Letter: Format choice for electoral TV debates

Lord Holme
Wednesday 02 July 1997 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: Tony Hall (chief executive, BBC News) and Anne Sloman (chief political adviser to the BBC) have written a thoughtful and, from my perspective, generally accurate account of the negotiations for a leaders' TV debate during the election ("The televised debate that never was", 2 July).

However, in the doubts they express as to whether the parties really wanted a debate they may have done less than justice to the Liberal Democrat position. We regarded such a TV debate unequivocally as an enhancement of democratic understanding and participation, and have long thought it should form a part of British general elections.

Where we were not happy was at the original proposals for the exclusion of Paddy Ashdown from face-to-face participation alongside Tony Blair and John Major, particularly since equivalent debates in other countries readily include three or four party leaders. Even there we were prepared to compromise to some extent, as the authors related.

As to the future, they are surely right to urge consideration now on the basis of format and participation next time. The public interest should not be subordinated to the shifting needs of partisanship. The broadcasters and party representatives alike should put their heads together in the early years of this Parliament, possibly under the aegis of a non-partisan body such as the Hansard Society, to see if there is a better way forward than frantic last-minute horse-trading.

Lord HOLME of Cheltenham

House of Lords

London SW1

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in