Televised election debates: Will Brown gain?

By Ian Tennant, Fleishman-Hillard Public Affairs, London

In December 2009, the leaders of the main UK parties finally struck a deal with the BBC, ITV and Sky to air three televised live debates during the 2010 General Election campaign. Televised debates have been on the agenda for decades, but Prime Minister after Prime Minister – including the very telegenic Tony Blair turned them down time and again. Their reasoning was that head to head debates between party leaders was commonplace already in the UK thanks to its Parliamentary system of democracy; the Prime Minister fields questions from Members of Parliament for half an hour each week, including a maximum six questions from the Leader of the Official Opposition. So this decision is a landmark one and a precedent for all future General Elections in the UK, despite them being commonplace in the USA, and other presidential systems.

It is widely accepted that this type of debate always favour the challenger, so why did Mr Brown agree to take part?

First, the Prime Minister is known for his grasp of detail, and may have a suspicion that Conservative Leader David Cameron might not be as confident on the specifics of policy which are critical to a General Election campaign. He would want to portray Cameron as more preoccupied with image and spin, than with the serious business of running a country.

Second, Brown is keen to be seen as willing to take risks after his disasterous decision to scrap a planned General Election shortly after he took office and when his poll ratings were high. Several weeks after that decision, the world started plunging into recession – had he held the election, he would have been certain to not only win – and in the nick of time before the recession – but also damage the reformist David Cameron and his allies for years to come, forcing the Conservatives to once again seek ground on the political right. What politicians would give for the benefit of hindsight. Not only was his decision unfortunate in terms of the economic cycle the world is experiencing, but it also labelled him as indecisive and weak. Taking up the challenge of a TV debate would, say his advisers, make him appear pro-active and strong.

Third, Mr Brown will feel that his far wider experience of elections will give him an edge. Brown was a strategist in the landslide Labour victory in 1997 and played a similar role in the two elections since. He has far more knowledge of the pressures of a General Election campaign – both on the doorstep and in the strategy room – than Mr Cameron, who was only elected in 2001.

However, Mr Cameron is clearly a better media performer and will look better on the screen: he is slick and calm; Brown can be stuttering and often, angry. Commentators often point to the power of television, and in particular, the Nixon vs. Kennedy debates in the USA in 1960 which gave Mr. Kennedy a winning boost as the youthful, articulate opponent of the uncomfortable, agitated candidate for the incumbent party, Mr Nixon (despite radio viewers thinking Nixon ‘won’ the debate). The rest is history.

Mr Cameron will be aware of the clear advantages for the Opposition in these debates. After the 1960 example cited above, debates in American presidential campaigns did not take place again until 1976, partly due to the reluctance of the incumbents to risk taking part. If Mr Brown were ahead in the polls, he would not have risked it. Debates of this kind give the Opposition candidate a chance to outshine the incumbent and present him or herself as a force for change and a refreshing alternative (especially one as unpopular as Mr Brown). They have also given the incumbent the opportunity to finally dissuade floating voters through a gaffe, for example, President Ford’s remark in the 1976 debates denying Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

In the UK in 2010, it is unclear who will gain from these debates.

Mr Brown will get another chance to turn round the polls: in fact, Labour strategists are touting Mr Brown as the ‘insurgent’ against the consensus that Mr Cameron has already sealed victory. Mr Cameron will hope that he can consolidate his strong, but not invincible poll lead, by reminding voters of the reasons why the Prime Minister is so unpopular and presenting himself as the Blair-like alternative.

One thing is for sure – the ‘main event’ of Brown debating Cameron will also bring with it another challenger -Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats. He may be the real winner, gaining unprecedented television coverage for his party, the third in British politics, and reminding voters that there is another choice.