In the age of Facebook and Twitter, it seems anachronistic that Britain has never staged head-to-head political debates between party leaders before elections.
That could change in the next election, due by next June, after Sky News threw down the gauntlet and invited Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg to appear before their cameras. John Ryley, the head of Sky News, argues that this would be a “unique opportunity to re-engage a disillusioned electorate”.
The Times reports that David Frost is being lined up to host the debate.
There was some speculation over the summer that Brown was prepared to take part in a debate and would announce this at the party conference at the end of September. 
Critics might argue that Britain’s political system is not really suited to such a debate — after all we vote for an MP in a local constituency and don’t directly elect our leader. Also, should we vote on the basis of who comes across best on television or shouldn’t we focus on more fundamental issues?
Who has most to gain or lose from the debate? Could it trip up Cameron or would it again expose Brown’s discomfort in front of the camera, laid bare in the YouTube debacle?
Trackback
5 comments so far
The time is surely right for the British electorate to have the chance of comparing would-be British prime ministers, engaging in face-to-face debate. One only has to observe what great store the American electorate put on their ability to compare Obama with McCain alongside each other, to apppreciate that by denying the British
electorate a similar opportunity is to impoverish our democracy. At a time when interest in conventional politics, and turnout at general elections, remain dangerously low, it is self-evident that face-to-face leader debates can only be a good thing.”
Ivor Gaber
- Posted by Ivor GaberCourse Director MA Political Campaigning and Reporting
City University London
It’s an absurd proposition. Mr Cameron is maybe pinning his hopes on a re-run of the Kennedy-Nixon vice-presidential debate. Tthat it happened once, fifty years ago, and these days neither the media nor the public would allow a re-run.
Look at recent TV shows where the PM of the day faced a studio audience; in each case the show was brought to a halt by some photogenic audience member with some emotive personal experience running counter to statistics. Given how mature the “astroturf” industry seems in this country, you can guarantee a “debate” show with no debate and which doesn’t shed any light on either policies or personalities.
I’d much prefer to see cabinet and shadow cabinet taking part in those shows featuring role-playing scenarios reacting to some disaster (London flood, terrorist attack, bank failure) that we sometimes see.
- Posted by Ian KemmishAs much as a televised debate would no doubt be fantastic entertainment and potentially re-engage a disilusioned electorate, it gravely concerns me that we would be generating an American style champagne leadership. Such debates are based on negative discrediting tactics and whip crowds into frenzies based on limited information.
Least to say despite contemporary beliefs to the contrary, the best man to run our economy is not necessarily the most photogenic one or the one with the quickest, slickest catchiest quips.
- Posted by AlastairInteresting article, would our political debates be any better than the lacklustre attempts by McCain and Obama. For all of his oratory and communication skills Obama fared badly as the agenda was set by the parties. But, the parties won’t take part in a discussion where they can’t set the agenda.
Would Browne really take part in a discussion with his two challengers, especially so far behind in the polls? I don’t think so.
- Posted by Ian WinterburnOh well, anoter failed attempt at serious journalism.
Who will be there to represent the smaller parties and the non-voter? Politics is not diminishing, it is fragmenting. This will consolidate power among the top 3 parties. Shame.
- Posted by steve