alternatehistory.com

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?
Top