TV Politics
Funny how easily the media and, seemingly, the general public -if opinion polls are indicative- can be swayed from one day to the next.
Not so long ago the three major parties were publishing their manifestos each with a variation on devolving power to the people, candidates and their supporters were knocking on doors – some followed by TV cameras, but a majority not. Any mention by Cameron of his ‘Big Society’ vision was notable by its absence from thursday’s TV debate, let us not forget.
Suddenly there is a huge enthusiasm for the televised debate between the three party leaders. The occasion draws comparisons not with our own tradition of door-stepping, people contact hustings but with the image-led US presidential contests where politics are reduced to the cult of personality and spin.
Suddenly we are told that what will decide the outcome of our general election will not be what happens in the constituencies but how Clegg, Cameron, and Brown manage in the subsequent TV debates.
Suddenly everyone waxes lyrical about a format that reduces the listening audience to silence and the media to drawing on instant ‘polls’ ,worms, and spun comments from party aides to measure just how well a party leader is ‘performing’.
If this is the democracy people want then lets rename the general election , a presidential election and forget about all that nonsense about a new rejuvenated parliament .We should also look to the Eurovision song contest as a possible template for gathering votes.
Clegg by my reckoning got at least twelve ‘points’. Though I can’t remember the detail of much of what he said, he certainly showed an effective, if not affected, TV style.
Having election watched over the past few days, for the first time in my life I am becoming very cynical. It seems that one party in particular just says whatever it thinks will win votes. I’m all for showing debates on television, but let’s have a proper ding-dong debate, and no pussyfooting around. God forbid we get like Italy, where one man has an excessive influence on the media.
To keep myself sane, I resort to humour. I quite like this one:
When told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, John Wilkes responded: “Naturally.” He then added: “And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?”