Page 149 - An Introduction to Political Communication Second Edition

AN INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

could be lost by being seen as aloof and inaccessible. That said, in
June 1994, following the death of Labour leader John Smith, the
three candidates for the succession—Tony Blair, Margaret Beckett,
and John Prescott—debated live on BBC’s Panorama programme,
the first time such a debate had ever been broadcast on British
television. And in 1997, prodded by Labour’s media managers
(confident of Tony Blair’s ability to perform well) the main parties
came closer than ever before to agreement on the terms and
conditions of live debates between the party leaders. In the end
they backed off, for reasons which remain unclear. Some speculated
that Labour, having initially supported the idea of a leaders’ debate,
took the view that with a huge lead in the opinion polls it was not
worth risking the kind of disaster experienced by Carter, Ford, or
Dan Quayle when the latter famously, and foolishly, compared
himself to John F. Kennedy. Others claimed that it was the Tories,
fearful of how their leader, John Major, would perform against
Blair, who stymied the negotiations. For whatever reason, there
was no leaders’ debate in 1997, but it seems likely, given the growing
ease and familiarity with which politicians accept exposure to live,
free media, and the increasingly anachronistic refusal of the party
leaders to submit to this new form of media scrutiny, that future
elections will include live debates between them of some kind.
It should of course be remembered that in Britain, unlike the USA,
the prime minister and his or her principal challengers are seen
debating live on television most weeks of the year. Prime Minister’s
Question Time in the House of Commons is an event without parallel
in the US political system, and may perhaps be viewed as a more
than adequate substitution for the one-off presidential debate. In the
House of Commons a party leader’s success is not measured in terms
of soundbites and slip up alone (although these are noted), but on
performance over a parliamentary session, which may be thought to
be a harsher and more accurate test of debating skill than the 90 or
so minutes of a US presidential clash. 2
There are in Britain, in addition, live campaign debates between
more junior politicians, in which detailed policy issues are covered.
The party leaders also submit themselves to set-piece interviews by
the most prominent pundits of the day, such as David Dimbleby,
Jeremy Paxman, and John Humphrys. These occasions compare
with the live presidential debate, since they allow a measure of
comparison to be drawn between candidates. The Labour leader’s
‘handling’ of Jeremy Paxman or Jonathan Dimbleby can be
compared with that of William Hague and Paddy Ashdown. Gaffes

132