Results tagged “leadersdebates”

Personally speaking, I don't think there's been enough coverage of the leaders' debates.

But that could just be me.

Being the good blogger I am, though, here are some observations of last night's debate:

I was bemused that the first topic chosen was immigration. Even more bizarre was the fact this was then followed by law and enforcement as the second topic to be chosen. Perhaps the high profile Daily Mail advert just before the debates gave the game away?

This said, I was delighted that the issue of social care was raised as the last question. It's about time the topic got the airing it needs. I never thought I'd hear the day when "Direct Payments" was mentioned in a television debate about anything.

I learnt very early on in my working life that "policy by anecdote" was not a winning contribution. The occasional case study to back up a substantive point was fine; but to offer anecdotes as your point was flakey. And they all did it (whilst seemingly playing minority bingo at the same time). For future reference, then, here's the formula to use:

I was in PLACE NAME just last week, when a NUMBER-year-old, DISTINGUISHING FEATURE (e.g. black, disabled, gay) man/woman/child told me about INSERT HARROWING STORY THAT MAKES YOUR POINT HERE. I agree with them. Things must change.

Clegg was good. Then again, I could be good if I was neither (a) David Cameron or (b) Gordon Brown, and (c) I could promise to deliver what everyone wants to hear, knowing full well I haven't a cat in hell's chance of having to actually, y'know, deliver any of it.

Brown was better than expected, though most people are clearly sick of him, so it didn't really matter how he performed.It did matter, though, how Cameron performed, and overall he lacked substance (see 'policy by anecdote' above) and wasn't comfortable at all. His hypocrisy in his closing remarks - 'This is an amazing country' versus all the Broken Britain rehtoric - highlighted how he'll change what he says so that it's whatever he thinks people want to hear (a version of the "Lisa Loeb syndrome").

The format of the debate was stilted, and most seem to agree that the slots allocated for each policy area weren't sufficient: debate was cut off just before it got going. This wasn't helped by the fact Alisdair Stewart wasn't particularly good as a moderator, though I suspect Adam Boulton will be worse and David Dimbleby will be, well, David Dimbleby.

The viewing figures were 9.4m, or 37% of the audience. Much fare has been made of the fact this was bigger than Coronation Stree and Eastenders audiences. Actually, it bears out my assertion that nearly half the population don't care.

That's what I thought. Seemingly, so many other people thought the debates would get little coverage that they've also written some thoughts, too. Here's a selection of them:

• Leaders' debate: view from the experts (Guardian)
• Debate verdict (Benedict Brogan, Telegraph)
• Leaders' debate win for Clegg, problem for Cameron (Iain Marting, WSJ)
• (Events Dear Boy, Events)
• (Iain Dale)
• Clegg wins on style, Brown on substance, Cameron on shallowness (Alastair Campbell)
• Clegg's night - probably (Marbury)

The first of the #GE10 leaders' debates - indeed, the first ever leaders' debate - is taking place tonight at 8.30pm on ITV1.

I'll be watching. Of course I will.

But the debate tonight, as with the next two, will be pointless and hardly worth the time and effort placed on them.

I've outlined 9 substantive points as to why this will be the case.

I've suggested that the content of the debates being worthless will not be self-evident until after the debates themselves and that I'll just have to write enough posts on the topic beforehand to ensure I can be suitably smug afterwards (an effort to which this post is clearly a contribution).

Stef, in one of his more elegant metaphors, has hoped against hope that the debates will shine like Gary Lineker's tan, Whilst noting its more likely the debates will be as limp as the puns in the Match of the Day studio.

And I've noted that nearly half of the population doesn't care anyway.

Amongst all the pomp and prattle, remember it's all probably crap.

We're all waiting with baited breath for the leaders' debates tonight. I've got a post on the topic ready for later, in which I argue that the debates won't matter.

And, y'know, I'm right.

How do I know? Well, consider this:

The balance of voters wrongly identified which party is promising to reduce the planned increase in National Insurance.

That is, the majority of voters couldn't identify which party was offering what position on pretty much the dominant issue of the General Election campaign so far.

So, while a reasonable number of people will be salivating, frothing at the mouth, gibbering and generally getting worked up over every single word and gesture in tonight's debates (including me), let's keep in mind that, of those members of the general public who are actually listening to this stuff, a fair few of them won't know whose is what and what is whose.

I don't hold the upcoming leaders' debates in very high regard. At best I think they'll be a boring and stale debate in which the leaders rehearse focus-group tested lines irrespective of the questions they're asked; at worst, I think they'll be a turgid slanging match in which the 3 leaders trade insults and draw dividing lines, the results of which will be to turn the public off voting at all.

But, aside from the politics of this, there is the whipping up of the debates by the media due to the vested interests all media entities have in the debates. For example, I suspect it is highly like both Sky and ITV have an advertising-revenue-driven reason to inform this frenzied speculation about the debates.

And I believe the media's view to be out of step with the public's.

Little pointers inform this view. Take, for example, this from the Guardian:

Today's poll suggests 60% of people are planning to watch at least one debate, with 29% saying they plan to watch all three. Only 39% of voters said they would not watch any of them.

The word 'only' in the last sentence doesn't correspond to the weight of the percentage it describes. Very nearly 4 in 10 of all voters don't plan to watch any of the debates. That's a percentage which would seem unimaginable, given the attention the press is already paying to the debates, and certainly doesn't warrant the descriptor 'only'.

Many people take the view the leaders' debates will be central to the 2010 General Election. My view is that these people are primarily in the media; a significant minority don't think this is the case at all.