I know he's said it before, but I still like Farage's line, "This turkey IS voting for Christmas!"
The really disappointing thing about Izzard is that he posed(!) some sensible questions in the middle of everything, but was so obnoxious that they never got discussed. And you NEVER play the man rather than the ball.
I have no doubt that, by lunchtime (once it's been watched on iPlayer by the Remain war room), he'll become "suddenly unavailable" for a large number of media opportunities, until after 23rd. There may even be oblique phone calls from "media consultants" along the lines of, "I've heard David was really disappointed about last night - it wasn't a good audience, and apparently he doesn't think the issues were well aired. But I'm really calling about that project we were discussing for July. You were hoping to follow Mrs. C. around for a month or so weren't you, fly-on-wall style, for that daytime show we talked about? I'm afraid we're having some difficulty selling the idea to her at the moment, and I'm not sure that she'll be available..."
Of course that's fiction, but similar things happen all the time. Few people outside politics and the media know that there's a de facto rule on current affairs programmes that cabinet ministers always get the last question (or to speak last). If you, as a producer, don't agree to that, the minister will simply have more pressing commitments elsewhere. That's the way the game is played.
That was the first debate or panel programme I've seen for a long time where real concerns got addressed in a sensible way. The ITV Cameron-Farage show earlier in the week was well orchestrated: I can't tell from this side of the screen if it was the show's producers caving under pressure (from the Remain/Downing St. Press office, most probably), or just naivete from Farage's media people, but on Tuesday he was spit-roasted (and frankly he well deserved it) by the audience and Cameron. I hope he's learned from the experience.
The same "back room people" won't be at all happy about last night (and I bet Cameron himself is seething). If you see details of forthcoming shows are suddenly changed in the next couple of days, "unavoidably", you now have some idea of what's probably happened.
E.
*Before Jacob sounds off about this, I have been involved in political TV and radio programmes, on both sides of the camera, and from the perspective of both TV production and a political party. I know all about the "pre-match" negotiations, about who gets to speak when, etc., which questions are acceptable, and so on. Even on completely live shows, very little you see is accidental or "just happens" - the presenters have switched talkback in their ears for good reasons, and work extremely closely with the show's producers all the time they're on-air and beforehand. The politicians use as much leverage as they possibly can to swing things in their favour before a single frame is aired.
Last night's show got in 'under the radar' as someone in the Remain camp badly miscalculated the balance of both panel and audience, and particularly the effect their "star" Izzard would have ("He's great with young people!"). But the audience wasn't predominantly young people, but a good range, many of whom had no time for the posturing and preening. Izzard evidently hadn't been properly prepped either (or won't take direction). They won't let it happen again, if they can help it.
I forgot to mention the "last resort" rule: if you can't debate, don't - in other words defeat hostile audiences by avoiding them altogether. You might find that some shows are changed to be much more the format of Tuesday night than QT.
