Election TV debates ....

[Saracen]

So, the first TV debate is tonight (ITV, 8:30).

Will you be watching? And do you expect to learn anything?

Moreover, do you think it will change anything?

[oolon]

I would just like to say *YAWN* it seems they have come up with the set of rules guaranteed to make it boring. What we want to see celebrity death match, 3 men enter one man leaves!

[Saracen]

Personally, I will be watching. Or at least, I'll give it a try. Whether I stick it out for the duration, or give up and go watch paint dry, will probably depend on how close I get to lobbing a brick through the TV screen. Which reminds me .... make arrangements to go a friends house to watch it, just in case.



Also, I asked "will it make a difference". Personally, I doubt it'll convince many, if any, on policies, but it is entirely possible to do very well, or very badly, in terms of personality. There have certainly been many examples in the US where moments on Presidential debates have been claimed afterwards as being the turning point, or at least, where a likely result became set in stone. And there have been some huge gaffs. Obama's performance is certainly alleged to have been influential, as was Kennedy versus Nixon, and many in-between.

But we don't have President's here. I'm rather inclined to support Thatcher's view on this ... we should be choosing a party based on policy, and TV debates are more about who is the best actor. Mind you, that being the case the past(like that YouTube video) suggests that it's a two-way fight between Cameron and Clegg and that Brown might as well start packing now, so maybe its no bad thing.

The biggest challenge for each candidate, in my view, is to make sure they don't step too badly on their own pecker. If they come out of each debate not having wrecked their own campaign, it's a victory. Cynic? Moi?

[Saracen]

I would just like to say *YAWN* it seems they have come up with the set of rules guaranteed to make it boring. What we want to see celebrity death match, 3 men enter one man leaves!

Yeah, the rules do seem very constricting. But perhaps, they're designed to try to make it about actual debate, not about acting, or rough and tumble.

For instance, the rule about no audience clapping (other than at the start and end). Yeah, it sounds restrictive. But, on the other hand, if we get a minute of audience clapping a the start and end of every question, we'll hear more clapping than we will political answers. It does waste a lot of time.

If I want anything out of this, it's actual debate. I want to see the protagonists meeting each other, point for point. I want to see them directly confronting the arguments, the policies, not the posing and primping we get in Question Time or the playground-level point-scoring PM's Questions. And no, I'm not holding my breath, because I don't expect to get honest debate on the issues. There isn't enough attitude for that in the rules. We'll most likely get more of a canned speech recital, followed by an opposing canned speech recital.

Having said that, after Cameron's conference speech with no notes and no teleprompter, I've got to wonder if he might not be much better equipped to go ad-hoc in his points, and especially his replies? He might well come across a lot better (to the undecided, which is who this is really about) if he appears natural. It'll be interesting to see how Brown copes with it. For his sake, it'd better be a lot improved over YouTube.

Sure, the rules mean we won't get a fast-moving punch-and-jab debate, but at least we (hopefully) won't get the utter farce that is PMQ's.

[TheAnimus]

This brings out the very worst kind of politics.

What use is been able to charismatically answer pre-prepared and carefully chosen questions, whilst making snide, populist remarks at your opponent going to do for your ability to lead a party in running a country.

I will be out tonight on a date, and if it ends early, I'll be dis-assembling a washing machine. An evening much more productively spent.

[Salazaar]

It's probably more a reflection of the way I watch TV these days (record and watch at my leisure, skipping ads and breaks) but I had no idea this was going on.

I might watch them with some interest, I suspect they won't change my position but I'll stay open minded. I agree with Saracen, they'll be worth it if they actually debate the issues properly but if it's all just posturing and rhetoric I'll be turning off fairly quickly.

[oolon]

Sadly though all politicians seems to be well trained to:- acknowledge the question, mitigate the answer, then speak what they want to talk about. I think there should be a panel, if they go off the point they get warning lights, a second offense and they lose the rest of the time. This would also give us an unofficial score! If there is a score we have something to bet one... YAY! more interest already.

[VR46]

I heard that the audience are not allowed to comment on any of the answers given. So they cannot voice their disagreement. Is that right?

[scaryjim]

I've voted "not if you paid me", but that's because I don't have a television and don't watch broadcast TV, rather than any particular disinclination to watch the debates. I can't see them making a huge difference to the outcome of the election, mind you - I'm guessing three kinds of people will watch: those who are genuinely interested in politics - but they are unlikely to be swayed by a TV debate vs. actually reading the manifestos and deciding which way to vote based on policy; the party faithful who'll watch to "cheer on" the party they've already decided to vote for; and the apathetic, who can't be bothered to change the channel and probably won't bother voting anyway. Cynical, me?

As an aside, there is another important contributing factor stopping me watching them: my wife would divorce me if she caught me taking an interest in party politics...

[Saracen]

I heard that the audience are not allowed to comment on any of the answers given. So they cannot voice their disagreement. Is that right?

Yes, it is.

The rules also stipulate what the cameras can cover in terms of audience close and wide shots. For instance, no close-ups of the questioner's response to the answers from any of the candidates, so no close ups of nods of agreement or frowns of disdain unless the candidate addresses the questions directly with the answer.

There are, IIRC, 17 rules on the principles of the debates, and some 76 on the format of the program, with points like the above.

[Salazaar]

my wife would divorce me if she caught me taking an interest in party politics...

wth?

[scaryjim]

Is that right?

There's two ways you coulkd read that question, of course.

As Saracen says, you are correct - the format of the programs is very tightly controlled.

But you could also be asking if that's fair / appropriate. And tbh, I think it is, yes. This is meant to be a program about the leaders debating with each other - allow audience interaction and you'll get the one or two vocal audience members (who would almost certainly be party members / activists with an axe to grind) taking over the program, which isn't the point. Think of it as more of an extended party political broadcast where each party gets to respond to the others, rather than a special edition of question time.

[scaryjim]

wth?

She strongly disagrees with the whole concept of part politics (as do I, increasingly). "divorce" might be hyperbole, but I would certainly not be in her good books. I think she struggled hard enough to get over the fact that I stood for election once...

[pollaxe]

I shall be going for a run instead.

[Saracen]

This brings out the very worst kind of politics.

What use is been able to charismatically answer pre-prepared and carefully chosen questions, whilst making snide, populist remarks at your opponent going to do for your ability to lead a party in running a country.

I will be out tonight on a date, and if it ends early, I'll be dis-assembling a washing machine. An evening much more productively spent.

That's the danger .... but being to smug, snide or clever in a "debate" that immediately precedes a general election could be a dangerous tactic. If one candidate comes across as personable and open, inclusive, engaging with the public and the other is distant, disdainful and clearly evasive, it can be very damaging.

For instance, when Bush Senior debated Clinton, Bush dodged questions, like how someone wealthy could know what it was like to suffer in the decline the country was facing. Bush dodged, and actually said he didn't understand the question. Clinton, on the other hand, was much more open, he walked up to the audience, engaged with them and answered about how he personally felt, by being engaged with the people. The subtext was clear .... I might be a multi-millionaire, but I'm, one of you too. True or not, it worked.

Similarly, Obama more or less buried McCain because Obama was open, the body language was warm, he moved about a bit, he faced McCain and addressed him, while McCain studiously refused to address Obama or even make eye contact with him.

In both cases, it wasn't just what they said, but how they said it.

In a way, that both makes and refutes your point. The TV debates are, at the very least, in large part about how well you handle TV debates rather than polities. So yes, in that sense, it brings out the worst. On the other hand, it may well be that the usual evasion and avoidance of answering the actual question will be seen as patronising and disdainful of the audience which, after all, this the people they're going to want to vote for them in 3 weeks. I'm sure they all have professional advisers telling them that dissing the audience and then saying "but please vote for me" is a dangerous and probably counter-productive strategy.

What we might well get is a positive reaction to who best appears to be open, inclusive, etc. He who looks to be evading the question may pay the price, while he who avoids it while not appearing to will cash in.

Which is why I agree with Thatcher, we ought to be choosing based on policy, not acting skills.

[Saracen]

.... I'm guessing three kinds of people will watch: those who are genuinely interested in politics - but they are unlikely to be swayed by a TV debate vs. actually reading the manifestos and deciding which way to vote based on policy; the party faithful who'll watch to "cheer on" the party they've already decided to vote for; and the apathetic, who can't be bothered to change the channel and probably won't bother voting anyway. Cynical, me?

....

Maybe, but I'd guess there'll be an element of a fourth, and this time especially large, group - those who want to vote but as yet haven't a clue who to vote for. That very likely will include a lot who voted Labour in recent years, but are either much less convinced to do so now, or have decided that they'll vote but it will like hell be Labour.

Potentially, this time could be game-changing. In '97, a lot of people voted Labour that had previously voted Tory, out of disenchantment with the Tories with sleaze, etc. A good proportion of those will be historically Tory voters who may well now be tempted to go back.

Also, a lot of people comment, and saying polls, that they're undecided. Sure, they can read manifestos but I'd bet that the vast majority won't. So what can they decide on? They may well decide to watch a debate or two, and make up their mind which way to go based on what they see and hear. If so, the impressions that these debates give out could prove to be decisive in making up the minds of the large group currently undecided. The big issue becomes even more critical then, which is .... will they decide on policy, or personality?