Dave should do the job interview if he still wants the job

Groupthink is dangerous. It can lead to disasters like the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961, or embarrassments such as the “non-election” of October 2007. Leadership teams need to test their thinking rigorously, making sure that someone (not always the same person) performs the devil’s advocate role, asking uncomfortable questions: “How do you know? Are you sure? What if you are wrong?”, and so on.

It is not obvious that anyone is playing that role in David Cameron’s top team. If someone was he would not have got into such a mess over the question of the TV debates. Even now, there are over-confident assertions and self-satisfied briefings emerging from the Tory campaign to the effect that the fuss will blow over, that voters don’t really care, this is all part of a masterplan and aren’t we all clever? Groupthink. It is not a pretty sight.

If the plan was always not to take part in any debates then that could have been announced a while ago. This would have killed the story after a brief period of criticism lasting no more than a day or two. Cameron could have said that, on reflection, he felt the debates did not help the voters form a better understanding of the issues, and that they were a distraction. He wanted a clearer and more vigorous election campaign uninterrupted by the excessive hype, spin and expectation management which surrounded them. Opponents would have whinged, but the story would have died.

As it is, the Conservatives continue to pretend that the Prime Minister wants to take part in one debate, only before the manifestos have been published – a fairly meaningless proposal. He refuses to go along with the broadcasters’ schedule and most importantly will not take part in a head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband. His “strategists” brief that they do not want to give the Labour leader a chance to improve his poor personal ratings by allowing him to introduce himself properly to the nation without being misrepresented by newspapers or shouted down by 300 Tory MPs.

This really isn’t all that clever. It is too arrogant by half. Team Cameron may console themselves with data which suggest the debates are not registering as a significant issue for voters. But when the broadcasts take place – and it seems likely that at least some programmes will go out – the Prime Minister’s absence will be noticed. It will be a general election campaign that the Prime Minister felt he didn’t have to show up for. This will not go down well.

It is not just the thought of a better-than-expected Miliband which troubles Lynton Crosby et al. Part two of the debates nightmare is Nigel Farage jabbing a finger at a red-faced Dave and denouncing him for failing on immigration and being incredible on Europe. In fact, the idea of sharing a stage with Farage is possibly even more troubling to the Tories than the potential unveiling of the real Ed Miliband.

Making a “final offer” to the broadcasters which could never have been accepted was not wise. It was the opposite of wise. It was stupid. But nobody in Team Dave seems to have said so, or, perhaps, was allowed to say so. One of the hazards of groupthink is that self-censorship can take place. The truth is never heard.

In organisations this sort of suppression of reality is what can provoke whistleblowers into going public with their concerns. Quite a lot of loyal Westminster voices are saluting Dave’s tactical genius over the debates, and rejecting any criticism with that trusty upper middle class put-down – that it is all “boring”. But a couple of hours of free hits against the Tories live on national television during the debates that do run will not be as boring as all that. They will do serious harm to the Conservatives’ chances. You can’t get appointed to a job if you don’t turn up to the interview. (But perhaps this point has passed the PM by. After all, he hasn’t had to bother with too many job interviews in his life.)

Viewers will draw their own conclusions: that the Prime Minister does not want to defend his record, that he does not want to be held to account, that he thinks he is above it all, and should be returned to No 10 without too much fuss. He accuses his main opponent of being weak, but is too scared to take him on. Dave has got himself into a hole and is continuing to dig.

He should do a U turn, Matthew d’Ancona writes in the Guardian today, and he is right, he should. But will he? It is highly – what’s the word? – debateable.