TV Debates: It's Not The Swinging Sixties Anymore

With the ritualised policy briefing that is the modern manifesto launch out of the way for the three main parties, the collective attention of the Wetminster-village-in-diaspora is now firmly fixed on the forthcoming TV leaders' debates. Or to properly prefix them, the 'historic TV leaders' debates'. Obviously these have been hotly anticipated by politicos, amongst whom they are often assumed to be an electoral game-chager. Being a novelty in British politics, it is difficult to know whether or not this will be the case, but I can think of some good reasons to be more cautious in evaluating their potential influence.

The first port of call for many feature writers in the media has naturally been to look across the water to our North American and European cousins, where TV debates are an established part of the electoral process. And more often than not, this will lead to an anectdote about the 1960 Presidential debate, where a youthful JFK outshone the sweaty, grey Richard Nixon. It is taken as a given that this was a pivotal moment in the race to the White House, and rightly so. But that doesn't mean we can make a direct comparison with the 2010 British General Election. Firstly Nixon displayed a basic ignorance of the medium - his refusal of make-up famously contributing to his deathly palour on the box - that none of today's leaders could ever be accused of. Even criticisms of Gordon Brown's manufactured, knee-jerk telly smile are the result of over-engineering his media presence, not the reverse. Whilst Brown might claim that he is meeting 'ordinary people' to prepare for the debate, it is nevertheless safe to assume that all three participants will have had hour upon hour of training from their aides to cover every conceivable eventuality thrown up by the debates. Secondly one must factor in the different circumstances in which these debates are taking place. The reason Nixon's appearance played such a pivotal role in the 1960 election was that many people weren't used to seeing politicians on TV. Today, we are saturated with media appearances by politicians of every persuasion, and viewers are unlikely to be surprised by what they see. The novelty of these debates is found in the format, rather than the medium itself.

So, how do I see the debates going? Early exchanges in the campaign thus far have indicated that skirmishes might be centred around figures and 'costed promises'. All the parties will attempt to show that the others can't pay for their policies. The Conservatives have the most to lose on this front, as current polling indicates that they are the party seen as the most 'honest' by voters. The Lib Dems have been bold in including detailed financial projections in an appendix to their manifesto, which has so far backfired as commentators present their front bench representatives with all sorts of awkward sums that undermine some of the grander claims they make for the policies. The details of these economic promises will probably go over the heads of most voters, but if the accusations of 'reckless' and 'uncosted' spending sticks to all parties, it could be Labour that stands to gain the most. If the electorate fins itself with a collective economic headache come polling day, they might yet stick with the policies that have hauled the country out of recession.