Ofcom decision on leaders' debate underlines conservative attitudes in UK
Posted on January 8th, 2015
Ofcom's provisional decision that the Green Party isn't big enough (legally speaking) to deserve a place in the pre-election leaders' debate underlines how conservative Britain is when it comes to party politics.
The decision, still subject to further consultation from 'stakeholders' would mean that ITV, BBC and Sky are free to exclude Natalie Bennett from the leaders' debate. The way broadcasting regulation works is that only pre-designated "major parties" are entitled to "due weight" in the coverage of an election period.
In other words, the law does not enshrine the right of all political parties to receive due weight in terms of broadcast coverage. This is something only large parties are legally entitled to demand. If your party doesn't fit the bill, broadcasters are free to ignore you, if they elect to do so.
Admittedly regulating fairness in the media is a thankless task and there is only so much regulatory bodies can be expected to achieve. However, the way the law is drafted only serves to entrench the status quo and acts as a further obstacle for smaller parties. The requirement that a party meets the definition of "major" before being entitled to a fair share of the media pie means that broadcasters are free to deny small to medium sized political parties the oxygen of mainstream media coverage.
These small to medium parties have to battle to win sufficient levels of support first. Only after earning "major" status are they legally entitled to equal coverage around the elections.
Ofcom's broadcasting code reflects conservative attitudes in general towards party politics in the UK. The established parties are deeply ingrained in the public's consciousness and it is only since the last election that voters have seriously started to consider parties outside of the big 3 (plus the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland).
This isn't the case in other countries, where party politics is dynamic, with new parties forming all the time to reflect new attitudes. An example is the rapid rise of Podemos in Spain, which didn't even exist at the beginning of March 2014 yet nevertheless went on to win 5 seats in the European elections. The Nordic countries have multi-party systems and tend to be relaxed about coalition governments.
The decision to freeze out the Green Party from prime time media coverage is clearly wrong. The party isn't new, but it is undoubtedly gaining in popularity, with its members doubling in numbers last year. Young progressive voters unconvinced by Labour and repelled by the alternatives are naturally gravitating in the party's direction.
At present the migration of voters towards the Greens isn't quite on a par with the rapid rise of UKIP, but then again the Green Party can only dream of the kind of exposure UKIP has received over the past year.
In justifying its decision, Ofcom referred to the fact that UKIP performed much more strongly than the Greens in the 2014 local and European elections, but that was largely down to the fact the UKIP received wall-to-wall coverage in the build-up to those elections, including a televised debate between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg. Despite making gains in the European elections (and overtaking the Lib Dems in the process) the Greens were largely ignored as the post-election media coverage obsessed over UKIP's gains.
The decision, still subject to further consultation from 'stakeholders' would mean that ITV, BBC and Sky are free to exclude Natalie Bennett from the leaders' debate. The way broadcasting regulation works is that only pre-designated "major parties" are entitled to "due weight" in the coverage of an election period.
In other words, the law does not enshrine the right of all political parties to receive due weight in terms of broadcast coverage. This is something only large parties are legally entitled to demand. If your party doesn't fit the bill, broadcasters are free to ignore you, if they elect to do so.
Admittedly regulating fairness in the media is a thankless task and there is only so much regulatory bodies can be expected to achieve. However, the way the law is drafted only serves to entrench the status quo and acts as a further obstacle for smaller parties. The requirement that a party meets the definition of "major" before being entitled to a fair share of the media pie means that broadcasters are free to deny small to medium sized political parties the oxygen of mainstream media coverage.
These small to medium parties have to battle to win sufficient levels of support first. Only after earning "major" status are they legally entitled to equal coverage around the elections.
Ofcom's broadcasting code reflects conservative attitudes in general towards party politics in the UK. The established parties are deeply ingrained in the public's consciousness and it is only since the last election that voters have seriously started to consider parties outside of the big 3 (plus the nationalist parties in Wales and Scotland).
This isn't the case in other countries, where party politics is dynamic, with new parties forming all the time to reflect new attitudes. An example is the rapid rise of Podemos in Spain, which didn't even exist at the beginning of March 2014 yet nevertheless went on to win 5 seats in the European elections. The Nordic countries have multi-party systems and tend to be relaxed about coalition governments.
The decision to freeze out the Green Party from prime time media coverage is clearly wrong. The party isn't new, but it is undoubtedly gaining in popularity, with its members doubling in numbers last year. Young progressive voters unconvinced by Labour and repelled by the alternatives are naturally gravitating in the party's direction.
At present the migration of voters towards the Greens isn't quite on a par with the rapid rise of UKIP, but then again the Green Party can only dream of the kind of exposure UKIP has received over the past year.
In justifying its decision, Ofcom referred to the fact that UKIP performed much more strongly than the Greens in the 2014 local and European elections, but that was largely down to the fact the UKIP received wall-to-wall coverage in the build-up to those elections, including a televised debate between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg. Despite making gains in the European elections (and overtaking the Lib Dems in the process) the Greens were largely ignored as the post-election media coverage obsessed over UKIP's gains.
The decision to give UKIP so much airtime is almost entirely down to Nigel Farage, who seems to be able to guarantee high viewing figures. There can be no doubt it is for this same reason that UKIP, and not the Greens, will feature on the leaders' debate. Natalie Bennett hasn't been able to establish a strong individual media profile yet.
But while it may make commercial sense to exclude the Greens, is it good for democracy? Of course not. The proposed line-up is blatantly skewed to the right, with two clearly rightwing parties (UKIP, Tories) and only one centre-left party (Labour), the Lib Dems providing some kind of ballast in between. So far only David Cameron has commented on the unfairly imbalanced line-up (albeit for his own selfish reasons), but it is there for everyone to see. Ed Miliband knows it too but would rather save his own skin than speak out.
Clearly a progressive, leftwing voice is needed to ensure a balanced argument and to ensure that neo-liberal views on privatisation and austerity are adequately challenged. Voters also deserve the chance to hear alternative proposals on issues such as investment in a greener economy, the NHS and the disastrous state of public transport.
In a debate dominated by middle-aged, middle-class men, I think the majority of the public would also find it refreshing to hear from the lone female voice out of the 5 leaders.
If the law is supposed to guarantee members of the public hear a broad range of balanced views in the leaders' debate, it clearly isn't working.
You can add your own comments to the Ofcom consultation here.
