20-02-2024, 12:41 PM
(20-02-2024, 10:53 AM)Adsales Wrote: Ofcom is entirely right to investigate. The issue is not with Sunak "answering" questions from the audience; it is with the requirements set out in rules 5.11 and 5.12.
The programme naturally dealt with numerous matters which meet the definition of "major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy" (NHS, small boats, inflation, Israel/Gaza etc.)
That by default means that opposing views ("a wide range of significant views") must be provided either in the programme or in a "clearly linked and timely" programme. Neither happened here. Sunak was allowed to "answer" all questions and claim "Labour don't have a plan". Unopposed.
Of course one could argue that the questions themselves should be challenging and therefore present opposing views but that of course was not the case either (with the exception of the bizarre vaccine injury disruption). It of course could not be the case as the audience was made up of "Don't Knows" which naturally means the majority were 2019 Conservative voters who have turned away from the party either to Reform or to "I can't be bothered anymore". Every single poll clearly shows that Labour has held on to almost all of its 2019 voters while the Tories have only held on to approximately 30%. The 70% who indicate they will no longer vote Conservative are split 75% Reform or will not vote vs 25% any other party.
The argument of having offered Starmer the same kind of show is of course moot - even if he were to agree to take part at some point, that pogramme would neither be clearly linked to Sunak's nor would it be shown in a timely manner. And it still leaves the issue that Sunak was able to have an hour of an unopposed political broadcast.
On the face of it, a programme like it has not previously been broadcast in the UK. Interviews or Q&A session with individual party leaders (e.g.during conference season or during an election campaign) are always broadcast within days of each other (i.e. clearly linked... so much so that the host clearly states date and time of the next programme at the end).
The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no reason to believe a programme with Kier Starmer wouldn’t have been shown in a timely manner had Starmer agreed to such a programme. As Kier Starmer hadn’t agreed to appear at the time of broadcast it would have been impossible for GBNews to state the time of any such appearance as there was nothing arranged. As long as broadcasters give both parties a reasonable window in which to decide whether they want to appear before the programmes are scheduled and the offer remains open to those who initially decline it is entirely reasonable for broadcasters to go ahead with programmes featuring those who are willing to appear even if this means some parties get more airtime than others (as the alternative would mean political parties could veto appearances on programmes that they believe are likely to be beneficial to the other side).