Let’s (not) have a heated debate!

Things could be about to get tricky for fans of yobbery and public school twittishness. The Speaker, John Bercow, has made his displeasure about behaviour during Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) known to the party leaders, and at least one of them, Ed Miliband, has expressed his support for that point of view. This has been the cue for some predictable as well as some more convincing counter-arguments about the value of our traditionally “robust” parliamentary procedures.

Meanwhile, speculation grows about the chances of party leader debates taking place during next year’s general election campaign. First up will be a Clegg/Farage head to head on the EU, with David Cameron apparently “too busy” to take part, and Miliband possibly staying away to keep the pressure on for a three-way party leader debate during the general election campaign, on the same model as in 2010.

I agree with The Independent’s John Rentoul – the chances of leader debates happening again like last time are pretty slim (JR actually suggested the chances are zero). However hard the broadcasters push for it, and no matter how much Clegg and Miliband try to shame Cameron into joining them on stage, I doubt it will happen. In 2010 it was in every party leader’s interest to take part. This time Cameron will have a track record to defend, something – see PMQs – he is clearly unhappy doing. He will also be keen to avoid giving Miliband a national platform and granting him almost equal status. In a TV debate Cameron won’t have 300 delightful colleagues sitting behind him ready to shout down everything his opponent says, or hurling personal abuse.

So I expect there will be intractable disagreement – over the timing, structure or format of the debates, allowing Cameron to pull out. And he will happily take some bad publicity for 48 hours early in the campaign rather than give Miliband a chance to introduce himself properly to the electorate. Remember how (brief-lived) Cleggmania killed Tory momentum last time, and snatched the mantle of “change candidate” away from the Tory leader? And there’s another thing about the debates, of course: Dave wasn’t actually very good at them. 2010 may turn out to be a one-off.

So what about PMQs? While he was busy denying William Hague or Michael Howard the chance of a TV debate, Tony Blair used to declare: “We’re debating now, aren’t we?!” whenever the question came up. But Speaker Bercow is right: PMQs have now gone beyond a joke. We get a series of planted, patsy (non-)questions from one side, and minimal attempt from the PM to answer the questions that come in from the opposition. It is an almost complete waste of everybody’s time, presenting a pretty miserable image of politics to the country. Prime Minister Miliband might be able to help improve the tone and content of PMQs, but significant change before the election is unlikely. Cameron is prepared only to attack, not answer, and thus the futile shouting and name-calling will continue.

Must our politics be so grim and degenerate? I don’t think so. Watching the repeated coverage of the February 1974 election on the BBC Parliament channel the other day you were reminded of another time, when politicians were a little less heavily scripted, less spun, more spontaneous, and generally rather more credible. They had the confidence to be themselves and speak plainly (admittedly this was the post-election moment when bluster and pretences are usually dropped). But people were even smoking in the TV studio! Happy days.

We may not get our party leader debates at the next election. PMQs may remain a dire shouting match for the next 14 months. But, bit by bit, a new, refreshed politics may start to emerge – one in which a more serious and more honest assessment of our problems might be on offer. Unlike last time, this really could be a change election. Something better is coming.

I hope.