Pulse PointLeaders’ debates

Leaders’ debatesInitial reports following the recent debates on EU membership between Deputy Prime Minister and Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg and leader of Ukip Nigel Farage suggest that in both debates public opinion believed Mr Farage came out in front. However some commentators have speculated that it may have had a successful outcome for both participants.

Leaders’ debatesNick Clegg emerged from the first 2010 election debate a star, triggering ‘Cleggmania’. However since then he and his party have seen a dramatic drop in support. The EU debates gave Mr Clegg an opportunity to make a determined stand against the rising influence of Ukip and position the Lib Dems as the pro-EU party. Thus he hopes to win the pro-Europe vote away from the other more reticent Labour and Conservatives. Some would say that the 37% support Clegg achieved in the first of the two debates was a remarkable achievement for someone with such low popularity.

Clegg Farage0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Poll: Who Won?

Leaders’ debatesThe EU debates have also turned attention to the possibility of leadership debates prior to the general election in 2015. The debates held in 2010 were the first of their kind in the UK and Labour and the Liberal Democrats have already signed up to repeating the same formula next year. The Conservatives have been slower to commit. They say David Cameron is keen for the debates to go ahead, but think that they could be held earlier so as not to dominate the run up to polling day.There are also suggestions that they may be looking to exclude Nick Clegg to give a clear choice between two Prime Ministers. Critics say the Conservatives are ‘running scared’ from the debates and may use Farage’s insistence that he also be included as an excuse to scupper the debates entirely.

Pulse points• Do national debates add to democracy?• Do debates make personalities as important as policies?• How do national debates help the electorate decide who to

vote for?• Given that in the UK, parties, not prime ministers are not

elected, do debates exaggerate the importance of leaders?• What does the increasing instances of leadership debates say

about changing attitudes to democracy and the increasing importance of personality politics?

2010 debate2010 saw the first televised national debates between party leaders in the UK. In the first of three debates over three weeks, the leaders of the main parties Gordon Brown (Lab), David Cameron (Cons) and Nick Clegg (Lib Dem) discussed domestic policy to an audience of 9.4m voters.

Brown and his predecessor Tony Blair had resisted US style leadership debates because in the UK the Prime Minister is not directly elected and it was felt that televised debates might undermine Prime Minister’s questions in the House of Commons.

2010 debatePoll: Who won the 1st debate. Poll: Who won the 2nd debate.

Debates and democracyThe ‘worm’ is an occasional addition to televised debates. It gives instant public reaction to what is being said via a sample audience who have like/dislike/neutral buttons they can press throughout the debate. It has become a greatly feared aspect of the debates in countries where there is a tradition of televised leader debates such as the US and Australia.

Debates and democracyPros

• Debates are effective at reaching a large audience.

• Debates bring much more media attention to the political process, engaging voters.

• Debates give equal status to all involved, regardless of political funding.

Cons

• Voters in the UK do not choose party leaders, so there isn’t much point in focussing on them over constituency MPs.

• Passively watching TV is not an active form of political participation.

• Deciding who gets to be included and who is left out can be unfair.

Leaders’ debates around the world.

In the US, televised debates are the norm. There have been some form of leadership debates since Lincoln, but the first general public debate was in 1960 between Democrat candidate John F. Kennedy and Republican candidate, Vice President Richard Nixon. The format has varied, but generally there are three debates between the candidates of the two main parties (only once – 1992 Ross Perot has an independent been included) and one debate between the vice-president nominees.

Leaders’ debates around the world.

In Australia and New Zealand, leadership debates have become dominated by ‘the worm’ which has sparked rows and accusations of corruption, though it remains popular with voters.

In France, leader debates tend to be quite formal and less sensational than their US equivalents. There was a notable exception in the 2007 debate between Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, which descended into a shouting match.

Leaders’ debates around the world.

In Iran the first televised debates in 2009 had a huge audience and were largely credited with creating more open elections and large political participation. So much so, that they also led to shock, protests and accusations of election fraud when President Ahmadinejad won. In the most recent debates, eight candidates took part and again, they were marked by personal attacks and accusations of corruption.

Debates and minor parties

One of the most crucial decisions in national public debates is deciding who should be invited to speak. The US has a strong two-party system so there is rarely a serious question of other speakers. There was a notable exception in 1980 when President Carter refused to debate with independent nominee John Anderson. Republican nominee Ronald Reagan accepted though and the debate went ahead without Carter. Both Regan and Anderson benefited from the exposure, whereas Carter was weakened by his refusal to debate.

Debates and minor partiesIn 2010, there was some discussion as to whether the leader of the Liberal Democrats should be included. By inviting Nick Clegg the debates were open to criticism for not also allowing other parties such as Plaid Cymru, the SNP or the Green party to be involved. Liberal Democrats success in the most recent elections made them the most significant ‘other party’ in a close election where a hung government was a very real possibility, hence their inclusion in the debates. 2010 set a president for a third party to be involved, it is unlikely it will be expanded to other groups. Minor parties benefit being in national debates as it provides them with equal coverage they could not otherwise claim and the opportunity to be seen on a par with the main two parties. They have little to lose and much to gain.