So the United Kingdom had its first of three ‘presidential’ debates[1] between the three main party leaders yesterday evening. Gideon Rachman suggests that it gave a polling bump to the Liberal Democrats, whose leader, Nick Clegg did extremely well] If the debate has significant long term consequences for public opinion, as Rachman argues (perhaps from hope as much as rigorous analysis) then this would diverge from the findings of US political scientists, who argue that the effects of presidential debates on public opinion are moderate at best. Such divergence might be a bit embarrassing for me – I made a strong version of the ‘they don’t matter’ argument to a bunch of politically interested Brits at dinner a couple of weeks ago. But it would be intellectually pretty interesting. If these debates have no very great impact in the US, but do measurably affect politics in the UK, this might provide some interesting comparative insights into the underlying mechanisms at work here.
One plausible story might go as follows. The US has a strong two party system, in which third parties usually only emerge temporarily, to subside, or, in very rare instances, to successfully challenge one of the two major incumbents in a new version of the old game. The UK, which perhaps should be a two party system under Duverger’s Law is in fact a two-and-a-half party system, in which the Liberal Democrats stay in the game – but are not strong enough to challenge either Labour or the Conservatives. This is in large part because the incentives towards strategic voting incline voters in many constituencies, who are ideologically closer to the Liberal Democrats to vote either for the Conservatives or Labour rather than to waste their vote on a no-hoper party. Such expectations can of course become self-fulfilling – but can also be fragile under certain circumstances.
In particular, one might surmise that the “Clegg effect” could have consequences in situations of this kind. The impression that the leader did well in the debates may reassure potential Liberal Democrat voters that others too are likely to vote for the Liberal Democratic candidate, and that their own vote (if they cast it for the Liberal Democrats) will not necessarily be wasted. This can create an alternative set of self-fulfilling expectations under which many more people vote for the Liberal Democrats than otherwise would have done so. Of course, this is all entirely speculative – and even if it were to work out, there would be no very sweeping results (a first past the post system is still going to work against smaller parties without a strong regional base). But it could have real consequences on the margins, and is one plausible way in which ‘presidential’ debates could have greater consequence in non-US systems than in the system that gave birth to them.
fn1. This FT article is an excellent primer on how UK politicians came to agree to these debates.
fn2. I once interviewed Clegg, on the exciting topic of telecommunications ‘last mile’ regulation, when he was a lowly MEP. He struck me as extremely sharp, albeit somewhat technocratic (in fairness to him, local loop unbundling is not a topic that lends itself to politically punchy dialogue).
{ 10 comments }
Presumably the speculation about a hung parliament also helps the Liberal Democrats. I didn’t watch the debate, but anyone studying this would also have to account for both when the speculation about a hung parliament started (a couple weeks ago?), and when voters started paying attention to it, if they have.
I’m a British (Scots actually) voter and there are two points I’d wish to make about the effect of the debates on the General Election. First the formal period for the election is about 4 weeks so all the electioneering is more concentrated than it is in the USA and as a possible consequence how a politician performed may stay in people’s minds up to the point when they actually vote. Second generally the Liberal Democrats are treated as an afterthought outwith the election so when they have had equal time in previous elections, they have gained votes. This time so far, the effect looks much sharper because of the debates.
Incidentally as a voter, who was sceptical about the debates, I was quite impressed with the first one. Time will tell with the next two.
Jonathan – I don’t think speculation about a hung parliament necessarily helps the Lib Dems. It is often said that the more likely a hung parliament seems, the less likely it is to happen – because supporters of Labour or the Conservatives are more likely to vote to prevent what is seen as a “bad”, indecisive outcome.
The polls back this up – or at least, they don’t support the assertion that speculation about a hung parliament helps the Lib Dems. Such speculation has been around for months, yet the Lib Dems have been stuck in the 17-23% range. The first rigorous post-debate voting intention poll has the Lib Dems on 30%, ahead of Labour who have slipped to 28% (see here http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/politics/latest-voting-intention-16-april)
It remains to be seen though how robust this bounce is. Many commentators are suggesting it’s a Perot-style bounce.
Here in Canada, we have had debates as part of federal election campaigns for many years. And we have a multi-party system. Only two parties ever hold office (Liberals or Conservatives) but the New Democratic Party typically receives 12%-16% of the vote. And there is a fourth party which runs candidates only in Quebec, but typically receives the most votes in that province.
All four of parties participate in the debates. Most of the time, the debates have no lasting effect on public opinion — just as you have described in the US situation. The biggest exception came in 1984, when a pivotal moment in a debate became a pivotal moment in an election campaign.
(Brian Mulroney declaimed, You had an option sir to John Turner.)
As a result, the media builds up every debate enormously: “Will there be a knockout punch this evening?” But in general, debates do not determine election outcomes. In fact, Canadian debates tend to degenerate into chaos as the four party leaders struggle to talk over one another.
Interesting “blog post”:http://ukelection.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/17/uk-election-poll-puts-libdems-ahead-of-labour/ up on CNN suggesting that Lib Dems have overtaken Labour and apparently are quite close to conservatives. If we assume that strategic voters have tended to desert the Lib Debs in the past b/c of fear of wasting their votes, then polls like this could actually have an outcome on the election results. And if – and I realize this is a big if – the debates really do drive the poll numbers a bit (and suddenly seeing such a burst in Lib Dem support after a debate Clegg is widely acknowledged to have won would suggest that they are), then by extension the debates may actually help effect the outcome. The question in my mind is how these broader numbers translate into the individual constituencies.
Maybe the important thing here are not underlying differences in the structure of the party system, but rather the novelty of televised debates.
I think it is conceivable that the media narrative around the debate was so extensive (given that it was a first), and that the response strategies of Labour and the Conservatives was rather poor (given also that their campaign strategists are not used to this ritual), that it has become a sort of pivotal moment in this campaign that will have diminishing returns in future campaigns. The media will hype it less, fewer people will watch (although I’m not sure that as a percentage more people watched this one than watch American debates), and the talking points of all parties will work furiously to negate any gains on anyone else’s behalf, such that it will be less influential in terms of changing the dynamics and trajectory of the campaign.
Also, I’ve got to agree with Richard T. The shortened campaign seems likely to have whatever campaign effects do exist to have a greater potential impact, while the long, drawn-out American campaigns have the advantage of allowing for a greater convergence to the fundamentals.
Assuming a hung parliament as the outcome, two questions:
1) Which is more likely, a coalition or a minority government? (I understand the last hung parliament [1974] led to a short-lived minority government, right?)
2) In light of the mutual distaste between Labour and the Tories, is there any chance that the LibDems could use a strong third-place balance-of-power finish to actually lead a government?
I suspect David Bateman is correct.
I agree, good point by David – didn’t the JFK-Nixon debate supposedly have some significant impact? Is there research on that or is that just something that people say?
It’s also worth remembering that the Lib Dems were rising even before the debate. ICM (normally the ‘gold standard’ in UK polling) had them on 27% before the debate, nearly 5% up on the last election. It seems as if the Lib Dems are pushing at an open door here; voters want an alternative and will take the first credible one that isn’t the Tories.
Comments on this entry are closed.