For the first time in the United Kingdom the leaders of the three main political parties last week took part in a televised discussion, lasting one-and-a-half hours. Some severe constraints were imposed. For example the audience produced the questions, selected by the organisers in advance, and the audience remained silent throughout the debate. The discussion was chaired by an experienced television journalist who did not himself put questions to the candidates, or follow up what they had said with any of his own.
This formula, I feared, might prove to be stilted and dull and I was in two minds whether to bother to watch the discussion. In the event, I decided to do so, mainly because it was a “first”.
I am glad that I did, for several reasons. In the first place, a great many people did watch (as was expected) and their reactions, measured in a number of opinion polls, were interesting. There was a widespread view that Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was the most effective performer. (That was certainly my own opinion, though all three were impressive.) Two more similar discussions are planned, and interest is now focused on whether that lead will be maintained.
Unexpected effect
What is clear is that the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the Conservative Party leader, David Cameron – who both accepted the success of the Clegg performance – have had to change their view of the nature of the political battle, accepting that it is no longer a two-horse race. This, incidentally, has been reflected in opinion polls of voting intentions taken after the television debate.
For me, the most interesting thing about the television discussion was a completely unexpected effect of the imposed and essentially artificial format. Each of the three participating political leaders had the opportunity to answer each question without being interrupted, either by the other two, or by the “presiding” journalist. Having given his answer, he then had to listen to the answers of the other two. Each of the three was able to challenge the points made by the others, but this was done without the over dramatic shouting matches, which are a feature of Prime Minister's question time in the House of Commons. Nor was there any of the confrontational interviewing style, which is now the hallmark of much of the treatment of politics on television and radio in the UK.
I use the word “now” about this confrontational approach, because it is in marked contrast to the deferential manner adopted by journalists interviewing politicians half a century ago. I would certainly not advocate a return to that kind of deference. In politics, as in many other aspects of life, this is a much less deferential society than it used to be – and thank goodness for that.
There is, however, a problem when confrontation becomes the be all and end all; what a politician thinks about issues and policies is hidden by the fireworks of the interview. That can be quite exciting. It often is. But the excitement too often becomes a poor substitute for substance.
In last week's television discussion the three political leaders were able to state and explain their policies in a way that allowed the viewers to know, and understand, what they were. These views and policies were criticised and questioned, but the whole thing was calm and courteous.
As they prepare for the next two similar discussions, it is clear that Gordon Brown and David Cameron will hope to use them to dent Nick Clegg's successful image.
Lasting effect?
In my opinion, the effect of these television discussions – innovative in the U.K. but commonplace in the United States – on the general election is virtually impossible to predict. Will they have a lasting effect on the reputations of the three political leaders? Will they encourage more electors to vote? Will they change many people's voting intentions? I think the honest answer to these, and similar questions, is that we simply do not know.
What we can realistically say is that the first discussion demonstrated that, even in a “new media” era, the artificial formality that was imposed on it worked surprisingly well. If it is important in a democracy that as many people as possible have the chance to know what those who wish to form a government are really like, and what they are really offering – and I certainly think that it is - that must surely be encouraging.
Bill Kirkman is an Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College Cambridge, U.K. Email: bill.kirkman@gmail.com
