Do leaders of ‘challenger’ parties adopt a ‘niche’ strategy in national televised debates? This article answers this question by analysing the content of the two multiparty televised leaders’ debates that took place ahead of the 2015 British general election. Using computer-aided text analysis (CATA), it provides reliable and valid measures of what the leaders said in both debates and develops our theoretical understanding of how challenger-party leaders make their pitches. It finds that the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Green Party, Scottish National Party (SNP) and Plaid Cymru leaders all demonstrated a degree of ‘nicheness’ in their contributions in comparison with the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour leaders. It also finds that the challenger-party leaders placed a greater emphasis on their core concerns. Nevertheless, the debates covered much policy ground. Their structure obliged all party leaders to talk about a broad range of issues.
AdamsJClarkMEzrowL. (2006) Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 513–529.
2.
AllenNBaraJBartleJ (2013) Rules, strategies and words: The content of the 2010 prime ministerial debates. Political Studies61(S1): 92–113.
3.
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.
4.
BaileyR (2017) Election debates: The less than smooth path to TV’s big campaign events. In: WringDMortimoreRAtkinsonS (eds) Political Communication in Britain: Polling, Campaigning and Media in the 2015 General Election. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.221–234.
5.
BaraJWealeABicqueletA (2007) Analysing parliamentary debate with computer assistance. Swiss Political Science Review13(4): 577–606.
6.
BenoitWLBenoit-BryanJM (2013) Debates come to the United Kingdom: A functional analysis of the 2010 British prime minister election debates. Communication Quarterly61(4): 463–478.
7.
BrandenburgHJohnsR (2014) The declining representativeness of the British party system, and why it matters. Political Studies62(4): 704–725.
8.
BrierAHoppB (n.d.) HAMLET II 3.0—computer assisted text analysis. Available at: apb.newmdsx.com/hamlet2.html (accessed 31 July 2016)
9.
BudgeI (1994) A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science24(4): 443–467.
10.
BudgeIFarlieDJ (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-Three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.
11.
BudgeIKlingemannH-DVolkensA. (2001) Mapping Policy Preference: Estimates for Parties, Voters and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1989) Issue Evolution: Race and the Transformation of American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
CarterN (2008) The Green Party: Emerging from the political wilderness?British Politics3(2): 223–240.
14.
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.
15.
CowleyPKavanaghD (2016) The British General Election of 2015. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
De VriesCEHoboltSB (2012) When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics13(2): 246–268.
19.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.
20.
EzrowL (2008) On the inverse relationship between votes and proximity for niche parties. European Journal of Political Research47(2): 206–220.
21.
EzrowLDe VriesCESteenbergenM. (2010) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
22.
FlindersM (2015) The general rejection? Political disengagement, disaffected democrats and ‘doing politics’ differently. Parliamentary Affairs68(S1): 241–254.
23.
GoodwinMMilazzoC (2015) UKIP: Inside the Campaign to Redraw the Map of British Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
GreenJHoboltSB (2008) Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies27(3): 460–476.
25.
GreenJJenningsW (2012) Valence as macro-competence: An analysis of mood in party competence evaluations in Great Britain. British Journal of Political Science42(2): 311–343.
26.
House of Lords Communications Committee (2014) Broadcast General Election Debates (HL Paper 171). London: The Stationery Office.
27.
KuhnR (2007) Politics and the Media in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
28.
LaverMBenoitKGarryJ (2003) Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review97(2): 311–331.
29.
LoweW (2008) Understanding wordscores. Political Analysis16(4): 356–371.
30.
LynchPWhitakerRLoomesG (2012) The UK Independence Party: Understanding a niche party’s strategy, candidates and supporters. Parliamentary Affairs65(4): 733–757.
31.
McAngusC (2016) Party elites and the search for credibility: Plaid Cymru and the SNP as new parties of government. British Journal of Politics & International Relations18(3): 634–649.
32.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
33.
MeguidBM (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
MeyerTMMillerB (2015) The niche party concept and its measurement. Party Politics21(2): 259–271.
35.
MeyerTMWagnerM (2013) Mainstream or niche? Vote-seeking incentives and the programmatic strategies of political parties. Comparative Political Studies46(10): 1246–1272.
36.
NewtonK (1993) Caring and competence: The long, long campaign. In: KingA (ed.) Britain at the Polls, 1992. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, pp.129–170.
37.
Ofcom (2015) Review of Ofcom List of Major Political Parties for Elections Taking Place on 7 May 2015: Statement. London: Ofcom.
38.
PattieCJohnstonR (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 Parties21(2): 147–177.
39.
QuinnT (2006) Tony Blair’s second term. In: BartleJKingA (eds) Britain at the Polls 2005. Washington, DC: CQ Press, pp.4–34.
40.
QuinnT (2013) From two-partism to alternating predominance: The changing UK party system, 1950–2010. Political Studies61(2): 378–400.
41.
RikerWH (1986) The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
ShephardMJohnsR (2012) Face for radio? How viewers and listeners reacted differently to the third leaders’ debate in 2010. British Journal of Politics & International Relations14(1): 1–18.
44.
StimsonJA (2004) Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
46.
StrømK (1990) A behavioural theory of competitive political parties. American Journal of Political Science34(2): 565–598.
47.
Van de WardtMDe VriesCEHoboltSB (2014) Exploiting the cracks: Wedge issues in multiparty competition. The Journal of Politics76(4): 986–999.
48.
VolkensALehmannPMerzN. (2015) The Manifesto Data Collection: Manifesto Project. Berlin: WZB.
49.
WagnerM (2012) Defining and measuring niche parties. Party Politics18(6): 845–864.
50.
WebbP (2000) The Modern British Party System. London: SAGE Publishing.
