  But tomorrow let’s get started on something far bigger - because the new politics is not just about moments it's about movements, and it will only work if nobody is left behind.

 

Caroline Lucas is the MP for Brighton Pavilion.