Earlier leaders' debates in British elections?

Thande

Donor
The first and so far only televised party leaders' debate in Britain took place last year. However the idea is far from new and has been repeatedly proposed ever since Harold Wilson first challenged Alec Douglas-Home to a TV debate in 1964. Although a common objection is that such debates Americanise political discourse too much, the main reason they have never happened until now is, as John Major pointed out, because they are always called for by someone who expects to lose and rejected by someone who expects to win--all the leaders have to believe they could potentially do better as a result of a debate in order for a debate to be held.

What might be the effects of debates being held earlier? If the Liberals managed to get a podium I could see their vote share increasing earlier on and them becoming a significant third party political force even before the Alliance. And for that matter a debate in 1983/4 would be particularly interesting. Thatcher had rejected a debate in 1979 using the 'leader debates are un-British' argument, but I think really it was more a case of her already being on course to win and not wanting to jeopardise it. But if the Tories looked a lot wobblier than OTL, say because there was no Falklands War...I could see Thatcher agreeing to a debate, knowing that Michael Foot would come across as a fuddy-duddy and bringing in the Alliance might split the Labour vote further and help he. (For that matter, who would represent the alliance, Jenkins or Steel?)

Any other thoughts?
 
Depends when. Wilson would probably best Heath on style easily if you start in '64. In '79 Thatcher might be badly hurt if she comes across as savaging Uncle Jim, the last thing she needs is being on the receiving end of a "there you go again" moment. She herself admitted this was a major reason for declining in DSY. Curbstomps Foot and Kinnock in '83/'87. Blair easily trounces Major, draws with Hague, dunno about Howard.
 

Thande

Donor
Blair easily trounces Major
Actually in 1997 it was Major who wanted debates and Blair who didn't. While Blair was obviously a charismatic and popular figure then, Major had won 1992 partly on his soapbox performance and would have been a serious contender. Basically, Major knew he would lose, but based on the polls at the time he was on course to lose badly and thought a debate couldn't make matters worse and might make them better. (While Blair felt the polls couldn't be better for him and didn't want to risk a potential slip-up). There's also the point about Paddy Ashdown being in there: Major could have either hoped the debate would result in a Lib Dem surge that would dampen Labour's a bit, or (because Ashdown was close to Blair) portraying the two as ganging up on the Conservatives and make himself a more sympathetic figure.

As I say--Major couldn't have won in 1997, but I tend to think a debate would have helped rather than hindered the Conservatives and made their defeat a little less punishing. A debate as a big TV event might also have the effect of drawing more interest into politics and perhaps avoiding some of the turnout falloff during the Blair years in OTL.
 
Top