This article investigates the verbal content of the 2010 prime ministerial debates using computer-aided text analysis (CATA) and functional analysis. It seeks to provide reliable measures of what the leaders said, develop our theoretical understanding of televised debates in British elections, open up the 2010 debates for potential comparison with others, and provide additional evidence by which the democratic value of the debates might be assessed. The article demonstrates that the leaders focused more on policy than on personality, that most content was devoted to positive reasons for supporting parties rather than negative attacks on opponents, and that there was variation in the attention paid to general themes and specific issues and in the nature of the leaders' appeals to voters. The findings offer qualified support for issue ownership and functional theories, but knowledge of the specific political context remains necessary for understanding the content.
AllenN.BaraJ.BartleJ. (2011) ‘A Much Debated Campaign’, in AllenN.BartleJ. (eds), Britain at the Polls 2010.London: Sage, pp. 175–202.
2.
BaileyR. (2012) Squeezing Out the Oxygen – or Reviving Democracy? The History and Future of TV Election Debates in the UK.Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
3.
BakerK. L.NorpothH. (1982) ‘Candidates in Television: The 1972 Electoral Debates in West Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 45 (3), 329–45.
4.
BaraJ. (2006) ‘Do Parties Reflect Public Concerns?’, in BaraJ.WealeA. (eds), Democratic Politics and Party Competition: Essays in Honour of Ian Budge.Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 104–24.
5.
BaraJ.WealeA.BicqueletA. (2007) ‘Analysing Parliamentary Debate with Computer Assistance’, Swiss Political Science Review, 13 (4), 577–606.
6.
BarisioneM. (2009) ‘So, What Difference do Leaders Make? Candidates' Images and the “Conditionality” of Leader Effects on Voting’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 19 (4), 473–500.
7.
BarnettS. (2002) ‘Will a Crisis in Journalism Provoke a Crisis in Democracy?’, Political Quarterly, 73 (4), 400–8.
8.
BeerS. H. (1965) Modern British Politics: A Study of Parties and Pressure Groups.New York: Faber.
9.
BenoitW. L. (2007) Communication in Political Campaigns.New York: Peter Lang.
10.
BenoitW. L.Benoit-BryanJ. (2011) ‘Debates Come to the UK: A Functional Analysis of the 2010 British Prime Minister Election Debates’. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 31 March.
11.
BenoitW. L.HensonJ. R. (2007) ‘A Functional Analysis of the 2006 Canadian and 2007 Australian Election Debates’, Argumentation and Advocacy, 44 (1), 36–48.
12.
BenoitW. L.KlyukovskiA. (2006) ‘A Functional Analysis of 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Debates’, Argumentation, 20 (2), 209–25.
13.
BenoitW. L.SheaferT. (2006) ‘Functional Theory and Political Discourse: Televised Debates in Israel and the United States’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83 (2), 281–97.
14.
BenoitW. L.BlaneyJ. R.PierP. M. (1998) Campaign ′96: A Functional Analysis of Acclaiming, Attacking and Defending.Westport CT: Praeger.
15.
BrierA.HoppB. (2011) ‘HAMLET II 3.0 – Computer Assisted Text Analysis’ [online]. Alan Brier. Available from: http://apb.newmdsx.com/hamlet2.html [Accessed 30 June 2010].
16.
BudgeI.FarlieD. J. (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies.London: Allen & Unwin.
17.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (2001) Mapping Policy Preference: Estimates for Parties, Voters and Governments 1945–1998.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
CohenJ. (1960) ‘A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales’, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20 (1), 37–46.
19.
ColemanS. (ed.) (2011) Leaders in the Living Room: The Prime Ministerial Debates of 2010: Evidence, Evaluation and some Recommendations.Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.
20.
ConverseP. E. (1964) ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in ApterD. E. (ed.), Ideology and Discontent.New York: Free Press, pp. 206–61.
21.
DarlingA. (2011) Back from the Brink: 1,000 Days at Number 11.London: Atlantic Books.
22.
DoreyP.DenhamA. (2007) ‘“Meeting the Challenge”? The Liberal Democrats' Policy Review of 2005–2006’, Political Quarterly, 78 (1), 68–77.
23.
DownsA. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy.New York: Harper.
24.
GreenJ.HoboltS. B. (2008) ‘Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections’, Electoral Studies, 27 (3), 460–76.
25.
GreenJ.JenningsW. (2012) ‘Valence as Macro-competence: An Analysis of Mood in Party Competence Evaluations in Great Britain’, British Journal of Political Science, 42 (2), 311–43.
26.
HartR. P. (2000) Campaign Talk: Why Elections are Good for Us.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
27.
HeathO. (2011) ‘The Great Divide: Voters, Parties, MPs and Expenses’, in AllenN.BartleJ. (eds), Britain at the Polls 2010.London: Sage, pp. 120–46.
JohnsR. (2010) ‘Measuring Issue Salience in British Elections: Competing Interpretations of “Most Important Issue”’, Political Research Quarterly, 63 (1), 143–58.
33.
KingA. (2002) ‘Tony Blair's First Term’, in KingA. (ed.), Britain at the Polls, 2001.New York: Chatham House, pp. 1–44.
34.
LeachR. (2009) Political Ideology in Britain, second Edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
MoranM.JohalS.WilliamsK. (2011) ‘The Financial Crisis and its Consequences’, in AllenN.BartleJ. (eds), Britain at the Polls 2010.London: Sage, pp. 89–119.
37.
NorrisP.CurticeJ.SandersD.ScammellM.SemetkoH. A. (1999) On Message: Communicating the Campaign.London: Sage.
38.
PattieC.JohnstonR. (2011) ‘A Tale of Sound and Fury, Signifying Something? The Impact of the Leaders' Debates in the 2010 UK General Election’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 21 (2), 147–77.
39.
RobertsonD. (1976) A Theory of Party Competition.New York: Wiley.
40.
ShephardM.JohnsR. (2012) ‘Face for Radio? How Viewers and Listeners Reacted Differently to the Third Leaders' Debate in 2010’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14 (1), 1–18.
41.
StokesD. E. (1963) ‘Spatial Models of Party Competition’, American Political Science Review, 57 (2), 368–77.
42.
WeberR. P. (1990) Basic Content Analysis, second Edition. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
43.
WringD.MortimoreR.AtkinsonS. (eds) (2011) Political Communication in Britain: The Leaders' Debates, the Campaign and the Media in the 2010 General Election.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
