Politicians should sound off between programmes

'Parties can advertise on TV only if we ensure that their attempts are as ineffectual as they can be made, but anything goes in print'

Imagine if the same restrictions applied to commercial advertisers that we impose on the politicians. Suppose commercials appeared in the television listings as though they were programmes, had to be two-and-a-half minutes long, had a large health warning at the front, went out whenever the television company saw fit and only ever appeared once.

The Electoral Commission has been taking evidence on the future of Party Political Broadcasts. But party broadcasts are a silly and outmoded British compromise. They originate, presumably, in the idea that politicians on television can be dangerously persuasive, so their appearances should be heavily circumscribed. However, political parties can do whatever they like on the hoardings and in press advertisements (not even the rules for commercial advertising apply there). So parties can advertise on TV only if we ensure that their attempts are as ineffectual as they can be made, but anything goes in print.

The regulators were right to consider television a powerful medium; it is favoured by all the larger advertisers. The combination of sound, movement and colour give it an emotional power difficult to achieve on the page. If this was the reason access was so tightly contained in the early days of broadcasting, it is now the reason why freer access should be encouraged. Voting is in decline; democracy needs the power of television to communicate some of the passion the politicians feel for their cause.

Some idea of how effective freer use of TV could be was evident in a Mori survey's report during the 1997 election. People were asked which of a list of electioneering approaches influenced the way they intended to vote. Most say none, as they have made up their minds before the start. But among switchers, the largest proportion (22 per cent) say party broadcasts, way ahead of television debates between party leaders or posters, for instance. If there is a need to engage more people in the political debate, then it must be up to the parties to enthuse them. For that they need television, on a sensible basis.

Commercials work by catching their audience unawares, with brevity to avoid causing irritation and repetition to get the message across despite the slight attention they receive. If persuasive political communication is to work on TV then it needs the same conditions. There is no more need for the parties to buy the airtime than there is under the present arrangements. The airtime currently allotted to the parties just needs reallocating as spots between the programmes. Balance can be achieved by allocating coverage and frequency targets; that is, the political spots would continue to be shown until they had reached a preordained proportion of the audience a certain number of times. (The sophistication of TV viewer measurement allows this to be calculated daily.) If this causes the broadcasters problems of lack of time for their endless programme trailers and the commercials, then perhaps the commercial channels could be allowed extra minutes for these during election campaigns.

Now this last suggestion leaves me open to the traditional charges of the trivialisation of politics and the selling of politicians "like baked beans" (have you ever timed the number of seconds a politician is allowed on the news to express their view?) Actually, I am seeking to re-engage people who are not very interested in the political process, by reaching them in the manner that is most likely to get through. It is headlines that attract our attention. If our interest is engaged, we might go on to read the whole article. Spot TV would allow the parties to attract attention to what they see as the key issues; there are plenty of programmes and print articles that go into the issues in depth for those whose interest has been aroused. The democratic problem we have to address is a lack of involvement in the first place.

I've heard it argued that access to spot TV won't increase turnout because they have wall-to-wall spot TV for politicians in the United States and voting is even more of a minority habit than it is here. This, of course, assumes that the factor that makes for low turnout in America is spot TV rather than the myriad of alternative causes that can be posited. I suppose it could be fairly argued that short political commercials have not cured the problem there, but then if the parties given open access to the media still cannot engender enthusiasm among the voters, perhaps we should say "so be it".

Party broadcasts – too short to be programmes, too long to be commercials – are a leftover from an earlier age. The need is to attract people to vote with short, sharp headlines. Hoardings on the air, really.

The writer is the chairman of the advertising agency BMP DDB, and has worked with the Labour Party over four general elections