We live in serious times, yet the BBC’s flagship political debate show is filled with whooping mobs looking for confrontation. This is what needs to be done

The blistering row over the treatment of Diane Abbott on last week’s BBC Question Time has put it back where channel bosses most like it to be: at the centre of attention. The Labour party has made a formal complaint after one audience member’s complaint on Twitter went viral.

It is true that the initial critic was Jyoti Wilkinson, a staffer for the Labour MP Chris Williamson, but his allegations are serious. He claims that during the show’s warm-up, Fiona Bruce, the new presenter, made remarks that legitimised racist abuse. Later, on air, it was claimed Bruce interrupted Abbott more often than any other panellist. Bruce also inaccurately contradicted Abbott’s statement that Labour and the Tories were level-pegging in the polls.

The BBC has apologised for that, but denies any panellist was treated unfairly at any stage. Now Labour wants to see the full recording and Abbott has written a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger attack accusing the show of falling down the Jeremy Kyle sinkhole. She may have a point. Here are five ways it could be done better.

Calm the audience down



The purpose of the programme is to trigger debate between politicians and voters, but Abbott isn’t the only panellist who feels it’s become less Oxford Union and more a stage for orchestrated mob outrage. Abbott blames the new editor, Hilary O’Neill, who was appointed just over a year ago on the promise of “adrenaline-packed” shows. That has certainly been the case with some of the more partisan audiences – the previous presenter, David Dimbleby’s last one, from south London, was all noisy remainers and Derby last week felt dominated by noisy leavers. Audience engagement might be what the show’s about, but whooping and cheering? Shades of the Roman amphitheatre.

Fairer chairing



Bruce failed to shut up one audience member who launched a personal attack on Abbott as a potential Labour home secretary. It was nothing to do with the question and Abbott had no chance to answer. That was bad at the time and if the allegations of earlier nudge-nudge attacks by Bruce on Abbott are true, it would be totally unacceptable. Just on the available evidence, Bruce failed the conspicuous impartiality test.

Mind the seating plan



Some critics want to ban politicians, but in the midst of a constitutional crisis the show can hardly ignore them. But seating Abbott next to the outspoken leaver (and journalist) Isabel Oakeshott? That is an easy hit for conspiracy theorists.

Scrutinise the directing



Camera-work and studio direction are a key part of how the panellists look to viewers. There were some shots where Abbott looked as if she was surrounded by gloating white people, with Bruce and Rory Stewart on one side and Oakeshott on the other. It’s not just the show’s host that has to be scrupulously fair; the direction does, too.

Embrace the boring



The BBC swithers anxiously on the border between public service and public entertainment. In the current angry and partisan national mood, the last thing we need is more debate that’s adrenaline-packed. So, let’s hear it for fearless engagement with a creative agenda of public affairs through well-informed courteous argument. Politics is serious stuff.