How many horses does it take to make a debate?

You may have noticed that lately Plaid Cymru and the SNP have been getting on their high horses over their lack of inclusion over the upcoming, and widely anticipated, live debates. Expressing their combined anger in a series of joint letters claiming that the live debates could "endanger the conduct of a free election", accusing, in particular, the BBC for allowing itself to be "politically compromised". Obviously, in defence of the two parties they continue to show a level of co-operation which we rarely, if ever, see amongst their larger counterparts. Sadly they continue to fail to recognise the fact that the British elections are, by most accounts, a two horse race (two and a half apparently, but half a horse? I don't think so) regardless of these debates. I fail to see how their inclusion would alter this, a two and a two half horse race? If the Lib Dems are half a horse then the nationalists are barely a hind!

It is widely acknowledged that the Liberal Democrats have the most to gain from these debates. I mean people might even begin to differentiate Nick Clegg from Joe Anyone and see them as a real alternative. Let's face it though; they've a lot to gain from this, but not government. Meanwhile whilst the Lib Dems are getting a boost from being included in these debates Plaid Cymru and SNP are getting one for their absence. Their united front creates quite a contrast to the tittle-tattle mud-slinging of the Labour and Conservative parties. Their determination to stand up for what they believe in and create a great big fuss, aimed not at the three included parties but at the networks themselves, has given them an air of action over bickering. I fail to see how they would have kept themselves so in the limelight were they included in the debates.

Unsurprisingly, despite their moaning Plaid Cymru and SNP are still excluded from the televised debates, and rightly so. If they really want to complain about party coverage they should start from the top and look at the coverage that each party currently gets in the media. They'd quickly find that actually the news itself is largely irrelevant. Whatever story makes the voting public feel more cheated seems to be the present theme, basically whatever grabs the headlines. More importantly is the fact that the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are absolute priority, with the exception of occasional outrageous behaviour by one of the more 'divisive' parties, any BNP story is an excellent example of this. The point is that the media has its own agenda and it could hardly be said that the televised debates are unreflective of this.

Naturally, since the nationalists started protesting the debates have been slightly altered, now they are 'Prime Ministerial' debates, excluding (legitimately...) the 'Leaders' ('Leader Debates') of any party who would statistically be unable to become Prime Minister. This includes Plaid Cymru and the SNP, even if they were to be combined.

This whole debacle has seen to (barely) overshadow what is actually a rather exciting concept. We get to see the potential leaders of our country answering questions from the public live on television. We even get to email questions in if we want to, a technofest! Despite all this these debates won't be perfect, like anything the format will require perfecting but in a time when people have been led to believe that everyone and their uncle is lying or cheating them (expenses rows, union strikes, party funding, Iraq inquiry). A live debate might go some way into redeeming some faith and some (at least temporarily) perceived honesty from our politicians. We should refrain from allowing ourselves to be distracted from the importance of these debates regardless of the ongoing and inevitable debates surrounding them. As for Plaid Cymru and the SNP, I'd say that for now three's a crowd.