They may be imperfect but here is why TV election debates are important - Stephen Jardine

SNP leader John Swinney (left) and Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar, clashed over austerity in a BBC Debate Night election special (Photo by Jane Barlow/PA Wire)

The history of TV election debates is shorter than it might have been.

In 1979 Conservative Leader Margaret Thatcher sat down with her key advisors to discuss a head-to-head broadcast exchange between Prime Minister James Callaghan. When the Iron Lady was told failure to agree would displease the BBC, the matter was sealed. And it was another 30 years before the first election debate in 2010 between Nick Clegg, David Cameron and Gordon Brown.

For one of the world’s oldest democracies, they are a relatively new phenomenon and we’re still trying to work out how to do them. On Wednesday night it was my turn, chairing BBC Scotland’s Leaders Debate.

At best, they are an imprecise science. In Scotland devolved and reserved matters always overlap. You can explain to the audience on and off air that this election is about Westminster but in their minds, performances at Holyrood inevitably spill over into perceptions and opinions.

The aspiration is always to shed light and help voters make up their minds but a lot gets in the way. The politicians come armed with sound bites and well rehearsed lines. On live television, time marches at a ferocious pace, eating up the space to fact check and cross examine. And there is the need for fairness, to make sure all the politicians receive an equal opportunity to be heard. With some voices more strident than others, that is a challenge in itself. Then there is the audience, some of whom want to talk about the state of the economy, while others are preoccupied with potholes or single ticketing systems for public transport.

Achieving perfection is difficult but everyone knows what they don’t want to happen. Getting debates off the ground in this country was a slow business because it’s usually the underdog who has nothing to lose who is most keen whilst those ahead in the polls see only potential pitfalls.

In the 1960 US Presidential campaign, a young Democratic Senator John F Kennedy went head-to-head with the established Republican Vice President Richard Nixon. Nixon refused to wear make up, chose a bad suit and didn’t prepare in advance. The debate was a turning point in the campaign and since then no politician takes them for granted.

On Wednesday night in Glasgow the first participant arrived three hours before the programme to prepare. So is it worth it? Since this is politics, there is never going to be agreement on that. For every person who finds a debate interesting and helpful there is someone who finds them infuriating and frustrating. Often that comes down to who they support.

But given all the imperfections and difficulties, they are now an important part of our election landscape. With bulky manifestos from all the parties, the TV debates help crystalise and focus the key issues of the campaign. They also expose character, temperament and personality.

And crucially, they foster political engagement. Three million people watched the seven way UK leaders debate live on the BBC. In an age of streaming and multi channel choices that is a huge number that any entertainment show would be happy to emulate.

TV election debates are still finding their feet in this country. But in this age of social media disinformation, any opportunity to pursue answers from the people who aspire to run the country can only be a good thing.