Duncan Hamilton: Cameron and Scotland the big losers in debate

Published on Saturday 17 April 2010 20:59

AT TIMES, watching the first Leaders Debate, it felt that Scotland was already independent.

The quip from Alex Salmond afterwards that half of the debate could have carried the usual TV description "Except for viewers in Scotland" might be an amusing aside, but it makes its own point – this debate was almost entirely about the hopes and concerns of Middle England.

Hardly surprising in a way, given that the debate was held in Manchester and Rule 4 of the 76 Rules governing this contest stipulates that the audience will be recruited "within a 30 mile radius of the host city". Genius really – don't explicitly rule out non-English voters in the audience, just introduce a geographical exclusion zone and make sure the debates are all based in England. The next two are in Bristol and the Midlands. If my map reading is right, the Bristol venue might just allow organisers to squeeze a confused pensioner from Newport into the audience, but, that apart, these audiences will be entirely and exclusively made up of English voters.

If the parties really believed in re-energising democracy and truly wanted to emphasise this apparently united kingdom of ours, there should have been four debates – in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. Have Brown, Cameron and Clegg at each of them and rotate an invitation to others, like Alex Salmond, Ieuan Wyn Jones, Peter Robinson and Martin McGuiness when the roadshow reaches their locality. Not only is that a fair and accurate representation of the reality of the modern UK constitutional position, it would be much better telly.

But it wasn't just the location and the audience which irked me, it was the content. Look closely – four of the eight questions asked were on policy areas specifically devolved to Holyrood. Moreover, and some poor sod has timed this, 40 minutes of the debate was spent on matters controlled by the Scottish Parliament. To add to the Anglo-centric charade, we had a range of handpicked questions which simply pretended that devolution had not happened. Even when Alistair Stewart, the slightly overexcited ITV presenter, reminded us all that a particular matter was explicitly devolved, it didn't make any difference. Only seconds after being told that policing was devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, one goldfish questioner cited burglary in Burnley (which just can't be a lucrative pastime) and wanted to know what the candidates were going to do to stop this happening "in towns like this all over the UK". Alan from Accrington then asked about care for the elderly, despite the explicit statement from Alistair Stewart moments beforehand that the matter was devolved to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. This wasn't slack and impromptu questioning from the audience; these questions had been submitted in advance and carefully selected by ITV. Why were these questions allowed?

Alternatively, if these debates are indeed to explicitly exclude Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish representation, is it really too much to ask that the questions are solely about genuinely reserved matters? The first debate was about domestic affairs – so rather than trample across the devolved areas, why not ask about reserved matters like ID cards, the necessary revolution in welfare and benefit payments or the pensions crisis? What about constitutional and voting reform? What about the challenges posed by multi-ethnic Britain? Anyone interested in rural issues like the cost of fuel? Those are all reserved matters which might have engaged the interest of the entire UK audience rather than the obsession on a largely English domestic agenda.

What adds to the frustration is the absurd overreaction to Nick Clegg. Yes, a decent enough bloke put in reasonable performance in a TV debate. But is that sufficient to justify his party support jumping through the roof? Some polls now have the Lib Dems at 30 per cent and ahead of Labour.

All that tells me is that in a context where voters are repelled by Westminster scandals and an apparently corrupt political system, any basically coherent third party voice will be well received. In a Scottish context, for example, I have absolutely no doubt SNP inclusion would have led to the party ratings soaring. Instead, we see the Lib Dems left unchallenged to tap into a rich vein of anti-establishment support.

The bigger point is this: if these debates are going to have such a disproportionate impact on voting intention and media coverage then there is an absolute imperative that they accurately reflect the reality of modern politics in the UK. That means the inclusion of a wider selection of parties. It means hosting the debates around the UK. It means respecting and enforcing the divisions between what is reserved and what is devolved. It means ending the lazy assumption by metropolitan broadcasters that it is somehow acceptable to foist debates about exclusively English policing, health and education on to a confused Scottish audience.

On the plus side, the fact the debates happened at all was terrific. Nervous candidates being exposed to close analysis is what keeps democracy alive and politicians honest. We saw what that pressure did to David Cameron. For me, he was lost. He looked timid and uneasy. He is at his best when he is positively taking a stance on something. But that confidence and that purpose were entirely absent. He seemed reluctant either to engage with Gordon Brown in a political fire-fight or to adopt a positive, upbeat message to rival Nick Clegg. Either approach would have had merit – adopting neither made him seem far from leadership material.

So there you have it: Cameron and Scotland the big losers from the debate. Something in common, at last.