Yesterdays interview in the Independent with David Blunkett proposes that in the future, satirical broadcasts such as Mock The Week and Have I Got News For You should be defined as current affairs programmes and subject to the regulations that news programmes have to comply with. These include a focus on balance and fairness, as well as accuracy, with a greater exposure to libel laws. The argument applied in the article focuses exclusively on the impact that these programmes have on political discourse and on politicians. In isolation this piece would be an interesting idea and worthy of a few minutes debate before being allowed to become one of tomorrows chip papers. However in its context the proposal has a disturbing dimension. This context includes the passage of the “Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill” about to undergo its report stage in the Lords. The Bill will limit the extent to which charities and other organisations can engage with politicians and political campaigns in the year before any election. There is also the debate around press freedom following the Levenson enquiry and the push towards press regulation from groups such as Hacked Off and the Pull towards Parliamentary control by the three party leaders. The arguments by the rich and powerful press barons regarding their preferred model continues to hold sway. The final element is the character and reputation of Mr Blunkett himself. He was one of the UKs most authoritarian Home Secretaries in recent decades and has invested a great deal of his political career in curtailing certain freedoms, in order, as he sees it to protect society as a whole.

There is of course a wider debate already taking place regarding the wellbeing or in fact the sickness at the heart of our democracy and its institutions. Whilst as I wrote yesterday, most of our political leaders appear oblivious to this, some must be awake, perhaps Mr Blunkett is one of these? We do need engagement by people such as him, but the risk is that politicians that are actually alert to this discussion will look for remedies to control the discourse and stifle the debate, believing it to be the stirrings of the few willing to articulate ideas, rather than a deep rooted grass roots rejection of previous political norms being voiced by early pioneers. In one sense these two perspectives will have a great deal of greyness between them, but in either case, limiting dissent or trying to close the public square to the views of the many is bound to fail and provoke even more disquiet in the long run.

David Blunkett is right to understand that these comedians are speaking words that criticise his class and tribes such as the one he belongs to. However this criticism is not the cause of the damage to democracy. The voices of those proposing a change to our democratic structures are surely the real democrats. They are the ones who have understood the wounds that Parliamentarians have inflicted upon themselves, time and time again, show that in truth our political parties and their members are as incapable of self regulation as the Press which Lord Levenson was asked to review. Whether Mock The Week is reflecting views or helping to articulate truths (as some see them) is immaterial. We must not stifle these channels for reflection and humour, what is needed is for the likes of Mr Blunkett to look closer to home for problems that do need solving. The alternative is that the comedy will find other outlets and in doing so may actually have a much more explosive impact when it does find its public voice.