There has been a fair bit of chat in recent weeks about the prospect of a televised leaders’ debate in the run-up to the next general election. This sort of chat always comes up in the run-up to any election, but there appears to be an extra momentum this time round.

It seems as though the promise by Sky News to televise a debate come what may — even if the debate was between tubs of lard — has forced everyone’s hand, broadcasters and political parties alike. It seems as though now it is going to happen, with the involvement of all the major broadcasters. It also appears as though the three main party leaders are on board (albeit with varying degrees of enthusiasm).

The end of the issue? Of course not. This is just the beginning of the matter. More details will need to be fleshed out. What format should such a debate take? Will there be a number of separate debates? And what about the role of smaller parties?

I am normally fairly ambivalent about calls for televised political debates. Those politicians who call for such a debate usually do so because they perceive that it would advantage them.

Someone like David Cameron will go for it because he is a confident performer, the momentum is behind him and the media appears to have declared him the winner already. Someone like Gordon Brown will reject it because he does not come across so well on television. This time he has been forced into it, partly because of Sky News’ promise to “empty chair” him if he didn’t, but also because refusing to appear would further the idea that Brown is a coward with poor leadership qualities.

The prospect of a televised political debate fills me with dread rather than excitement. I doubt it does much for democratic accountability. Part of me suspects that vain politicians just crave appearances on the television.

No doubt we will be served up a rather unedifying spectacle, like PMQs on steroids. I predict Punch and Judy politics a-plenty. Most likely, as with Question Time, it will be a platform for the most appalling demagoguery, complete with an audience that will clap like seals at any old nonsense.

Most of all, I think the idea of a leaders’ debate just misses the point. While it is useful to know what the major party leaders think, focusing on leaders too much is damaging to the health of our parliamentary democracy. Once again, there is a clamour to bring to Britain a feature of US politics which is a square peg in a round hole.

Televised debates are highly popular in the USA. But that is because the format is practically ready-made for the US political system. For one, the US system is a Presidential system, meaning that voters actually do elect the country’s leader. The US system is also a truly two-party system, with two Leviathans totally overshadowing any minority candidates. This makes it easy to adopt a one-on-one, head-to-head debating format.

Even though the televised debate is more-or-less a perfect fit for a US Presidential election, the format’s success is a matter for debate. In years gone by it may have provided some election-defining moments. But as I recall, the debates involving Barack Obama and John McCain, and Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, hardly set the world alight.

So what on earth makes anyone think that this gimmick will suit British politics? It seems like just another outcome of politicos’ obsession with America. It seems like the idea of someone who has mistaken his DVD box set of The West Wing for real pornography.

Our Parliamentary system doesn’t — or at least shouldn’t — place so much focus on party leaders. Very few voters will actually have any sort of say on who the Prime Minister is. I will have the option to vote for or against Gordon Brown, but only because I happen to live in his constituency of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. I will have no say whatsoever on David Cameron or Nick Clegg.

And what of the smaller parties? In the UK, broadcasters are required to be impartial in the run-up to an election, meaning that legally broadcasters will find it difficult to lock out the small parties. Even if these other parties have little or no chance of forming the government. Even if most viewers will not be as interested in hearing from these parties.

The most noise is being made by the SNP. They are threatening legal action if an SNP representative is unable to play a part in a televised leaders’ debate.

The SNP may have a point. Even though they have only a handful of MPs, and are only contesting seats in a portion of the UK, they have a lot of support in that portion. They are not a loony fringe party. They are in fact in government in the UK. Viewers north of the border will certainly be interested to hear what the SNP have to say in the run-up to the election.

At the same time, their presence may be a distraction from the real purpose of the debate, which is basically to watch the potential future Prime Ministers partake in a spot of verbal mud-wrestling. It is, after all, a “leaders’ debate”. Despite all his ambition, Alex Salmond is highly unlikely to be the next Prime Minister, as is Angus Robertson.

Yet, what if there is the prospect of a hung Parliament? The collapse in Labour support has not been met with a real surge in support for the Conservatives. With so many parties having moderate levels of support, it is conceivable that a party like the SNP could play a king-maker role.

There is no easy answer. This is the core problem with the idea of a televised debate. It might be good for a simple, true two party system such as the USA’s. But for the UK’s more subtle and diverse politics, it won’t fit quite so well.

I didn’t have the time to blog about it when the story originally blew up, but I have a few thoughts on the issue. Late last week Bernie Ecclestone gave an interview to BBC Radio 5 Live where he made comments that were interpreted by some as condoning racist behaviour in the grandstands at Formula 1 circuits.

I actually heard a little bit of that interview when it was originally broadcast, and I heard the controversial comments. I was initially surprised, because I saw how the comments would be interpreted by many. I was just surprised because I would have thought Bernie Ecclestone was savvy enough not to give an ambiguous answer to such a question. Sure enough, it became a bigger news story.

But while the comments were unfortunate, I don’t think they really deserved the reaction they got from some quarters. Ex-footballer Paul Elliot, speaking on behalf of Football Against Racism in Europe, even called on Ecclestone to resign.

This is a completely over-the-top reaction. I understood the nature of what Ecclestone was trying to say, even if he didn’t manage to articulate it very clearly on breakfast radio.

Formula 1 has only ever had one publicised incident of racial abuse, when a small clutch of Spanish spectators blacked up at a Barcelona test session before the 2008 season started. The pictures at were shocking, and I criticised the participants at the time.

However, in the discussions that ensued it became clear that many Spaniards were perplexed at the shocked reaction from Brits. I doubt that this is because Spain has a problem with racism. That was despite what some in the media tried to make out, without a hint of irony of course (read Richard Herring for a good take on this). It seems as though blacking up simply does not have the same connotations in Spain as it does in places like the UK and the USA. (And let us not forget, too, that it was only a few short decades ago that blacking up was totally acceptable in the UK.)

That is not to excuse the behaviour. We all must be sensitive to other cultures, and all decent people should take great care not to offend others’ sensibilities. Clearly, a widespread interpretation of the behaviour of those people at the Barcelona test was that it was racial abuse. Indeed, that was my interpretation of it, even if it was not the intention of them to cause offence.

The fact that it is not obvious that the people deliberately set out to cause offence is, I believe, the origin of Bernie Ecclestone’s comment that it was a “joke”. I noticed many Spaniards saying that it was something to do with a carnival which involves dressing up, and I saw at least one person saying it was intended as a friendly gesture towards Lewis Hamilton rather than a malicious one.

The wonderful thing about improved communications and increasing globalisation is that we can more easily learn about other cultures. In that regard, it is notable that there has not been a repeat performance of the behaviour from Spanish supporters. There were two grands prix in Spain this year which, as far as I am aware, went off without any hint of trouble.

There was some booing in Brazil which Anthony Hamilton criticised live on ITV. I did not spot Anthony Hamilton implying that the booing was of a racial nature, although he may have thought that. It was certainly the spin that some in the media attempted to apply to the booing. But I saw absolutely no evidence that the booing was of an abusive or racial nature, and most accept that. In sport, you will have a partisan crowd, and this is understandable and should not be criticised.

Following on from the reporting of Ecclestone’s comments, news bulletins spoke of Lewis Hamilton “hitting back” and “blasting” Ecclestone’s stance. Going by the reports, you would have thought Hamilton had been mortally offended. In fact, Hamilton’s comments were quite measured:

I didn’t see it as a joke. It’s something that happened but it is in the past.

What’s more important to me is that I had a lot of support, especially from UK fans. As long as I have my country behind me, it makes me very proud. I’m proud to see my fellow countrymen holding up the flag. All the other stuff I need to put behind me.

I don’t generally keep up with what’s being said and I haven’t read what Bernie said. I know Bernie and have a huge amount of respect for him. I can only assume he said positive things.

It is unfortunate that Britain’s excitable media has distorted the reporting of this issue so much that I know of at least one person who was under the impression that Hamilton was subject to a barrage of abuse across all three days of the Spanish Grand Prix, which is not the case at all. The fact is that a small group of people did a stupid thing which was a one-off incident at a test session. In fact, the very reason it was so shocking is because it was so unknown in Formula 1.

Formula 1 can be proud of the fact that racism is as small a problem as it is. That is certainly a lot more than can be said for certain other sports. Barely a month goes by without reports of racial abuse at a football match, sometimes even coming from the players themselves. In comparison to the world’s most popular sport, Formula 1 is highly civilised.

David Coulthard is absolutely right in his comments supporting Bernie Ecclestone:

It is trying to be built into something much bigger than it is. What happened in Spain because of those four guys, I’m sorry, but it hardly represents a nation of racists.

I’ve seen some people having a pop at Bernie for trying to play it down, but what would you expect him to do? He is the ringmaster, the guy that has created this amazing foundation of business success that enables all of us to earn our pennies.

We’re all talking about Lewis being the first billion dollar sportsman, well that is on the foundations of what Bernie has created. To turn round and try to get Bernie to offer an apology to Lewis is just ridiculous.

F1 may have many failings, but it does not come close to the racism you see in people’s first love, and that’s football.

Ecclestone’s claim that he pulled the South African Grand Prix in 1985 because of apartheid may be spurious. But it is worth remembering that Bernie Ecclestone played a pivotal role in Formula 1 having its first black driver.

No, not Lewis Hamilton as the media may sometimes have you believe, but Willy T. Ribbs. The then-Nascar driver was given a test at Ecclestone-owned Brabham. Ribbs became the first black person to drive an F1 car, and although it was only a test and not a race drive, it hardly represents the actions of someone who would condone racism. For that reason alone, the calls for Bernie Ecclestone to resign are wide of the mark.

The media seriously needs to calm itself down over the colour of Lewis Hamilton’s skin. The civil rights activist Martin Luther King dreamt of a time when people “will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” I agree, and that is why I find the obsession surrounding Hamilton’s colour so distasteful.

It is true that Lewis Hamilton has achieved amazing things, and he has undoubtedly broken barriers by becoming the first black race driver in Formula 1. But time and again the media keeps on making comparisons with people like Tiger Woods and even Barack Obama. And while I am not in the best position to judge, in my view, that is just crass.

Lewis Hamilton is not “Lewis Hamilton black man”, “Lewis Hamilton mixed race man” or “Britain’s Lewis Hamilton”. He is “Lewis Hamilton racing driver”. My understanding is that Hamilton sees himself as a racing driver who happens to be black rather than a black racing driver. This report on the celebratory McLaren press conference very much suggests that:

Questions included his thoughts on Barack Obama’s victory in the US presidential election that very morning and how he feels about his position as a black role model. Hamilton shifted uneasily in his seat and swerved around the ‘race’ question as best he could. He just sees himself as a racing driver, nothing more, nothing less.

I very much think it’s time to get over Lewis Hamilton’s skin colour. That goes for anyone who may racially abuse him, but it also goes for the media which constantly makes his colour the story. His colour was notable at first, but now it is not the story. His driving is.

The shock is not so much that Labour won. I had a feeling in my water as long as a month ago that Labour might win, even when the bookies and the pundits were saying otherwise. But the scale of Labour’s victory must have shocked everyone.

Yesterday, the BBC’s coverage began on the premise that it was “too close to call” or that, if anything, the SNP had squeaked it. Jim Murphy was making his excuses early (and doing a fairly good job of it, it has to be said). Coming towards midnight, it became clearer that Labour had won. The SNP were saying they hoped to have halved Labour’s majority.

Even with that knowledge, the scale of Labour’s victory when it was finally announced amazed me. The SNP hadn’t even halved Labour’s majority. In fact, Labour’s vote actually went up from the 2005 General Election result. The only real consolation the SNP can have is that the swing was 5% from Labour to the SNP. Even so, that looks minuscule compared to the swing of 22.5% achieved just a few months ago in Glasgow East.

There are all sorts of reasons why the SNP will be disappointed with this result. First of all, Glenrothes must have been a target seat for them anyway, even before this by-election was announced, with the SNP having won the similar Fife Central seat in the 2007 Scottish Parliament election. When Labour was in its trough of popularity, the SNP must have thought Christmas had come early.

Labour’s campaign had seemed like a total shambles. I do not live in the constituency so I haven’t seen any of the literature, but I have heard some bad things about it. Sarah Brown’s well-publicised visit to Cardenden was a complete botch job, and Gordon Brown’s visit to a cafeteria wasn’t much better.

Labour did not need a superstar candidate either. Lindsay Roy is a very nervy and uncomfortable performer on the television. However, it looks as though that actually played into his hands. Labour emphasised the fact that Lindsay Roy is not a career politician, and his track record of being out in the “real world” helping out Fife’s schoolchildren must have gained him a few votes.

As an aside, I doubt that Lindsay Roy actually wanted to become MP. He certainly didn’t look overjoyed at having won, and even after it was clear that Labour had won his body language seemed pretty negative to me. I have heard it said that Lindsay Roy wanted to retire from headteaching anyway and that he saw this as the ideal opportunity to get an early retirement. He probably thought he had no chance of winning.

There is also the fact that the SNP Scottish Government was still in its honeymoon period. Some people are reluctant to say that the honeymoon is over, but there is no doubt that this is at least a slap in the face.

Let us not forget that one of the SNP’s flagship policies was designed to please Fifers in particular. The SNP must have thought that the abolition of bridge tolls would have secured a few votes in Fife. Glenrothes in particular is within comfortable commuting distance of both Edinburgh and Dundee, meaning that many residents will be frequent users of both the Forth and Tay Road Bridges. The fact that the voters of Glenrothes in particular have given the SNP the cold shoulder is a major snub.

Nationalists may counter that Fife is fertile territory for Labour. Time and again I saw pundits on the television saying that Labour benefited from a “halo effect” spilling over into Glenrothes. Fifers, apparently, are proud that Gordon Brown is Prime Minister.

Let me just say, as someone who has lived in Fife all my life, that this is a complete load of tosh. Since Gordon Brown became Prime Minister, I have never heard anyone say that they are proud that the PM is a Fifer. In fact, I have sometimes heard people wonder out aloud how it could possibly be that Kirkcaldy can have such high unemployment when the Prime Minister represents the constituency. (I once heard someone say, referring to the perceived unwillingness of Gordon Brown to help his local area, that Kirkcaldy has the highest rate of unemployment in the country, although I doubt that.)

Fife is not Labour loopy. Yesterday there was the opportunity for three of the four constituencies in Fife to be represented by a party other than Labour, leaving just Gordon Brown’s seat in tact. That didn’t happen. But the fact is that the Kingdom of Fife has the capacity to elect any one of three parties. As such, Glenrothes’s decision to vote for Labour should not simply be batted away because it was supposedly as “safe seat”. According to Alex Salmond, there is no such thing as a safe Labour seat these days, and Glenrothes certainly wasn’t one for the reasons outlined above.

The SNP may complain about the negativity of Labour’s campaign. But they should be alarmed that it worked. In retrospect, the decision of the SNP to select Fife Council leader Peter Grant as candidate must be seen as a major tactical error. The Labour Party was able to tap into some real dissatisfaction that people have with Fife Council at the moment.

Because of the complexities of this situation, it is not exactly clear what message the voters were sending out. There is no doubt that there was a message of some sort. But was it a verdict on the Labour government in Westminster? Was it a vote of confidence in Gordon Brown? Was it about sending a message to Holyrood? Or was it about punishing the leader of Fife Council?

Whichever, the SNP should take this seriously. I have no reason to doubt that they will, and the reaction from SNP members’ blogs is sober and reflective (see, for instance, Richard Thomson). There was some real evidence that the SNP were becoming complacent with their position. In the run-up to the election it was looking as though the SNP was giddy on power.

Alex Salmond’s supreme confidence was completely misplaced. And his attempt to attach himself to Barack Obama’s election as US President was crass in the extreme. Voters can smell this sort of thing a mile off, and I’d be amazed if it didn’t cost the SNP votes.

It is no longer enough to rely on the dissatisfaction with the Labour Party that many people have. With Labour’s vote having gone up, it’s pretty clear that they benefited from some serious tactical voting, with the Conservatives and the Lib Dems being squeezed. If this election shows anything, it is that while Labour are unpopular among many voters, the SNP are also loathed among many others.

A word on the Lib Dems, who must be very disappointed. For the second Scottish by-election in a row, they have come in fourth and lost their deposit. Glenrothes is practically sandwiched in between two Lib Dem constituencies — Dunfermline and West Fife and North East Fife. While there is no reason to automatically assume that the Lib Dems should therefore win Glenrothes, they must be disappointed by their complete inertia just now.

It is tough for smaller parties in by-elections anyway. But the current political climate cannot be doing them many favours. Despite PR, Scotland is beginning to look a bit like a two party system. In the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections, one of the biggest changes was the almost complete disappearance of the small parties. Now it looks as though both the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are wilting in a highly charged political atmosphere that pits the SNP versus Labour, leaving little room for much else.

I wrote my dissertation about the paradox of voting, which is the problem that rational choice theorists have in explaining why people vote. You are more likely to be killed on the way to the polling station than affect the result once you’re inside it — so why vote? The puzzle interested me as soon as I heard of it and I still often think about it.

The answer is that people take into account not just the instrumental benefits of voting. They also take into account a variety of factors that can be loosely gathered under the umbrella term of “civic duty”. The benefits that people get from performing their civic duty outweigh the costs of voting.

But what about people who clearly go way beyond the call of civic duty? This guy travelled 600 miles just to vote in the US Presidential election (via Bernard Salmon).

That is a puzzle to me. But it is clear that this election is enthusing people to an extent that may never have been seen before. Barack Obama in particular is said to have engaged young people and black people in the US political process like never before. Early voting numbers are reported to be high. And now a person whose family has voted Republican for three generations has driven 600 miles to vote for Barack Obama.

It’s worth remembering that it’s not just Obama that is creating this extra interest. I heard a woman on the radio a few days ago saying that she will be voting for the first time in her life — for John McCain. She doesn’t trust Obama because of his inexperience.

It looks like the USA sees itself as being at an important cross-roads, for a whole host of reasons. They want to get this decision right.

This is an interesting video of some happenings at a Republican rally yesterday.

It’s difficult to tell exactly what John McCain’s strategy is now. Just a few days ago Barack Obama was just “that one” to Mr McCain. Now the Republican nominee seems to be going well out of his way to be polite about Mr Obama to the point that he is getting booed for it by a Republican crowd. I guess McCain just doesn’t know whether to lay into Obama or start appearing to be more bipartisan. Maybe it is desperation and he just doesn’t know what to do now.

Anyway, what interests me most about the video is the little chat at the end with a woman who says she can’t trust Obama because he’s an Arab. The all-new fluffy McCain must have wanted to floor to eat him up at that moment. McCain’s retort is, “No ma’am. He’s a decent family man who I just happen to have disagreements with.”

There is the factual inaccuracy of the woman’s beliefs about Obama’s background, which is what McCain decided to pick apart. But there is also the sheer naked racism of it.

Something great is happening with this US Presidential election. The USA will soon have either a non-white President or a female Vice-President. Whichever, it is a great stride ahead for America. Brits can sometimes be quite smug about this sort of thing when it comes to comparing Britain to America. But you have to say that the chances of America having a non-white President sometime soon is much greater than the chances of Britain having a non-white Prime Minister.

But it looks like they will still have a long way to go until they can elect an Arab.