Fleishman Hillard: The Political View

Well it’s the day after the release of the 2010 budget and the question on everyone’s mind is what will the opposition do?  The papers today are dominated by coverage of the budget – so I thought I would do something a little different.  As some of you know, I have been lucky enough to spend some time in the UK this year.  For a political junkie like myself I couldn’t have chosen a better time to visit the UK.  In a few short weeks, British MPs will be heading into an election.  This election promises to be one of the more exciting political contests in the last decade.  While the British Labour Party has governed the United Kingdom for close to 13 years, many Brits have written off the current government’s electoral chances.  In fact, recently British bookies have put the Conservative Party’s odds of winning a majority in the next election at 1/2 versus 12/1 for Labour.

What surprised me the most about these elections is not the similarities between Brown’s government and the Martin government in Canada.  No – that’s a story that’s been told far too often.  I am shocked to learn that the 2010 British General Election will be the setting for the first televised debate in the history of the United Kingdom.  42 years after the first televised debate in Canada (Trudeau vs. Stanfield) and 50 years after the first televised debate in the United States (Kennedy vs. Nixon), the British people will finally see their political leaders duke it out on Prime Time television.

I know this may shock some of you, but the televised debates are my favourite part of any election (gasp!).  At worst the debates serve as an entertaining break during a grueling campaign and at best they serve as an opportunity to define the major issue of the campaign.  Some of the biggest turning points in recent political campaigns have occurred during the televised debates. On paper Richard Nixon was seen as the superior candidate, but many blame his poor performance on television against JFK in the first presidential debate as the reason for losing the debate and many believe the entire election.

The stakes at Canadian Debates have been high as well – one of the most memorable moments in Canadian politics occurred in the 1984 and 1988 leader’s debates between Mulroney and Turner.  Following the knock-out punch ( “You had an option, sir” ) that Mulroney delivered in 84, Turner was given a rematch in 88.  While Mulroney went on to win the election, Turner’s performance in the debate gave his campaign a much needed boost – and for a moment it looked like they were going to win the election.

So why have the British resisted adopting televised debates during their campaigns?  Some opponents to the idea accuse it of being unnecessary.  They believe that if the people wanted to see a debate between the leaders they could watch Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQ) every Wednesday.  Personally, I don’t buy this explanation.  PMQ’s only occur once a week, as opposed to the Canadian Question Period that occurs every day.  Furthermore, it’s hard to engage people in the discussion when it is being televised at noon on a Wednesday instead of after dinner.  The cynical side of me believes that the reason for not having a debate is far simpler.  What possible reason would a sitting PM have to engage in a leader’s debate?  Just showing up raises the credibility of your opponents and makes them seem more Prime Ministerial.  A sitting PM has virtually nothing to gain from participating in a debate and nearly everything to lose.

That said, the Brits are going ahead with a series of debates and they seemed to have put their own personal twist on the format.  First off they are not going to be called the Leader’s debate.  No, instead they are called the Prime Minister’s debates.  This is no accident.  Only party leaders who are generally seen as standing a chance of becoming Prime Minister are invited to participate.  This excludes the Scottish National Party (the UK’s answer to the Bloc), Plaid Cymru from Wales, and the UK Independence Party from participating.  I imagine that this will cut down on the potential of the 5 person yelling matches we have begun to see in the Canadian debates allowing for a more focused discussion.

In addition to the Prime Minister’s debates, there will also be a debate between the Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK’s Finance Minister) and his main opposition rivals.  Personally I like this idea.  For too many years, Canadian elections have been all about the leader and not enough about the people around him.  Imagine Flaherty vs. McCallum or Goodale?

It will be interesting to see how these debates play out and if there are any lessons that we can learn from in Canada.

For good measure I have pasted another great clip below – Reagan vs Mondale.  Enjoy.