The three leadership debates held between the main party leaders in 2010 had a significant impact on the perceptions of the leaders, and the outcome of the general election itself. With the debates set to return in 2015, Judith Bara and Nicholas Allen argue that the negotiations over the rules and coverage of the debates should be conducted in a far more transparent way than in 2010 owing to their potential influence in shaping the outcome of the election

Allen, Nicholas

Bara, Judith

LSE Research Online

demo crat icaudit .co m http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=1758By Democratic AuditIf there are to be leaders debates in 2015, they must bearranged in a transparent mannerThe three leadership debates held between the main party leaders in 2010 had a significant impact on theperceptions of the leaders, and the outcome of the general election itself. With the debates set to return in2015, Judith Bara and Nicholas Allen  argue that the negotiations over the rules and coverage of the debatesshould be conducted in a far more transparent way than in 2010 owing to their potential influence in shapingthe outcome of the election. The 2010 general election campaign saw Britain’s f irst ever experience of  live televised leaders’ debates.Over three successive Thursdays, the leaders of  the three main parties, Gordon Brown, David Cameronand Nick Clegg, went head to head f or 90 minutes in f ront of  the television cameras. They madestatements, answered questions submitted by the public, and otherwise sparred with one another. Suchwas the anticipated interest in the debates that the whole campaign was ef f ectively organised around them.For many, indeed, the debates were the 2010 campaign.General elections give Brit ish democracy its meaning. Governments and MPs can be held to account andpotential rascals evicted. Given the importance of  the debates in the 2010 election campaign, not tomention the possibility that they had some ef f ect on the outcome, and given the likelihood of  debatestaking place in 2015 (of  which more later), it is surprising that there has been so litt le public scrutiny of  theway in which the debates came to be organised and how the rules governing the debates were drawn up.It took a long time f or televised leaders’ debates to come to Britain, even though they are routine in manyplaces. Brit ish polit icians occasionally called f or debates in the past, usually when they thought them to bein their interests. Broadcasters were more consistent proponents, conscious of  the likely boost to theirratings. It was once again the broadcasters, led by Sky News, who pressed the case f or debates in 2010.Their campaign was successf ul this t ime because Cameron and Brown both thought that it would be totheir advantage to participate, or to their grave disadvantage if  they did not, and also because they werenow both willing to share the stage with Clegg, even though, as leader of  the third party, he was not aserious prime ministerial candidate.The rules governing the debates were hammered out between representatives of  three broadcasters, BBC,ITV and Sky News, and the three largest polit ical parties, the Conservatives, Labour and the LiberalDemocrats. Other parties might well have been included but they were not. The rules were decided uponbehind closed doors and presented en bloc to the public.Under the rules, there would be three debates, each addressing a specif ic theme: the f irst debate,produced by ITV, f ocused on domestic af f airs; the second debate, produced by Sky News, f ocused oninternational af f airs; and the f inal debate, produced by the BBC, addressed economic af f airs. Otherwise, allthree debates f ollowed the same f ormat. Each leader delivered a one-minute opening statement. Therewere then f our questions, pre-selected by the host broadcaster, relating to the debate theme. For everyquestion, each leader had one minute to answer the question and a f urther minute to respond to the otherleaders’ answers. The answers and responses were f ollowed by f our minutes of  open discussion betweenthe leaders. Once the f our themed questions were asked, there were f our more pre-selected questions butnow on any topic. Yet again each leader had one minute to of f er an init ial answer, another minute to give af urther response, and then there were f our minutes f or general debate. At the end of  each programme, theleaders made one-and-a-half  minute closing statements.Our analysis of  the content of  the debates conf irms that the agreed rules did, on the whole, constrain boththe party leaders’ statements and the broadcasters’ choice of  questions. A clear majority of  content wasdevoted to the designated theme in the f irst and third debates, domestic af f airs and the economyrespectively. However, in the second debate on international af f airs, just over one-third of  the content wasf ocused on the theme.That broadcasters and polit icians generally stuck to the rules is reassuring. And this brings us back to theimportance of  rules. The agreed rules and the broadcasters’ choice of  questions were the most importantf actors in shaping what the leaders said. The broadcasters had an especially important role in selectingquestions that covered the issues that the public wanted to—or perhaps should—know more about. Totake one example, only one in f ive questions across all three debates priorit ised the economy, despite itsoverwhelming importance at the time. Was the themed nature of  each debate a hindrance in this regard?Was there suf f icient editorial coordination among the broadcasters to ensure that all issues wereadequately covered across the debates?We do not think that the rules governing the 2010 debates were particularly bad or that the debates were athreat to the quality of  democratic engagement. The broadcasters should probably be commended f ormixing good television with opportunit ies f or education and inf ormation. However, important normativequestions are at stake. Should a series of  events with important potential ramif ications be decided behindclosed doors by broadcasters and party polit icians? Or should there be a more open, transparent andaccountable process by which such decisions are taken? Anything that structures a whole general electioncampaign should be decided in a more open way. Journalists and party polit icians do not have a monopolyof  wisdom on what the public should be inf ormed about. No one does.Nor is it just the rules governing the content of  the debates that matter. Thought needs to be given to howdebates are covered by broadcasters. As psychological research has shown, the use of  visual continuousresponse measures, or ‘worms’, to track the real- t ime responses of  undecided voters, signif icantly af f ectsviewers’ perceptions of  who won a debate. Millions of  voters’ responses may be intentionally orunintentionally distorted by the views of  a small, unrepresentative sample of  undecided voters. Yet, arethere are no restrictions in place, and there has been litt le public discussion of  this issue.On the basis of  recent comments by David Cameron and Nick Clegg, we can expect debates to be held in2015. We do, however, reject Clegg’s suggestion that ‘This isn’t a subject—thankf ully, perhaps—ofgovernment policy. It ’s a subject of  discussion between broadcasters, who will have their own views and thepolit ical parties.’A self -selecting group of  polit icians and broadcasters should not decide by themselves something of  suchcentral importance to a general election campaign. Broadcasters in Britain are strictly regulated, but they arealso commercial organizations. Whatever they prof ess, do not have pure public-service motivations.Polit icians are also self - interested and have their own power-seeking motives. In 2010, both sides wereconcerned with establishing rules that worked to their advantage. In f uture, it would be desirable at least toinvolve an independent body, such as the Hansard Society, in the planning and oversight of  debates. If  thebroadcasters are serious about providing their viewers with bread as well as circuses, they would do so.We also think that the subject of  regulating debates could benef it f rom some kind of  public inquiry, perhapsby a parliamentary select committee. There needs to be public discussion about how f uture debates canbest serve the democratic process.Note: this post represents the views of the authors and not those of Democratic Audit or the LSE. Please readour comments policy before posting. The shortened URL for this post is: http://buff.ly/1iwZY9fDr Nicholas Allen  is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Politics and International Relations at RoyalHolloway University of London.Dr Judith Bara is Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary University of London

If there are to be leaders debates in 2015, they must bearranged in a transparent manner

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online