Cathy Newman: To restore faith and trust in politics, these debates must work

When ITV bosses were preparing for last week’s televised election debate, every last detail was taken care of. There were no fewer than 28 clauses in the rules of engagement. Even the podium heights were measured to ensure that the shorter, slighter women in the debate weren’t at a disadvantage. Was this lowest common denominator politics or a fair reflection of our fragmented democracy?

Certainly the myriad hoops broadcasters and politicians have had to jump through to get these “debates” — if that is the right word — on air have proved deeply frustrating to all concerned.

As Kay Burley, the Sky presenter, puts it: “I think it was challenging for everybody. I am not sure any party was completely happy but we got through it. It was an audience-puller, and now it’s set the trend.”

The Channel 4/Sky programme presented by Burley and Jeremy Paxman the week before the ITV show wasn’t a debate at all, thanks to the refusal of the Prime Minister to agree to a head-to-head clash. The one advantage was it allowed Paxman to do the kind of forensic questioning and follow-ups strictly prohibited by the ITV format. But if Paxman and Burley were relatively free from constraints (just the usual Ofcom broadcasting rules), that presented problems too. Burley was accused of bias after interrupting Ed Miliband as he took questions from the floor.

To those watching, it looked as if producers had decided during the ad break that the audience questions to David Cameron were a bit lacklustre, and had instructed Burley to pep it up a bit. Actually, Burley tells me the change of tack was driven by Miliband himself.

“I’d chatted to Ed Miliband during the ad break after the PM’s stint,” she recalls. “He seemed a bit more unsure … We got through six questions with Cameron. I said: ‘Do you want to rattle through a few more? I may have to interrupt you a little more’. As a result, I thought he won that section by interacting and showing what a down-to-earth bloke he was. In my opinion, Cameron fared better with Paxman.”

Such spontaneity was strictly off the cards the following week on ITV. The seven speakers were not only kept in check by the authoritative Julie Etchingham but by a welter of rules and regulations. The speaking order on four questions, and the opening and closing remarks, followed a predetermined grid. Answers were timed down to the last nanosecond.

Five years ago, these debates were held up as a way “to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics”. It was Cameron who said that, before he decided he might have too much to lose. Listening to last week’s cacophonous contribution to the election campaign, faith and trust weren’t the first words that sprung to mind. And yet people were engaged, with 7.4 million tuning in to the ITV debate — making it the channel’s most watched programme of the year.

So imperfect as they are, they’re here to stay, as Cameron has in the past himself admitted. (He also helpfully pointed out that “they even happen in Mongolia, for heaven’s sake, and it’s part of the modern age we should be in”.) Burley agrees: “We’ve now set the trend. From now on, we will see leaders’ debates. Let’s see those pesky politicians try to wriggle out of them if they dare.”

Now the next instalment is nearly upon us — a “challengers’ debate” involving all of last week’s participants, minus the Prime Minister and his deputy. There are nerves in the Labour camp that, like the nerd in the playground, Ed Miliband is going to get a kicking from the naughty boys and girls who refuse to do what they’re told.