Review: Leaders Debate 2015

The second televised debate for the 2015 UK General Election was broadcast last night, and the verdicts have flooded in, whether on Twitter throughout the debate, or in paper and digital front pages of newspapers. This debate was a long time in the negotiating, with David Cameron most notably stalling over committing to the format. But get here we did, and the UK public were 'treated' to two hours of seven party leaders: the three main Westminster parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats), two regional parties (Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party [SNP]) and two issue centred parties (the Green Party and UKIP).

First thing first, as a political debate that would allow each party to discuss their points of view in detail, did it work? I don't think it did. Each candidate got a minute or two to talk about the perspective that they represent, but after that it was a bit of a free-for-all, with candidates attempting to talk over each other like at PMQs on a Wednesday (admittedly, there was less booing, but that was about the only difference). The presenter leading the debate, Julie Etchingham, was sometimes ignored as she attempted to curtail some candidates speeches, and at times the conversation resembled something that might take place on a Jeremy Kyle show (this was especially the case when Nigel Farage was speaking). The number of parties represented meant that candidates never really got a chance to fully respond to allegations put against them, as to do so would mean that some others would not have the chance to speak at all. So as an intellectual exercise for the viewer, it felt a bit redundant at times.

But if we take the two hour show not as the main course of political debate, but as an aperitif, then perhaps it can be considered a success after all. What the debate lacked in depth, it made up for in breadth. To have parties like Plaid Cymru or the SNP, who only stand in a proportion of UK seats, be on national television and be able to speak plainly about what they stand for without being filtered through the prism of the Westminster-centric media can only be useful for the democratic process. The same goes for the Greens and, to a lesser extent, UKIP. Allowing these minor parties (and minor they must still be considered, when the number of seats in Parliament that they can or are likely to win are taken into consideration) air time on prime-time television can only be good thing for the democratic process, especially given the political climate in the UK. For, after not having a coalition government for approximately seventy years prior to 2010, the chances are high that in 2015, for the second successive electoral period, the UK will be not be governed by a single party with an overall majority. It is the 'minor' parties (and the Lib Dems obviously have to be counted in this description as the chances of them ever gaining enough seats to have a majority for a single-party government has to be considered somwhere along the scale of miniscule to zero) who will help form the next government, and surely the public should know precisely what each party would bring to the table when considering casting their vote.

The other big win from the evening has to be less politically based and more gender based, and relates to the performance of the three women leaders in the debate. Coming in to the debate, for those viewers who were not affiliated to any of the three parties that these women lead - the Greens, Plaid Cymru and the SNP - it's reasonable to say that they had a relatively minor profile in Westminster politics (although to some extent that isn't fair on Nicola Sturgeon, whose role in the SNP was fairly high-profile before she became party leader, and, thanks to the Scottish referendum some seven months ago, is someone that some people with a vague amount of political knowledge might have been able to name). But whilst their mere presence in the debate alone will have seen their profiles rise, their performances in the debates, according to Twitter anyway, outranked the male leaders'. Certainly whilst their male counterparts seemed to snipe at each other and attempt petty point scoring wherever possible rather than discuss what was at stake, the female leaders were articulate and certainly attempted to be more deliberative. They were impressive in a somewhat understated manner, and in doing so, subverted that tired old gender stereotype of the hysterical woman. Of course, you can make the argument that the fact that the parties that they lead are nowhere near power, and not likely to be for many years to come, if ever, so this allows them the time and space to deviate from the political gamesmanship that consumed their male counterparts last night. Perhaps this is the case, and the nearer these women come to power, the less above the fray they will remain. But last night certainly showed that women can be political animals just as men can, and unlike Margaret Thatcher, they can do it in a different way to men.

So, in the end, was it worth it? Yes and no. The newspapers this morning declared no clear cut winner from the debate, as opposed to in 2010 when Nick Clegg's performance electrified the electorate and ultimately catapulted the Lib Dems to coalition partners in government. Any winning that was done was done in a much less obvious way and by those who will probably ultimately only gain non-tangible results from it. But even if this was just surface-level politics - politics for a reality TV age if you will - the fact that it opened up new avenues for political expression to an electorate that frequently declare their disillusionment with the political establishment surely has to count as a success. Doesn't it?

Scotland Decides

September 18th 2014 is a seminal day in the history of British politics. All day the people of Scotland have been voting on whether to remain part of the United Kingdom or to go it alone as an independent nation. As I type this, the TV spools on as a number of talking heads debate the implications of each outcome, whilst in halls all over Scotland people are set for a long night of counting the ballot papers that will determine the outcome. The last couple of weeks have stressed how finely poised the outcome is: various polls have, at one point or another, put each camp marginally ahead of the other.

It's being reported now that the 'No' campaign might just have done enough to take it (though, of course, without any results in at the moment, and the fact that no exit polls have actually been commissioned, this is all speculation), which, if it proves to be the case, I personally am glad about. I can't confess to having thoroughly researched all the issues, but from what I have read, I think that the case for a successful independent Scotland is, at best, in the words of the Scottish legal system, Not Proven. From where I've been sitting, the 'Yes' campaign seems to have assumed that a lot of things will go the way they want them to in any post 'Yes' vote negotiations, but failed to provide enough solid evidence to back their case up. Moreover, in a world that is full of borders, both geographical and metaphorical, it'd be somewhat disheartening to think of one being willingly erected so close to home. Of course, at this point in time the result could still be 'Yes', in which case we are in a brave new world, and it could very well be a bumpy next eighteen months or so for those of us who reside in the British Isles.....