Power to the Plasma Screen
As I write this, Nick Clegg is almost as popular with the British electorate as Winston Churchill was at the end of World War 2. Churchill had just won a six-year war. Clegg 'won' a 90-minute debate. Few things illustrate more poignantly the superficial basis on which we have come to make our judgments, and few things illustrate more sharply the power of media to transform public perceptions.
Whatever the merits of their individual performances in that debate, it can only be hoped that, for the sake of the future of the political process in this country, Brown, Cameron and Clegg are all alarmed that a single 90-minute TV appearance is apparently all it takes to turn around your standing in the country. It's not that politics has no place on television. Rather, as Neil postman demonstrated long ago, it is that TV as a medium is essentially unsuited to the communication of the complex arguments and sophisticated debate that cannot help but be characteristic of politics.
All three men were eager to stress that the debate wasn't a TV talent contest. Nevertheless, that's exactly how it was received. Clegg 'won' because he gave the best performance. Brown 'lost' because he was deemed to give the worst performance, and Cameron also 'lost' because his performance wasn't up to expectations.
In short, whether they liked it or not, last Thursday the party leaders auditioned for the political equivalent of The X Factor, and Clegg, for one week at least, won. Whatever quality it is that we label the 'X factor', it's clearly more compelling to the electorate than the prospect of rigorous engagement with policies and the political process.
Sadly, it is the qualities of character, wisdom and discernment that will be the casualties of a political process driven primarily by television appearances. Exactly the kind of qualities repeatedly emphasised in the Bible as necessary for just and effective leadership.
By the time you read this, the second television debate will be over and the polls may already be showing a surge towards either Labour or the Conservatives, depending on how the party leaders were perceived to have performed. Which would, of course, only serve to prove the point.
Nigel Hopper
Comments
I think the whole idea, set out in the article, a misunderstanding of what is actually happening. I do not believe that Nick Clegg's rise to "fame"/"stardom" or whatever else you wish to call it is down to the 90 minute debates. Rather it is the very fact that for once, he is actually allowed to display his parties views and policies for the whole country to hear. As a result people are sitting up and taking notice of the Liberal Democrats as a party who can really make a difference, they aren't just plucking policy out of thin air in order to try and coerce votes from the general public, something which many of the smaller parties do to try and initially gain support, instead they are offering substance, something that you could argue is and has been lacking from the "old parties" for a considerable amount of time. So whilst it may be perceived that popularity is directly proportional to "how well" a particular politician has performed in front of the cameras, this simply isn't the case. People want change. The Liberal Democrats are offering that change. And on paper it seems like they have put together a set of policies that will actually work and change Britain for good. Josh
I found that your article said almost exactly just what I had been thinking after watching the two debates so far. Whatever the ACTUAL influence of the debates, which remains to be seen, I noticed that the TV and radio commentators, immediately after the event, simply asked their studio guests "Well, who won?", reinforcing their own perception that this was, indeed, a TV show, judged like the X-factor and other talent shows in vogue. Surely it must be obvious to all that wise counsel and shrewd judgement in a crisis, essential attributes in a national leader, are NOT necessarily the preserve of the superficially attractive contestant? If the Lord looks on the heart, so should we as voters.
Yolande - the statistics DO support a surge, quite clearly - a rise in the polls of 10-12% indicates a massive increase in support. The assumption in the media (and in this article) is that it came from the debate, rather than from people engaging with the manifesto or reports of policy. I was against the debates before they happened, partly due to a natural suspicion of novelty on television, and partly due to the increasing Presidentialism of British politics which does not chime well with a Parliamentary system. However I have had to reappraise that view after the debates as my impression is that they are catalysing a great deal more excitement and engagement in policy and the political process than would normally be the case in an election campaign. If this is not true of everyone it is certainly true of younger people (18-35s). Yolande, if you want to explore the "qualities of character, wisdom and discernment" of each candidate/party, I would strongly suggest attending as many hustings meetings as you can. There are bound to be some in your constituency. You can often ask questions at these (usually free) events and you will get a far better idea of what candidates are actually like than from local newspapers, election literature etc. Many candidates will also be happy to talk to you personally if you make it clear that is what you want. I hope that's helpful!
Thanks to the stranglehold of newspaper proprietors and the biased reporting that results, the LibDems could be miraculous aliens and no-one would be any wiser. By mistake or accident by their opponents, the LibDems have achieved some exposure on TV. The polls are not so unbalanced as a result. The article was amusing. I don't think that there is any expertise that could predict the performance of a future government. The loftily superior tone of the article is misplaced. I can think of no rationale better than "This government is worn out, try another".
Tom's comment: "The widespread media assumption that the Lib Dem surge came primarily or wholly from the leaders' debate"... This only re-enforces the power of the media to give a perception of a Lib Dem surge, even though the statistics do not support such a surge. To me, the greatest challenge I have with this election is really getting to know "qualities of character, wisdom and discernment" of each candidate/party. Each party can have loads of great sounding policies (most of which are too complicated for me to understand), but when crisis comes and the policies are no longer relevant, how will we know that the person (people) we have elected has enough strength of character to lead us wisely through the crisis? I could use some help in making my decision.
The widespread media assumption that the Lib Dem surge came primarily or wholly from the leaders' debate - which this article imports wholesale - is incorrect. I go into detail about it on my blog here: http://bit.ly/dimJ8r ICM/Sunday Telegraph: Conservative 34%, Labour 29%, Lib Dem 27% from Sunday 18th April showed the Lib Dems up 7 points based on fieldwork conducted almost entirely BEFORE the debate. The surge is based not only on Nick Clegg's public popularity but on concrete policies in the Lib Dem manifesto - which ties in nicely with the historical trend of large increases in Lib Dem poll-share during election campaigns.
I hope you're wrong about people basing their support on the perceived outcome of the television debates. Many people are turning to the Liberal Democratic Party because of their track record at local council level. They also appear to be a party which relies a lot on volunteer work rather than large donations. I personally feel that their commitment to local communities is Christ-like, and for that reason they deserve support.
I wonder if this piece rather does a disservice both to the 3 politicians and to the viewing public? I sense that we are better informed both about the character and qualities of our potential prime minister and about the issues. The time to assess this may be after all three debates at which point we will have seen and heard a very substantial amount about what matters to the three parties.
Date:
2010-04-24 11:13:55
Author:
John sturrock