One thing which really annoyed me when I was watching the BBC Question Time special on Thursday evening, with all three main party leaders answering questions from an audience, was the over-use of people's names.
All three party leaders did it. A question would come from an audience member called, say, Joseph. "Well, Joseph, I think that's a really good question…" David Cameron, Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg (whoever's turn it was to face the audience) would begin in response. (It always is 'a really good question', isn' it? These politicians never tell an audience member that what they've just said is an absolute load of nonsense, do they? Even when it is…)
It's a device politicians use to seem personable, reasonable, down-to-earth people who genuinely care about the people they're talking to. But it doesn't wash, because it sounds rehearsed and stilted, and is obviously something their exorbitantly expensive voice coaches have trained them to do. It is a perfect example of the polished faux-sincerity which, rather than making politicians look like 'real people', just makes them seem slimy and willing to do anything to ingratiate themselves with voters. (It is probably worth pointing out that politicians, like as not, don't actually want to do this – but they feel they have to, because there is a perception that we, the voters, want to see politicians who behave like 'ordinary people'. Even though we then crucify them for giving us what we so often seem to be telling them we want from them.)
Ed Miliband, however, took this device a step further on Thursday, though. As well as using the names of audience members whose names had already been given (either by them, or by David Dimbleby), the Labour Party leader went out of his way to find out the name of anyone else who asked him anything as well. It was obvious that the only reason he was asking for people's names before going on to answer (or, in some cases, before going on to avoid answering) their questions was so that he could shoehorn his little "I'm a nice, genuine guy, honest!" gambit in before going on to say anything of any worth.
Unfortunately, the fact that he did this – and did it so obviously, too – made him appear the opposite of genuine, decent and reasonable. He came over as someone who can't answer a straight question without relying on the 'crutch' of little pre-prepared phrases and tricks designed to make him look good. It also made him seem profoundly creepy, asking people for their names, taking an unnatural interest in them as people and constantly returning to them, repeating their full name in little idioms which had obviously been carefully worked out in advance.
I would implore all politicians to drop this faux-sincerity that makes them look like such creepy trie-hards, and instead just be genuine; actually genuine – not forced 'genuine' which has clearly been carefully rehearsed to fit certain criteria. As with any performance, you come over best when you relax, and don't try so hard to look like you really, really want to be there.
Showing posts with label leaders debates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label leaders debates. Show all posts
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Saturday, 7 March 2015
An empty gesture
Oh, good! The discourse of the 2015 General Election continues to be dominated by Televised Debates between the main party leaders (or between the main and not-so-main party leaders, or between one party leader and a cat named Gilbert). Y'know, because it's not like there are any more important issues to talk about just a couple of months before an election – like policies, or anything…
I have written at length about why the TV Debates are a bad idea, and should be scrapped. They are a farce which threaten to turn British politics into a soap opera with relatable 'characters' at which one can cheer or boo. They pull focus away from local party candidates and onto party leaders, further diminishing the all-too-important link between constituency residents and their local parliamentary representative. And, as we are already seeing, they dominate the news agenda ahead of the things people should actually be talking about.
Despite all of this, the TV Debates look likely to go ahead anyway. But things still aren't straight forward! David Cameron – the Prime Minister, and leader of the Conservative party – is still refusing to take part in the debates. That is his prerogative.
Despite the fact that a debate between party leaders which does not include the leader of the current largest party – the party which is likely to be either the largest or second largest party in the next parliament too – would be rather odd, broadcasters are undeterred, and plan to go ahead with the debates with or without Mr Cameron. That is their prerogative.
However, the latest furore in this saga that will not die is how broadcasters should treat the Prime Minister's absence (if absent he be). Those keen to paint Mr Cameron as 'scared' of the debates (because who doesn't love political discourse which is lifted straight from the vernacular of eight-year-old playground bullies?) would like to see an 'empty chair' in his stead. In my opinion, however, this would be the very worst thing the broadcasters could do, in the event of a debate which did not include the Prime Minister.
Imagine how this kind of debate would go. Seven eerily-lit lecterns in front of a studio audience – six of them occupied by the leaders of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru; one of them conspicuously empty. What are those six other party leaders going to focus on?
I know what I would do in that situation, if I were one of those party leaders.
I would be at great pains to draw attention to Mr Cameron's empty lectern, at every opportunity. I would address all my remarks to it personally. I would highlight the Tory leader's lack of participation in the debate every chance I got. In short, I would hope to 'win' the debate (or, at least, come out of it looking favourable) simply by showing up.
It's the obvious tactic, isn't it? Some of our major party leaders are prone to some incredible gaffes (as are some of our minor party leaders), but I don't think any of them are stupid enough not to spot that. By 'empty chair'-ing David Cameron, the broadcasters will let six other party leaders off the hook – allowing them to spend ninety minutes pointing and jeering at a 'pantomime villain' figure, making snide remarks about the Prime Minister to general applause, rather than putting forward their own policies and their own visions for Britain.
However much you may feel David Cameron would deserve such treatment for his obstinacy on the issue of the debates, we are often told that the advantage of having televised debates at all is to help voters make up their minds about which party to vote for come Polling Day; this farce of a debate would not do that – it would simply allow six politicians to hurl petty insults at a seventh politician who isn't there. How is that a meaningful part of the democratic process?
I have written at length about why the TV Debates are a bad idea, and should be scrapped. They are a farce which threaten to turn British politics into a soap opera with relatable 'characters' at which one can cheer or boo. They pull focus away from local party candidates and onto party leaders, further diminishing the all-too-important link between constituency residents and their local parliamentary representative. And, as we are already seeing, they dominate the news agenda ahead of the things people should actually be talking about.
Despite all of this, the TV Debates look likely to go ahead anyway. But things still aren't straight forward! David Cameron – the Prime Minister, and leader of the Conservative party – is still refusing to take part in the debates. That is his prerogative.
Despite the fact that a debate between party leaders which does not include the leader of the current largest party – the party which is likely to be either the largest or second largest party in the next parliament too – would be rather odd, broadcasters are undeterred, and plan to go ahead with the debates with or without Mr Cameron. That is their prerogative.
However, the latest furore in this saga that will not die is how broadcasters should treat the Prime Minister's absence (if absent he be). Those keen to paint Mr Cameron as 'scared' of the debates (because who doesn't love political discourse which is lifted straight from the vernacular of eight-year-old playground bullies?) would like to see an 'empty chair' in his stead. In my opinion, however, this would be the very worst thing the broadcasters could do, in the event of a debate which did not include the Prime Minister.
Imagine how this kind of debate would go. Seven eerily-lit lecterns in front of a studio audience – six of them occupied by the leaders of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, the Green Party, the SNP and Plaid Cymru; one of them conspicuously empty. What are those six other party leaders going to focus on?
I know what I would do in that situation, if I were one of those party leaders.
I would be at great pains to draw attention to Mr Cameron's empty lectern, at every opportunity. I would address all my remarks to it personally. I would highlight the Tory leader's lack of participation in the debate every chance I got. In short, I would hope to 'win' the debate (or, at least, come out of it looking favourable) simply by showing up.
It's the obvious tactic, isn't it? Some of our major party leaders are prone to some incredible gaffes (as are some of our minor party leaders), but I don't think any of them are stupid enough not to spot that. By 'empty chair'-ing David Cameron, the broadcasters will let six other party leaders off the hook – allowing them to spend ninety minutes pointing and jeering at a 'pantomime villain' figure, making snide remarks about the Prime Minister to general applause, rather than putting forward their own policies and their own visions for Britain.
However much you may feel David Cameron would deserve such treatment for his obstinacy on the issue of the debates, we are often told that the advantage of having televised debates at all is to help voters make up their minds about which party to vote for come Polling Day; this farce of a debate would not do that – it would simply allow six politicians to hurl petty insults at a seventh politician who isn't there. How is that a meaningful part of the democratic process?
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Debatable, at best
I think there are now one hundred days until the General Election (I haven't bothered to count, but that's what people on Twitter are saying – and they're never wrong!), but most of the talk so far has been about the damned televised leaders' debates. The leaders' debates were a new innovation for the 2010 General Election – I have already explained why they were a bad idea then, and are still a bad idea now. But the more I hear of the debates, the more convinced I become that they not only add nothing to the election campaign, but are detrimental to democracy in general.
As I described in my post from October last year:
A seven-way debate, of course, is not impossible. But whether it's possible should not be the question we are asking here – rather, we should ask 'is it desirable?' There are several reasons why I believe it is not.
Firstly, the simple fact of the inclusion of parties who don't put up candidates across the whole of the UK – and who, therefore, necessarily only speak to a portion of the electorate – is problematic. As the broadcasters reach out to the SNP and Plaid Cymru, Northern Irish parties such as the DUP are now wondering aloud why they are not also being invited to join the debates; if the DUP (who, let's not forget, currently have more seats in the House Of Commons than either Plaid Cymru or the SNP) were invited, we would end up with a debate between eight party leaders. These debates are supposed to help voters decide how to cast their votes – how does presenting them with options at least 25% of which they couldn't possibly vote for even if they wanted to do that?
Secondly, even leaving that issue aside, I don't see how the televised debates are meant to help an undecided voter make up his or her mind. In 2010, the analysis of each leader's performance in the debates seemed to focus much more on 'body language', what colour tie each leader was wearing – and, afterwards, who had 'won' – than on the actual content of each argument. The whole process struck me as horribly superficial. With seven, or even eight, people involved instead of three, that rigmarole will be intensified further, with pundits and public discussing who stood where, who wore what, and who 'won' instead of – y'know – actual politics. That's not the way to build a thriving democratic process.
My final objection is closely related to the last one, because even before the debates have begun people are not talking about politics and policies – they are talking about the debates. They are talking about who should, or should not, be invited to the debates; what the format of the debates should be; when they should take place; whether broadcasters should 'empty chair' any leader who declines to take part… Are these the issues on which we should be focussing, with only a hundred days left before we have to decide who will be running our country for the next five years?
The more we allow the ins-and-outs of the debates to dominate the discourse leading up the election, the more we allow the superficiality of politics to take over, and the less we as voters can connect with the issues which really matter. That is not democracy, and that is why we need to consign the televised leaders' debates to the history books.
As I described in my post from October last year:
[…] this clunky, unnecessary, counter-productive political device […] has been imported from America and shoehorned into our vastly different political system with practically no alterations.
The televised leaders' debates serve to make our electoral system seem more presidential, and in doing so, diminish the link between local MPs and their constituents. They oversimplify politics in a way which doesn't serve the country at all. It's time to admit that they were a mistake in 2010, and we'll be better off without them in 2015.However, when I wrote in October, the debates were in the spotlight over the issue of whether UKIP should be included. By now, however, we have moved way past that – with UKIP's participation in the debates now seemingly a given, the latest wrangling is about whether the Green Party should also be involved, along with the nationalist parties of Plaid Cymru and the SNP.
A seven-way debate, of course, is not impossible. But whether it's possible should not be the question we are asking here – rather, we should ask 'is it desirable?' There are several reasons why I believe it is not.
Firstly, the simple fact of the inclusion of parties who don't put up candidates across the whole of the UK – and who, therefore, necessarily only speak to a portion of the electorate – is problematic. As the broadcasters reach out to the SNP and Plaid Cymru, Northern Irish parties such as the DUP are now wondering aloud why they are not also being invited to join the debates; if the DUP (who, let's not forget, currently have more seats in the House Of Commons than either Plaid Cymru or the SNP) were invited, we would end up with a debate between eight party leaders. These debates are supposed to help voters decide how to cast their votes – how does presenting them with options at least 25% of which they couldn't possibly vote for even if they wanted to do that?
Secondly, even leaving that issue aside, I don't see how the televised debates are meant to help an undecided voter make up his or her mind. In 2010, the analysis of each leader's performance in the debates seemed to focus much more on 'body language', what colour tie each leader was wearing – and, afterwards, who had 'won' – than on the actual content of each argument. The whole process struck me as horribly superficial. With seven, or even eight, people involved instead of three, that rigmarole will be intensified further, with pundits and public discussing who stood where, who wore what, and who 'won' instead of – y'know – actual politics. That's not the way to build a thriving democratic process.
My final objection is closely related to the last one, because even before the debates have begun people are not talking about politics and policies – they are talking about the debates. They are talking about who should, or should not, be invited to the debates; what the format of the debates should be; when they should take place; whether broadcasters should 'empty chair' any leader who declines to take part… Are these the issues on which we should be focussing, with only a hundred days left before we have to decide who will be running our country for the next five years?
The more we allow the ins-and-outs of the debates to dominate the discourse leading up the election, the more we allow the superficiality of politics to take over, and the less we as voters can connect with the issues which really matter. That is not democracy, and that is why we need to consign the televised leaders' debates to the history books.
Monday, 13 October 2014
Throw away your television
As Douglas Carswell returns to parliament today as the first ever UKIP MP to be elected to the House Of Commons, the issue of whether UKIP leader Nigel Farage should appear in the party leaders' television debates in the run up to next year's general election is once again in the spotlight.
It's easy to think there's no simple answer to this conundrum. Some people say the debates should be restricted to those party leaders who have a realistic chance of becoming the next Prime Minister - in which case, should Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg even be included, since the next Prime Minister is likely to be either David Cameron or Ed Miliband? Other people, however, say that UKIP have a right to be included, now that they have parliamentary representation, and can therefore claim to be a serious political movement - but in that case, shouldn't the Green Party, who've been represented in the Commons by Caroline Lucas since 2010, also be involved? And how about parties like Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the DUP, etc. - all of whom have more MPs sitting in Westminster than either UKIP or the Greens?
However, there is a simple answer, and it is this: scrap the television debates.
That's right. Let's get rid of this clunky, unnecessary, counter-productive political device which has been imported from America and shoehorned into our vastly different political system with practically no alterations.
In America, voters have a straight choice between candidate this guy and candidate that guy - the television debates can help to set out the difference between each candidate's vision, and allow people to make a more informed choice when they go to vote. Here in the UK, we have a multi-party parliamentary system; very few of the people watching the debates will actually be voting for David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage - and with many parties competing for representation in the House Of Commons, looking to influence policy, the choice facing British voters is not a simple 'this or that' decision.
The televised leaders' debates serve to make our electoral system seem more presidential, and in doing so, diminish the link between local MPs and their constituents. They oversimplify politics in a way which doesn't serve the country at all. It's time to admit that they were a mistake in 2010, and we'll be better off without them in 2015.
As for UKIP…? They have one narrative - an attempt to frame political discourse as a simple case of UKIP and their supporters against the world (because all the other political parties are the same), and whether they are involved in the television debates or not, this too will be twisted to fit this narrative.
Exclusion from the debates will prove that UKIP are victims of an 'establishment' conspiracy to keep them down - whilst inclusion will give Mr Farage the chance to show how the other party leaders are all 'ganging up' on him, proving that there's no difference between the main parties, and that UKIP is the only credible alternative to a Westminster consensus which is only looking out for itself and not the interests of the country at large. Once again, we're better off without the debates altogether.
It's easy to think there's no simple answer to this conundrum. Some people say the debates should be restricted to those party leaders who have a realistic chance of becoming the next Prime Minister - in which case, should Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg even be included, since the next Prime Minister is likely to be either David Cameron or Ed Miliband? Other people, however, say that UKIP have a right to be included, now that they have parliamentary representation, and can therefore claim to be a serious political movement - but in that case, shouldn't the Green Party, who've been represented in the Commons by Caroline Lucas since 2010, also be involved? And how about parties like Plaid Cymru, the SNP, the DUP, etc. - all of whom have more MPs sitting in Westminster than either UKIP or the Greens?
However, there is a simple answer, and it is this: scrap the television debates.
That's right. Let's get rid of this clunky, unnecessary, counter-productive political device which has been imported from America and shoehorned into our vastly different political system with practically no alterations.
In America, voters have a straight choice between candidate this guy and candidate that guy - the television debates can help to set out the difference between each candidate's vision, and allow people to make a more informed choice when they go to vote. Here in the UK, we have a multi-party parliamentary system; very few of the people watching the debates will actually be voting for David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg or Nigel Farage - and with many parties competing for representation in the House Of Commons, looking to influence policy, the choice facing British voters is not a simple 'this or that' decision.
The televised leaders' debates serve to make our electoral system seem more presidential, and in doing so, diminish the link between local MPs and their constituents. They oversimplify politics in a way which doesn't serve the country at all. It's time to admit that they were a mistake in 2010, and we'll be better off without them in 2015.
As for UKIP…? They have one narrative - an attempt to frame political discourse as a simple case of UKIP and their supporters against the world (because all the other political parties are the same), and whether they are involved in the television debates or not, this too will be twisted to fit this narrative.
Exclusion from the debates will prove that UKIP are victims of an 'establishment' conspiracy to keep them down - whilst inclusion will give Mr Farage the chance to show how the other party leaders are all 'ganging up' on him, proving that there's no difference between the main parties, and that UKIP is the only credible alternative to a Westminster consensus which is only looking out for itself and not the interests of the country at large. Once again, we're better off without the debates altogether.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)