Brown speaks and the BBC doesn't tell you what he says

A post at the start of the election - Blair speaks and the BBC tells you what he says - illustrated the continuing reluctance of British television news programmes to show us anything more than the briefest excerpts from speeches by politicians.

Another example from Newsnight was posted as Silent speeches by party leaders: the wallpaper of television news coverage.

On last night's BBC 10 o'clock News, there was another similar gem with political editor Nick Robinson standing on a balcony whispering about Gordon Brown's election strategy, while the PM himself was speaking, presumably about something else, to an audience down on the floor below (bottom left of the screen).

Local election news: is the horse manure coming home to roost?

Election gossip from from our village shop today is about an interesting question put to the local Tory candidate, David Heathcote-Amory while he was canvassing a farmer:

"What do you want? A bag of horse muck?"

True or not, the fact that the story tells of a farmer raising the question about one of Mr Heathcote-Amory's more famous expenses claims must worry a candidate defending a 3,000 majority in a Con/LibDem marginal seat (Wells) - where most farmers tend to vote Conservative.

But it does rather confirm my earlier suggestions that it would have made more sense for him to have sourced the horse manure locally (HERE) rather than from Highgrove in Gloucestershire.

The day Mandelson assumed that the TV debates (& election) would be two-sided

As the Labour and Conservative parties continue singing the same tune about the horrors of a 'hung parliament', I remain as baffled as ever by their shared willingness to spend decades in opposition in exchange for an occasional few stints in power (HERE).

And, having suggested (HERE) that one of the reasons for Nick Clegg's success in the first TV debate was that the other two parties misjudged just how different a three-cornered debate would be from a straight duel between two parties, I was fascinated over the weekend to stumble across this YouTube clip from nine months ago in which Labour's master of spin confirms exactly what I suspected.

On 29th July last year, Lord Mandelson told ITN that Gordon Brown would be up a televised debate - between two parties (full video HERE).

As I said in a post after the first debate, 'I should think that the Labour and Conservative negotiators are kicking themselves for (the rules) they agreed as much as the Liberal Democrats are patting themselves on their backs'.

And I don't expect the Mandelson of nine months ago expected that he'd be putting out memos like this one half way through the campaign.

Other posts on the election:

• Will the 2010 UK general election be the first one to leave us speechless?
• Televised debates about televised debates really would be worth watching
• Vince Cable shows how 'Yah-boo' politics can win victories for the LibDems
• Blair speaks and the BBC tells you what he says
• Before we watch the debates, has anyone seen or heard any proper speeches yet?
• The 76 rules of engagement for the TV debates: and a competition to keep you awake
• Did the TV debaters tell too many stories?
• What's wrong with a 'hung parliament' if that's what the electorate votes for?
• The problem for two opponents in three sided TV debates
• The UK general election of 2010: a play in three acts
• Silent speeches by party leaders: the wallpaper of television news coverage
• Will the first leader to break down the 'ban' on applause be declared the night's winner?
• Is the TV debate ban on applause holding firm because we're obsessed with following rules?

And from the BBC website magazine:

• Picking over the prime ministerial debates
• Picking over prime ministerial debate II

Is the TV debate ban on applause holding firm because we're obsessed with following rules?

Two debates on and, to my amazement, none of the leaders has managed to break through the ban on applause. Gordon Brown came closest when he got a laugh by accusing the other two of squabbling like his two boys at bath time - as audience laughter often leads into a burst of applause.

So I'd love to know what dire threats about Rule 40 are being issued to the audiences during the pre-debate briefings.

Or is it just that we Brits are so obsessed with following rules that no one would dream of getting their hands apart having just been told not to do so?

After all, one of the reasons we get so irritated by some of the sillier rules coming out of Brussels is that we, unlike the citizens of certain other EC countries (e.g. France), feel obliged to follow them all to the letter.

Will the first leader to break down the 'ban' on applause be declared the night's winner?

OK, I give in: to those of you who seem to think you might have missed something on Newsnight last night - which is quite likely, as there was only 24 seconds of it - here my rather predictable comment to Michael Crick.

By way of background, I was astonished by the fact that the audience in the first debate conformed to rule 40 of the 76 rules of engagement: 'In order to maximise the time available for viewers to hear the leaders discussion election issues with each other, the studio audience will be asked not to applaud during the debate.'

Note that it's a request rather than a straight ban on applause. And similar bans have failed to hold in US presidential debates - for more on which, see HERE.

As for how to maximise the chances of triggering applause in political speeches, of course, all is revealed in the books at the top of this page.