Should Gordon Brown agree to a televised debate?

David Cameron’s signed up. So too has Nick Clegg. The question is: should Gordon Brown also agree to appear in pre-General Election televised debates? Despite reports he was poised to do so (it was apparently in an early draft of his conference speech but was withdrawn) Mr Brown has yet to confirm whether he will take part. The Prime Minister says he has made up his mind, he’s just not willing to tell the British public his decision. Well, not yet anyway. Agreeing to such a debate would certainly bring plenty of risk. But it would also bring the potential for significant reward – not least the chance to claw back some support from a Tory party currently well ahead in the polls. So does the PM have most to gain and Mr Cameron most to lose from going head-to-head on prime-time TV?

The pair already clash weekly during the Parliamentary term at Prime Minister’s Questions. Much watched and commented upon, the event is undoubtedly a significant part of Westminster’s theatre but PMQs regularly fails to set the heather on fire – much like First Minister’s Questions at Holyrood. Some (generously) blame that on the format, others on the failure of politicians to give straight answers to apparently straight questions. Others still point to the quality of the questions asked. But would an elongated debate – chaired by an as yet unnamed TV host – prove any more insightful, or would it have viewers reaching for their remote-controls?

In America, TV debates have long been part of presidential races and attract significant living-room audiences. As such Labour and Conservative strategists here will – or should be – pouring through the TV archives to learn lessons. The first took place between Vice-President Richard Nixon and Senator John F. Kennedy in September 26, 1960. A composed Senator Kennedy was widely viewed to have come across better than Mr Nixon. In the grainy, black and white images the V.P. appeared unshaven and somewhat flustered – the rest was history (interestingly, V.P. Nixon was deemed to have won the debate by many radio listeners). It’s a performance a comparatively youthful David Cameron may hope to emulate. This is what the PM’s advisers are likely to be warning him and in truth they may be right. More often than not Mr Brown seems uncomfortable on camera: surely he’d be a fool to allow such a direct comparison with a camera-confident Mr Cameron. Or so the theory goes. But there are risks for the Tory leader too. Ahead in the polls, any gaffe could demolish his chances of entering Number 10 just when it matters most. That brings pressure, and pressure breeds mistakes. In October 1976, President Gerald Ford – during a debate against Jimmy Carter – insisted there was “no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”. Carter seized on the comment and later claimed the White House. An equivalent blunder is perhaps unlikely from Mr Cameron, but under such attention a mistake can’t be ruled out.

But in a head-on debate could Mr Brown genuinely expect to get the better of his undoubtedly media-savvy, smooth-talking, opponent? He may be painted as dour and uncharismatic, but it’s too early to write the Prime Minister off just yet. Mr Brown would hope to expose what he says are planned Tory cuts. He would try to focus attention on Mr Cameron and his colleagues in a manner he claims the UK media is failing to do. He’ll also hope to contrast his own experience with his fresh-faced opponent’s record. To a large degree Mr Brown’s ability to do any of this will hinge on the format. In America that involves lengthy and complicated negotiations. But, and it’s a big but, if those prove successful here, it’ll be the voters who’ll benefit.

Critics claim prime-time TV debates would overly personalise the British party system in a manner akin to American presidential politics. That may be true, but it’s hard to argue personality isn’t already vital here too. Many voters – rightly or wrongly – already base their vote on their perceptions of party leaders, not on their party’s manifesto – that’s not going to change. Undoubtedly the prospect of leaders’ debates – particularly between Mr Brown and Mr Cameron – would fascinate journalists and political activists, but head-to-head, policy focused debates, would also benefit voters. With electoral turnout at concerning lows, surely anything that engages voters with British politics is worthwhile.

There are therefore three reasons why the Prime Minister should sign up sooner rather than later. Firstly, Mr Brown talks about “democratic renewal” – what better way to prove he’s committed to just that? Secondly, Labour’s now keen to portray itself as the underdog (see Peter Mandelson’s conference speech). Gordon Brown should use that to his advantage and sign up now, after all it’s he who needs the kind of “game-changing” moment a TV debate could bring. Finally, if he doesn’t commit he’ll continue to be branded as running scared. In short, the potential rewards outweigh the risks.