Audience participation welcome
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
However much you're enjoying the leaders' debates on TV - and I'm one of the many who watched again last night - there is a better way of doing it. In the last two weeks I've presented my Radio 5 live show from around the country where we brought together a live audience of 200 listeners and a panel of senior politicians. It was a similar set-up to the TV ones but couldn't have been more different. In Bromsgrove we debated how much the expenses scandal would affect the way people vote; in Luton, as you can see in the video above, we asked listeners which party they trusted on immigration.
TV had 76 rules including the most bizarre - silence from the studio audience. We had one - to be polite. Why don't the people who come up with the rules trust their audiences? What, God forbid, do they think they might do? Ask a good follow-up question? Demonstrate they've read a manifesto or two?
We trusted listeners to behave like intelligent adults and ask sensible questions of the politicians assembled - and guess what? They did. It also meant they reacted naturally - and so yes, we had applause when Jackie in Bromsgrove said, "I feel as though the politicians have reached into my handbag, my purse, and taken the money right out of my hand. To have a vote, to live in a democracy is a privilege and I expect exemplary behaviour from MPs".
We had laughter when UKIP explained they expected illegal immigrants to voluntarily turn up at their nearest police station to hand themselves in before being deported.
And we even had booing - to Labour on expenses and to the BNP when trying to define "white indigineous English"...all natural human emotions which added to the debate rather than distracted from it. And they are genuine debates - conversations between voters and those that campaign for their vote (it goes without saying the audience was balanced to represent all political parties fairly).
Funnily enough if you trust the audience to do their bit you also get those unpredictable, spontaneous broadcasting moments. The Deputy Chairman of the BNP was asked why his party didn't have more support. He began explaining that taking on the media, the trades unions and then the church was difficult - at which point one audience member was roused to exclaim passionately, "the church, the church? As a member of the church I fundamentally reject the arrogance, the disruptive presence that the BNP has been in this town in the last year". It was dramatic, it was tense, it made people turn their radios up.
We've got two more debates to go - one on the economy, and one on crime with the three men who want to be Home Secretary. Who knows what will happen? And that's part of the thrill.
It's only Year 1 of the TV debate experiment. What's the betting that next time an election comes round, members of the audience will be allowed to behave like human beings?
Victoria Derbyshire's programme is on 5 live weekdays from 10am - 12pm.
- On Monday April 26th, Victoria will be in Middlesbrough discussing the economy
- On Monday May 3rd, she'll be in Leeds discussing crime.
- You can watch both programmes on the 5 live website
Comment number 1.
At 20:59 23rd Apr 2010, carrie wrote:The politicians present at your broadcasts were not the leaders of their parties. It does make a difference to the election debate you speak of and wrote about in the Times today. Notwithstanding this, I really enjoyed the cut and thrust of live debate, and you were really buzzing, Victoria.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21:06 23rd Apr 2010, what wrote:A far from persuasive plea to listen to you talking over everyone. What with the BBC/Siemens "communications", the trails, hype & shouting of what's coming next - better to hold ones breath
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 21:47 23rd Apr 2010, Nick Vinehill wrote:Ref 1. Why should party leaders make any difference to the cut and style of a debate. There is an obsession with leaders in our political system because voters are supposed to think that their personalities and character traits etc will somehow influence policy and the running of the country when PM! Hence the reason behind these live stage-managed TV debates to obscure the general economic and political consensus between the three parties
Leader are just glorified by the bosses during an economic boom then turned on when thing's go wrong. When they're replaced the failed theories and policies just continue.
Immigration is not a core issue on its own. It should have been discussed along with other economic issues. It's right for the BNP to be on air as long as they're confronted on issues away from immigration. Unfortunately Mr Derby wasn't, just like Mr Griffin wasn't on that half hour phone in on Tuesday.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 23:36 23rd Apr 2010, carrie wrote:With respect Nick, the politicians on Victoria's broadcasts are not going to be the leader of the UK, at least for the time being. As far as I have heard so far, none of them are my ideal choice for PM, by the way.
The TV debates do need more animation but the point I was making was about the radio broadcasts. The spontaneity you hear from Victoria's and Livesey's programmes has been quite refreshing. They should get out of their comfort zones more often.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 07:49 25th Apr 2010, Tempus Fugit wrote:I rather think that this election has been over-done. It may just be a perception but I don't feel I've ever had an election so thoroughly rammed down my throat before. Consequently, I am all "electioned out" and fed up with the whole thing. Whichever party wins, and despite the "reforms," we'll have yet another bunch of self-serving schiesters running the country, usually into the ground or selling it out to the EU, so...
Plus ca change, as the saying goes.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 11:38 25th Apr 2010, Nick Vinehill wrote:Ref 5: Tempus. I think your perception is shared by many. I contend the reason why it's being 'shoved down people's throats' is because against a background of recession and market failure never before has there been an election that has been devoid of any serious alternative agenda. All this hype and TV stage managed leadership debates is to cover it all up.
Carrie: Absolutely right. I wasn't disagreeing with you. I'd rather see the type of debate held in Luton televised rather than these leadership debates that lack sponteneity where all the emphasis is on personalities and froth!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 19:15 26th Apr 2010, Binkie wrote:After witnessing Kay Burley's totally bizarre and tory biased, after the leaders debate performance ,on Sky last thursday I think I owe Victoria Derbyshire an apology.
Victoria's recent election debates around the country have been nothing short of great radio and she has been extremely fair to all sides.
I can't stand Victoria when she does trivia but she does excel in the political arena when she wants too.Credit where credits due.More of this in her future programmes please.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 19:41 26th Apr 2010, carrie wrote:I agree Leonard-Zelig and have posted this once or twice.
Kay Burley is just trying to counterbalance Blair's best buddy Adam Boulton. Or rather Adam Boulton, husband of Blair's best buddy.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 11:29 27th Apr 2010, Binkie wrote:Yes carrie.
Kay Burley ? Who would have thought that ' political ' interviewing could get as bad as that ?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 10:20 10th Feb 2011, Web design wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)