The televised Conservative leadership debate – inappropriate and embarrassing

YouTube has a curious habit of “recommending” videos for people to watch. And, so it was, I found myself watching a few 2-min long snippets of Channel 4’s recent Conservative leadership debate hosted by Krishnan Guru-Murthy (YouTube link).

I think this is unedifying and embarrassing – as well as bizarre in our constitutional framework. I write about both aspects in the below sections.

✲✲✲

Unedifying

Writing in the FT, Sebastian Payne remarked that the: 

“Conservative leadership contests are unedifying affairs and this year’s is particularly on brand. From venomous gossip about the contenders to the crafty game of undermining a dangerous rival by mobilising support for weaker opponents, the 358 Tory MPs deciding the next UK prime minister are playing politics at its dirtiest.” (FT.com)

I completely agree. Since when have parties subjected themselves to such a televised circus of airing dirty linen in public. To my mind, the Conservative leadership process ought to be confined to MPs only. I would much prefer the election process resemble the election of the Pope by the College of Cardinals in the papal conclave.

I think stretching the leadership election process to encompass a procession of televised debates – in front of howling and booing crowds – until two candidates are left standing significantly reduces the tone of the practice. Introducing TV audiences radically shifts the psychology and the demagogy index among contenders & reduces the content to the lowest common denominator. Such a format does not lend itself to critical thinking or subtle or sophisticated arguments of economic policy, as an example. 

This explains the FT editorial:

The Conservative party’s contest to replace Boris Johnson as prime minister has an air of fantasy. Listening to the candidates, you would not know that spiralling energy costs are causing misery to households, and inflation is now broadening to most goods and services. Or that simmering disputes over pay and conditions promise a prolonged period of industrial unrest. You certainly would hear little about the UK’s longer term challenge of sluggish growth, made worse by poor planning regulations and the exit from the EU ... Instead, the candidates are competing largely on a single issue of if and when they will cut taxes. (FT.com)

This is followed by periodic and impulsive booing and applause. Not mention the moderator – in this case, Krishnan Guru-Murthy – interrupting with customary impoliteness and discourtesy: “oh come on, we need an answer. Yes, or no?” Cue: the theatrics, overruns and silly quips. These ridiculous debates lend themselves to the synthetic, misleading, and phony among us to the premiership.

✲✲✲

Our parliamentary system

Moreover, this silliness is amplified by the fact that – in our constitution – the UK is a parliamentary system – not a presidential one. 

The British people do not elect the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is the head of the government (the executive) – but not the Head of State. Our Head of State would be the Queen of England; and so, the Queen would formally appoint her Prime Minister to form the government. The Prime Minister selects members of the party to form the cabinet which sets government policy and ensures that government strategy translates into actual legislation. Our constitutional conventions determine that the Prime Minister would command the confidence of the House of Common. 

So, as you I hope you can see, these televised leadership debates are not appropriate for our system of governance.

✲✲✲

Update 20-07-2022: It seems the Conservative Party have decided to keep the leadership contest private away from the masses - as it should be.