Philip Johnston

The Lib Dems’ position is illiberal and undemocratic. The PM must debate with Jo Swinson on TV and say so

Call me old fashioned, but I’m not a great fan of TV debates during the general election. To be honest, I was not entirely enamoured of letting the cameras into the Commons 30 years ago this month, though I appreciate that was a somewhat niche Luddite position that was never going to hold.

It was ironic that the first televised speech in Parliament was made by the Conservative MP Ian Gow, who had long opposed the innovation. When he gave the backbench response to the Queen’s Speech in November 1989, he was still not reconciled to the cameras’ presence.

Moreover, he had received some unsolicited advice asserting that “the impression you make on television depends mainly on your image (55 per cent) with your voice and body language accounting for 38 per cent of your impact. Only 7 per cent depends on what you are actually saying.” Gow, murdered by the IRA the following year, was not impressed.

But while Parliament succumbed, election campaigns remained free of Us-style leaders’ debates despite the efforts of broadcasters to persuade party leaders to agree. Usually, it was the candidate most confident of winning who was least keen on the idea. Why risk walking into a hole if you are strolling to victory?

There had been talk of TV election debates since 1964, so by 1997 it was assumed the new, modern Labour Party could not possibly resist the opportunity. But Tony Blair was heading for a landslide and did not need the profile. Cursory negotiations between the parties and the broadcasters broke down, with each side blaming the other.

In 2001, Blair again ducked out, inviting charges of cowardice that made not the slightest difference to the most boring campaign of modern times. A mere 12 seats changed hands between the three main parties and Labour romped home.

The same happened in 2005. Labour objected that TV debates risked masking the issues because they are geared to Us-style elections; and so they are. Ours is a parliamentary democracy; but there is no point pretending that it has not become increasingly presidential.

The dam finally broke in 2010 and three leader debates were staged between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, watched by 10 million viewers. The opener brutally reminded the two big party leaders why they had resisted for so long as the Lib Dem leader played them off against one another. “I agree with Nick,” became the catchphrase of the election. The Lib Dems surged in the polls.

They did not make the same mistake in 2015 and negotiated instead a complex series of TV appearances that at one point had seven party leaders on the platform, dissipating the impact. The final “debate” saw Mr Cameron, Ed Miliband and Mr Clegg make separate pitches to a BBC Question Time audience. It was notable for the heckling of Mr Miliband when he insisted that the previous Labour government had not spent too much.

In 2017, the Conservatives agreed to a seven-way TV debate but the strangely uncommunicative Theresa May didn’t turn up, sending Amber Rudd instead. Mrs May explained that she preferred “taking questions and meeting people” on the campaign trail rather than “squabbling” with other politicians. That worked well.

So here we are with another general election campaign, the fourth in less than 10 years, amid renewed controversy over whether there should be TV debates and if so in what form. There is some talk of another seven-way encounter, which surely is a triumph of hope over expectation. They make a lot of noise while shedding little light.

But the proposed double-header between Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, to the exclusion of Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, is outrageous. This is a Brexit election, after all. How can the leader of the one party unequivocally in favour of staying in the EU not be invited? Broadcasters may relish the gladiatorial spectacle of the two big hitters going head-to-head but it does their viewers a disservice.

Of course, Mr Corbyn is anxious for the election not to be about Brexit given his party’s Byzantine policy on the issue. He wants to replicate the 2017 campaign, focusing on public services, especially the NHS. For his part, Mr Johnson wants to make this an “it’s him or me” election, the same ploy that Mrs May tried two years ago.

But this is not like 2017. At that election, when an Opinium survey asked voters what they were “most likely” to base their vote on, just 19 per cent said Brexit. This time the figure is an extraordinary 40 per cent. So this is a Brexit election; and if there is to be a TV debate all shades of opinion must be represented. Indeed, Nigel Farage should be involved since he maintains that Boris’s deal is not Brexit. Whether you agree with him, he has a point and is fielding candidates nationally.

ITV has proposed a debate on November 19 with just the two main party leaders. What is the argument against Ms Swinson’s participation? That she can’t win? Who is to judge that, however fanciful? Is it that the country has already voted to leave and no one who wants Brexit reversed is allowed to have a say?

Yes, the stand the Lib Dems are taking is both illiberal and antidemocratic. But that is not the point. If there is going to be a leaders’ debate, Ms Swinson is entitled to be in it. If Mr Johnson and Mr Corbyn think her policy on Brexit is unacceptable then they can say so to her face.

She has called it an establishment stitch-up motivated by sexism and has threatened to sue ITV if it screens the debate without her. Sky has now stepped in to invite Ms Swinson to debate with Messrs Johnson and Corbyn, though they have yet to agree. We know what they fear: that Nick Clegg moment from 2010.

Ms Swinson, a 39-year-old mother, only took up the post a few months ago and is almost unknown in the country. A TV debate would give her the profile she desperately needs and which the Tories and Labour are equally determined to stop her getting. The broadcasters should not conspire in these political machinations. It should be Sky’s proposal for a three-way debate or better still, invite Mr Farage as well – and watch the others run a mile.