[DTV]

IIRC the whole concept of these election debates have their roots in the presidential debates they have in the US, and have done for the last sixty odd years. There may have been a reason why we never had them before IIRC 2010, and I think they're so American in nature and its just not the sort of thing we really do that well over here.

I know we've sort of tooted the idea off and on as well since the 60s, but nothing ever got off the ground. Tonight just proves the point; its such a stilted format compressed into a short timescale and if you remember the 2010 incarnation had 76 "rules" to it, and it was so dry it was practically suffocating.

The reason the idea got delayed was that Granada tried a studio debate with party representatives (not leaders) in 1959 and the audience got so angry with the politicians that the parties simply refused to do any TV with an audience for nearly twenty years afterwards. When the idea came around again, as it is generally thought to be a better opportunity for the candidate who is behind, the candidate who was ahead simply found ways to avoid them - e.g., in 1997, there was prolonged negotiation about rules and candidate inclusion (Labour wanted Ashdown present, knowing the Tories didn't), with Labour then creating an arbitrary deadline for things to be agreed.

2010 was an exception because Brown was behind, Cameron concerned about not looking prime ministerial and Clegg happy to be there - so all parties saw benefits in agreeing, which was done months in advance. Subsequently, we're in a sort of weird middle-ground where they 'have' to happen, but someone always doesn't really want to do them, leading to late and botched arrangements. In the end, it just becomes another demeaning spectacle of people yelling soundbites each other, like a higher profile PMQs. Once the novelty wore off, it was clear they're not really of much value.