The history and future of televised election debates in Britain
Jon Lawrence |
The cartoon above is the fifth in a series created by Steve Way exclusively for H&P. We will be publishing more of them over the coming days as part of our election coverage If posting them on social media please acknowledge Steve Way and H&P. For permission to reproduce in books or articles please contact Steve at: stevewayuk@yahoo.co.uk
The 2024 televised leadership debates bring Britan considerably closer to the US model of head-to-head presidential showdowns. Starmer has everything to lose in these debates, but unlike Blair in 1997 he has not felt able to ignore the calls for a televised showdown with the beleaguered incumbent. Political culture has shifted, new norms are forming – perhaps the head-to-head leadership debate is here to stay this time. But if so, it has been a long and rocky road to get here,
There are many reasons why it took Britain so long to follow the American example pioneered by the Kennedy/Nixon television showdown of 1960. Ironically, probably the least important was the technical fact that Britain doesn’t have a presidential system. Even in the 1960s and 1970s, television coverage of General Elections focussed overwhelmingly on the campaigns of the rival party leaders. Both main parties fought presidential style campaigns, adapting their leaders’ public meetings to the needs of broadcasters, and developing publicity stunts such as informal ‘walkabouts’ and other carefully choregraphed events designed to garner media coverage. But they were reluctant to cede control of their campaign message (and their leader’s image) to the broadcasters.
Trust was poor; indeed from 1959 to 1974 it was so poor that the main parties refused to have anything to do with election programmes involving live audiences for fear of being ambushed. This led to the rise of the radio phone-in and the TV set-piece interview as replacements for actual hustings. Live audiences finally became a staple of British electoral programming from the mid-1970s, but it took another three decades for party leaders to agree to a full-blown televised head-to-head, mainly because the risks were, and are, so high.
By the 1980s, party leaders routinely challenged their opponents to a televised debate, but only if they were way behind in the polls and needed a boost to have any chance of victory. In 1997 the Conservatives famously paid a man to dress up as a chicken and follow Blair on the campaign trail to highlight the Labour leader’s refusal to debate struggling Prime Minister John Major.
Historically, broadcasters have been fearful of the possible legal consequences of excluding minor party leaders, hence Nick Clegg’s invitation to take part in all three televised debates in 2010, and the subsequent bounce this brought to the Liberal Democrats’ campaign. Since then, Labour and the Conservatives have been wary of facilitating a platform from which the leaders of minor parties can address the nation as equals. This reluctance was one of the main reasons why negotiations between broadcasters and the rival parties broke down in 2015 and 2017. It appeared that 2010 might prove to be a one-off. But in 2019 Johnson and Corbyn took part in a head-to-head debate, albeit only one and very early in the campaign. This time they have agreed to two head-to-heads, the second to be held just a week before polling day. There are also a number of multi-party debates, but Sunak and Starmer are leaving these to their deputies; they want to ‘to protect the brand’. These debates will help consolidate the precedent that the public should see the two main party leaders going head-to-head during an election. This time, US-style ‘Presidential’ debates may be here to stay.
Please note: Views expressed are those of the author.About the author
Related Opinion Articles
The 2017 General Election in history
Martin Farr |
The 2019 Election and the Media – a different kind of campaign
Simon Szreter |