Rating the debates: the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates and political communication in the deliberative system

Stewart Davidson, Stephen Elstub, Robert Johns, Alastair Stark

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Leader debates have become a pre-eminent means of campaign communication in numerous countries and were introduced in the UK relatively recently. However, the quality of such communication is, to put it mildly, open to question. This article uses the discourse quality index (DQI) to assess the deliberative quality of the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates. When scrutinized in isolation, and viewed through the full prism of the DQI categories, the quality of discourse evidenced in the debates is a relatively poor reflection of mainstream idealizations of democratic deliberation. However, when the analysis is rehoused within the wider project of constructing a deliberative system in the UK, and is given a comparative institutional dimension, the epistemic value of the debates is revealed. The relatively high level of justification employed by the party leaders suggests that the debates are a valuable means for the mass communication of reasoned defenses of manifesto pledges to the public sphere, and that they are likely to have a significant educative effect. Moreover, we argue that sequencing such debates with representative deliberative fora will force elites to improve the deliberative quality of their communication and enhance the reflective capacity of the viewing public.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)183–208
Number of pages28
JournalBritish Politics
Volume12
Issue number2
Early online date16 Aug 2016
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2017

Fingerprint

political communication
rating
leader
discourse
communication
mass communication
deliberation
Political Communication
Rating
social isolation
elite
campaign
Communication
Discourse
Values

Keywords

  • politics
  • party leaders
  • debates
  • 2010

Cite this

Davidson, Stewart ; Elstub, Stephen ; Johns, Robert ; Stark, Alastair. / Rating the debates: the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates and political communication in the deliberative system. In: British Politics. 2017 ; Vol. 12, No. 2. pp. 183–208.
@article{ac21ec129e404ebeaf920f24278e12fb,
title = "Rating the debates: the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates and political communication in the deliberative system",
abstract = "Leader debates have become a pre-eminent means of campaign communication in numerous countries and were introduced in the UK relatively recently. However, the quality of such communication is, to put it mildly, open to question. This article uses the discourse quality index (DQI) to assess the deliberative quality of the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates. When scrutinized in isolation, and viewed through the full prism of the DQI categories, the quality of discourse evidenced in the debates is a relatively poor reflection of mainstream idealizations of democratic deliberation. However, when the analysis is rehoused within the wider project of constructing a deliberative system in the UK, and is given a comparative institutional dimension, the epistemic value of the debates is revealed. The relatively high level of justification employed by the party leaders suggests that the debates are a valuable means for the mass communication of reasoned defenses of manifesto pledges to the public sphere, and that they are likely to have a significant educative effect. Moreover, we argue that sequencing such debates with representative deliberative fora will force elites to improve the deliberative quality of their communication and enhance the reflective capacity of the viewing public.",
keywords = "politics, party leaders, debates, 2010",
author = "Stewart Davidson and Stephen Elstub and Robert Johns and Alastair Stark",
note = "Library created record as author is on leave AAM: 12m embargo Acceptance email in SAN Exception email in SAN ^Exception status: author email in SAN; agreed no exception can be applied (library exception review, October 2018). See exception definition - must be outwith control of the HEI and in this case the HEI could have informed the author of the correct guidelines.",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1057/s41293-016-0021-9",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "183–208",
journal = "British Politics",
issn = "1746-918X",
publisher = "Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

Rating the debates: the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates and political communication in the deliberative system. / Davidson, Stewart; Elstub, Stephen; Johns, Robert; Stark, Alastair.

In: British Politics, Vol. 12, No. 2, 05.2017, p. 183–208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rating the debates: the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates and political communication in the deliberative system

AU - Davidson, Stewart

AU - Elstub, Stephen

AU - Johns, Robert

AU - Stark, Alastair

N1 - Library created record as author is on leave AAM: 12m embargo Acceptance email in SAN Exception email in SAN ^Exception status: author email in SAN; agreed no exception can be applied (library exception review, October 2018). See exception definition - must be outwith control of the HEI and in this case the HEI could have informed the author of the correct guidelines.

PY - 2017/5

Y1 - 2017/5

N2 - Leader debates have become a pre-eminent means of campaign communication in numerous countries and were introduced in the UK relatively recently. However, the quality of such communication is, to put it mildly, open to question. This article uses the discourse quality index (DQI) to assess the deliberative quality of the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates. When scrutinized in isolation, and viewed through the full prism of the DQI categories, the quality of discourse evidenced in the debates is a relatively poor reflection of mainstream idealizations of democratic deliberation. However, when the analysis is rehoused within the wider project of constructing a deliberative system in the UK, and is given a comparative institutional dimension, the epistemic value of the debates is revealed. The relatively high level of justification employed by the party leaders suggests that the debates are a valuable means for the mass communication of reasoned defenses of manifesto pledges to the public sphere, and that they are likely to have a significant educative effect. Moreover, we argue that sequencing such debates with representative deliberative fora will force elites to improve the deliberative quality of their communication and enhance the reflective capacity of the viewing public.

AB - Leader debates have become a pre-eminent means of campaign communication in numerous countries and were introduced in the UK relatively recently. However, the quality of such communication is, to put it mildly, open to question. This article uses the discourse quality index (DQI) to assess the deliberative quality of the 2010 UK party leaders’ debates. When scrutinized in isolation, and viewed through the full prism of the DQI categories, the quality of discourse evidenced in the debates is a relatively poor reflection of mainstream idealizations of democratic deliberation. However, when the analysis is rehoused within the wider project of constructing a deliberative system in the UK, and is given a comparative institutional dimension, the epistemic value of the debates is revealed. The relatively high level of justification employed by the party leaders suggests that the debates are a valuable means for the mass communication of reasoned defenses of manifesto pledges to the public sphere, and that they are likely to have a significant educative effect. Moreover, we argue that sequencing such debates with representative deliberative fora will force elites to improve the deliberative quality of their communication and enhance the reflective capacity of the viewing public.

KW - politics

KW - party leaders

KW - debates

KW - 2010

U2 - 10.1057/s41293-016-0021-9

DO - 10.1057/s41293-016-0021-9

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - 183

EP - 208

JO - British Politics

JF - British Politics

SN - 1746-918X

IS - 2

ER -