debate

What should have been a simple process has descended into a farce with a speed that only lunatics and the exposure hungry can arrange. One media organisation invited 3 people to have a live televised debate about politics in the run up to the general election next year.

One of the three agreed instantly, one agreed as soon as he found out, one dragged his feet refusing to commit either way. Then two more media organisations wanted to show the debate while the three attendees were trying to negotiate for different formats, one on one or group, three debates or six debates, single subject or any subject, know the questions in advance or be surprised by them.

The format was finally thrashed out last week and they all seemed satisfied that their important high level negotiations had been a success. Until today, that is, when the leader of a minority regional party demanded that he be invited, and threatened legal action if he isn't.

Other minority party leaders wait the result of this challenge with baited breath. "If he's pushing in, I'm pushing in" one said on hearing the news of the threat of litigation. "We've not had any success at domestic elections but we've got MEPs. We will also be launching a legal challenge to the format if we aren't invited."

Most neutral observers fear that it may take until 2012 to unravel this tangle of competing claims and counter-claims by which time the debates will be utterly meaningless.