Canadians have been watching them since 1968, the Americans since 1960 and now, finally, the Brits will get to see their political leaders spar in a series of televised election debates.
Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown called a general election today for May 6. For the first time ever there will be head-to-head verbal jousting between leaders broadcast on TV.
"The UK's been a laggard and that's because their major parties have pretty much ruled the roost for the last 50 years," says Tom Axworthy, chairman of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University and a proponent of leaders' debates. He believes they are an essential part of any modern democracy.
"But I think it's fair to say because Labour, a major party, is now behind, they are saying, 'Well maybe this is a chance.'" (Mr. Brown is running behind Conservative Leader David Cameron in the polls.)
Mr. Axworthy says that typically the party running first does not like debates - they are too risky for the front-runner. However, the Labour Party may now be looking "at a whole variety of ways of getting them back in the game in a hurry."
The best way, he says, is a debate because of the tantalizing possibility of landing the knock-out punch.
"Tony Blair would never do it because he was way ahead now Brown is behind," Mr. Axworthy says. "So when you are behind you love leaders' debates because you never know, you may deliver a hammer punch."
These new British debates are structured much like the ones in the United States - three are scheduled throughout the month-long campaign, are theme-related and will take place in three different regions of the country.
The first debate is next week and will be devoted to domestic issues. Members of the audience will be allowed to ask questions.
Mr. Axworthy says the Canadian electorate may be able to learn from the British iteration. (Typically, the Canadian leaders' debate is held in the middle of the campaign.)
"I think the British are actually taking advantage of the years of history of the Americans and ourselves. It looks to me like a pretty-well crafted first attempt at it," he says.
This is such a new factor in a British election that strategists, politicians and voters will look to see if a party's campaign turns on one of the debates. "When we had them in '68 it didn't change things," Mr. Axworthy told The Globe.
But he added that 1984, for example, was a game changer. That was when then-opposition leader Brian Mulroney attacked prime minister John Turner over patronage appointments - "You had an option, sir," Mr. Mulroney famously declared.
Mr. Axworthy, meanwhile, studied at Oxford University and has kept up his friends and connections in Britain. He has often suggested the British hold election debates and has been interviewed on the subject.
"In my visits … I've actually been talking about this informally for years, saying, 'Here you guys are the mother of Parliament and you're 40 years behind on election debates.'"
Last fall, Mr. Axworthy's centre prepared a paper on how to improve televised political debates in Canada. This was followed by a roundtable symposium.
The paper recommended a series of reforms, including that federal party funding for election campaigns should be contingent upon full participation in leaders' debates. It also suggested there be a series of debates throughout the campaign between party representatives (such as the critics) on national and regional themes, which should also be broadcast.
(File photo: Fred Chartrand/The Canadian Press)