Last Tuesday, I was unfortunate enough to be stranded in Stansted Airport for a number of hours. Airports are relatively tedious places, and so I braced myself for a few hours of pacing up and down the Duty Free shops. However, somewhere in between assessing the difference in price of spirits, I noticed a “breaking news” headline on Sky News, perhaps this would provide something interesting to monitor until my flight. However, to my disappointment it was merely the story that the leaders of the three leading British Parliamentary parties were to take part in a televised leadership debate. I quickly went back to the duty free shops.
There are a number of problems with the proposed televised leadership debates. From the outset it appears to be a commendable idea. One can imagine a scenario where David Cameron is launching a passionate attack on Gordon Brown’s leadership, Brown then stumbling to answer but quickly providing a cheeky one liner that silences Cameron. Furthermore under the gaze of the world’s media, there would be nowhere to hide. Indeed, for years British political enthusiasts have looked to American presidential debates with an envious glance. The likes of Nixon and Kennedy criticising each other’s policy choices was compelling television. However, they did not realise that the Americans were giving the British similar aspiring glances. The Americans have quickly realised the Leadership debates are nothing more than a demonstration of the candidate’s ability to memorise rhetoric and restate something that has been rehearsed numerous times. The debates are so rigidly structured, that no candidates are afforded an opportunity to provide any real justifications or a sense of their political beliefs. Indeed, if one remembers last year’s Presidential debates, both Barrack Obama and John McCain, both charismatic orators, came across as boring. Essentially, the leadership “debates” are not really debates at all. In comparison, the Americans have always applauded the British Parliamentary system and in particular, Prime Minister’s Questions. The opportunity to trade insults and numerous hard-hitting questions across the dispatch box is considered to be real democracy in action. It is much harder to prepare for such a contest.
Furthermore, the British seem to be overlooking a fundamental difference between the two political systems. The American Presidential elections are just that. The objective is to elect an individual President, whereas the objective of the British Parliamentary election is to elect a Government. Television debates essentially focus on the party leader and deflect attention from the party as a whole. This is counterproductive and will transform the process into a presidential election.
Despite the aforementioned, the British are determined to follow the American example. Next week’s debate will be as rigid as its American counterpart. The news report explained how each leader will have one minute to answer the question … Each leader will then have one minute to respond to the answers … No question shall focus on one party or one leader … Within [each half] of the programme, a maximum of three questions will be selected on a single sub-theme (as listed in point 65 of this document) … The studio audience will be asked not to applaud … At the end of the programme the three leaders will shake hands. Moreover, the debates will limit public input. Audience members will be permitted to ask one question, but in the interests of formality will be prohibited from repeating or persisting with a question, even if the leader seemingly avoids the issue. A scenario similar to Jeremy Paxman’s famous questioning of Michael Howard, when he repeatedly asked “Did you threaten to overrule him?” will be avoided. Thus it is increasingly apparent that the debate will only be exercise in window dressing. From the outset it will appear that the leaders are engaging in a stimulating debate, but in essence their communication or PR’s officers might as well be reading a carefully prepared script. Without a hint of exaggeration, the majority of the electorate will already be able to accurately predict what each leader will say and I have no doubt the only winner from the televised debate will be the channels not screening it.
