David Dimbleby questions wisdom of televised party leader debates

The Guardian on Friday had a story prompted by comments made by one of last year's televised pre-election debates between the three major party leaders:

They were greeted as the most important innovation in television coverage of a general election for a generation. But David Dimbleby, the host of BBC1's flagship political programme Question Time, has questioned whether the hugely popular TV party leader debates were a good thing after all.

Dimbleby, who hosted the BBC's edition of the live head-to-heads between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg last year, used an awards ceremony on Friday to warn that people could "come to regret" the advent of the TV debates, which look set to become a permanent fixture of the UK political landscape.

"The debates certainly were an innovation. They will change the way electoral campaigns are conducted, not necessarily entirely for the better," said Dimbleby in a video message to the Broadcasting Press Guild awards in central London, where the party leader debates won the innovation prize. In one way they are odd because we don't have a presidential system in Britain. We have a parliamentary system. We don't elect prime ministers, we elect parliaments and MPs; we have after all got a coalition now," he added.

"And looking back on it we introduced the debates as the three men who want to be prime minister. What are we going to do at the next election? Maybe say the two men who want to be prime minister and the one man who wants to be deputy prime minister."

Dimbleby said he also had "doubts on another score". "I would hate it if these debates stop people taking part in the kind of thing we do on Question Time. During the campaign the party leaders come in, face the voters and make their case and face fierce criticism from them," he added.

"So as an innovation we have to be a bit cautious. It was fun to do – I was lucky to be third on, actually all I had to do was try and remember the next person to speak which wasn't always that easy. But that said it's a big innovation, a big change, an exciting event and I am really grateful for this prize. I just hope it's not one of those things that you could come to regret what you wish for."

But his concerns were batted away by Sky News's political editor Adam Boulton. "All the research shows they engage people and engage young people in the political process," said Boulton after the awards at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.

"I don't think they distort the political process and I hope they are going to happen again," he added. "Obviously everyone has their own views. I think we would all like to experiment and innovate with the formats and do slightly different things. All that depends on having the confidence of the parties to do it."

Boulton said Dimbleby had "covered the political process for god knows how long, he obviously has some thoughts on the impact [of the debates] on the political process... It's an interesting question given his age and all that whether he is going to be around for the next election anyway."

Dimbleby's views did not appear to be shared either by the BBC's head of political programmes and analysis, Sue Inglish, who commented at the end of the Question Time presenter's recorded message: "That's very David, is it not?"

Inglish said it had been a "great honour" to be involved in organising the debates, which she said had been watched by nearly 22 million people, describing the combined audience as "quite extraordinary".

• The first ever UK televised leaders' debate, broadcast on ITV1 on 15 April last year, was watched by an average audience of 9.4 million viewers, a 37% share of the audience beating both Coronation Street and EastEnders.
• The second, broadcast across Sky News, the BBC News channel and Sky 3, had a combined audience of 4.1 million on 22 April, while the third - broadcast on BBC1 and hosted by Dimbleby - drew 8.4 million viewers.
• The debates were only made possible following prolonged negotiations between broadcasters and political parties which resulted in a 76-point pact on the format they would take place.

Worth noting as reporting the opinions of seasoned observers on a new facet of the Westminster general election process (one likely to be repeated!), as well as insights into the (passive) participation of the UK electorate in deciding a future government.