Politics has always been a contact sport in the UK but this is the first year that it will be hosting the Super Bowl series – three live televised debates between prime ministerial candidates. The US has been doing it since the Kennedy era, but how important are they and what do the players need to know? In the US, it is claimed that the debates always succeed in producing a moment that decides the election outcome. This might be an exaggeration, but they do tend to set the winning candidate on a trajectory that becomes hard to interrupt. Debates begin with candidates rehashing the same old themes, the incumbent is often steadfast and responsible, the challenger often “a man of energy and change”. Darling and Osborne have already set the scene. I suspect Brown and Cameron will play to the same themes* but live TV has an unpredictable edge to it and a visual faux pas or a powerful soundbite can suddenly alter the game. In as closely contested an election as this, debates provide an ideal vehicle through which to boost and alter perceptions and to reach out to the bored, the restless, and the swing voter. So, what can Brown, Cameron, and Clegg learn from the American presidential debates?

It’s the E word, stupid: And I don’t mean the economy. Yes it matters but in TV land the most important E is for emotion. It’s about the imperative of forging a connection with the voter and letting them get to know you, up close and personal. Part of this is about having some retail-level charisma but part of it is just about firstly, not doing something stupid such as continuously sighing in exasperation like Gore in 2000, or looking at your watch impatiently like Bush Senior in 1992. And secondly, not saying something that might come across as stupid, such as Michael Dukakis in 1988, with his measured “no” in reply to a question about whether he would support the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. Brown, Cameron, and Clegg probably won’t have such moments, but each will need to show that he is a likeable sort of guy, whom we can emotionally identify with, and who is in tune with and can empathise with our concerns and our aspirations.

Affect is effect: Appearances matter, from looking young and fresh to being your self. You can manouevre around the first as proven by Reagan in 1984, by which time he was both looking and sounding his 73 years, but managed to win the debate against Walter Mondale with a humorous “I will not exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” The second sounds obvious but often candidates can’t quite decide which “self” to present as seen with Gore in 2000 when viewers saw his persona change from debate to debate often in response to the media’s critiques of his performances. For Brown, this means avoiding a repeat of his YouTube moment but rather just being himself and for Cameron it is about trying to look a little less shiny and newly minted. Debates also allow the third candidate to make an impact, gain political leverage, and at the very least to enhance their personal standing as proven by Vince Cable last week. Clegg should be aiming for the same.

It really is the economy, stupid: Policy matters, there’s often one policy issue that candidates have to prove themselves on. In the 2008 debates, McCain’s task was to show that he could deal with economic issues, while Obama had to prove himself on national security and get people to envisage him as a credible commander-in -chief. Obama managed to pass the national security threshold, whilst McCain fumbled on the economy. For Brown and Cameron, it’s also going to be about the economy and will come down to who does a better job of owning the issue. This, however does not mean projecting yourself as a policy heavyweight who can do detail, or introducing new ideas that haven’t been properly thought out, or even winning the argument. In a debate, it’s simple. It’s about explaining the policies that you have already made your own with a narrative that works and it’s about looking like a plausible PM.

Expectations, before and after: The US season starts with each campaign downplaying their candidate’s abilities and lauding the rhetorical skills of the other. This, no matter how ludicrous it may sound, such as in the run-up to the 2008 vice presidential debates, when the Obama team called Sarah Palin “a gifted debater”. In the match-up with McCain, they stuck with the theme, saying they would be “thrilled” if they could “just escape relatively unscathed.” The Republicans in turn, portrayed Obama as being “all talk” and naturally being better positioned to win the debating game. The post-debate battle for perceptions is equally important. Both campaigns worked hard on trying to persuade the press and the public that it is they who have won. McCain’s did so by showcasing the number of times Obama agreed with him, and Obama’s by taking out advertisements focusing on McCain’s total failure to mention the middle class. The UK parties now need to focus on the post-debate game as most people make decisions based not only on what they see but also on what they will hear and read about the candidates’ personality and policy flaws and graces in the days after.

– – – – – – –

I imagine Brown, Cameron and Clegg’s stock themes will be experience versus change. Someone at some point will ask them what separates them from the other candidate. And their replies will be along the lines below. The reason I can make such a forecast is because experience versus change is a theme that the incumbent and their challengers often play to. The script below is taken from the First Bush, Clinton, Perot Presidential Debate of 1992. I have simply substituted the incumbents: Brown for George Bush Senior, and their challengers: Cameron for Bill Clinton, and Clegg for Ross Perot. The original transcript is available from this website. 

Questioner: What do you believe tonight is the singlemost important separating issue of this campaign?

Cameron: The most important distinction in this campaign is that I represent real hope for change and a departure from tax and spend economics, to invest in growth. But before I can do that, I must challenge the British people to change, and they must decide. Tonight I have to say to the Prime Minister: Mr. Brown, for 12 years you’ve had it your way. You’ve had your chance and it didn’t work. It’s time to change. I want to bring that change to the British people. But we must all decide first we have the courage to change for hope and a better tomorrow.

Brown: Well, I think one thing that distinguishes is experience. I think we’ve dramatically changed the world. I’ll talk about that a little bit later, but the changes are mind-boggling for world peace. Change for change sake isn’t enough. My economic program is the kind of change we want. And the way we’re going to get it done is we’re going to have a brand new Parliament. A lot of them are thrown out because of all the scandals. I’ll sit down with them, Labour, Conservatives, and Liberal Democrats alike, and work for my agenda for British renewal, which represents real change. But I’d say, if you had to separate out, I think it’s experience at this level.

Cameron: I believe experience counts, but it’s not everything. Values, judgment, and the record that I have amassed in my state also should count for something. You know, my wife, Samantha, gave me a book about a year ago in which the author defined insanity as just doing the same old thing over and over again and expecting a different result. We have got to have the courage to change. Experience is important, yes. I’ve gotten a lot of good experience in dealing with ordinary people over the last year and month. I’ve touched more people’s lives and seen more heartbreak and hope, more pain and more promise, than anybody else who’s run for PM this year. I think the British people deserve better than they’re getting. Personal income has dropped while people have worked harder. In the last four years, there have been twice as many bankruptcies as new jobs created. We need a new approach. The same old experience is not relevant. And you can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.

Clegg: Well, they’ve got a point. I don’t have any experience in running up a $4 trillion debt. I don’t have any experience in gridlock government where nobody takes responsibility for anything and everybody blames everybody else. I don’t have any experience in creating the worst public school system in the industrialized world, but I do have a lot of experience in getting things done. So, if we’re at a point in history where we want to stop talking about it and do it, I’ve got a lot of experience in figuring out how to solve problems, making the solutions work, and then moving on to the next one. I’ve got a lot of experience in not taking 10 years to solve a 10-minute problem. So, if it’s time for action, I think I have experience that counts. If there’s more time for gridlock and talk and finger pointing, I’m the wrong man.

Photo: left-hand 2008