THE MEDIA BOAST was that 22 million viewers tuned
into the general election debates in 2010. But what does this figure actually mean?
It was not made clear to me at least, whether 22 million was the number of
viewers for each debate; which would have been truly remarkable. Or what seems
more likely; the figure needs to be divided between the three debates, leaving
a pitiful seven million point whatever viewers for each debate - and how many
of those same seven million watched all three debates? - thus making the 22
million count very dodgy indeed. This has now been confirmed by the Full Facts website, who have produced
the following set of figures - Debate
1: 9.9 million. Debate 2: 4.4 million.
Debate 3: 8.6 million - All debates 22.7 million.[1]
Let us also not forget that in 2010 there was a
novelty factor at work which the media played for all it was worth. In the
build-up to the campaign, the BBC, Sky, and ITV each seemed to throw their
whole promotional budgets into advertising their coverage of one of the
debates. But when it came, (as the above
figures show) the viewing figures for
each debate were not exactly proof of their popularity.
But
even with these figures - what happened? It became a beauty contest; where
points were awarded by the media as much on the candidates televisual looks
(the Richard Nixon factor) as on their response to questions. It was widely
judged after the first debate that Nick Clegg (and we have seen how he turned
out) had won.
I
believe it was because of these debates that we eventually ended up with a hung
parliament and the coalition government that followed.
I
think David Cameron is right (despite my being a Ukipper) to steer well clear
of these debates. It is not an insult to the electorate for him not to attend
them; and certainly no act of cowardice. Let Ed Milliband cluck around
Westminster disguised as a chicken if he so wishes, but Cameron is right not to
allow himself to accosted by the media and made to do their bidding.
Televised
debates are burnished by the media and are therefore vacuous, targeting their
cameras on a single bead of sweat making its way down a politicians forehead, hoping
that the said politician will produce a handkerchief from his pocket and
gingerly wipe it away, in the hope it will go ignored - but it will not go
ignored; but become part of the next day's headline.
I AM 65 TOMORROW, and was around in the 1960s when a
forum for real democracy known as the hustings took place and in my and every
other town and city in the country. The candidates would take to the local
market place on a gentle, warm May evening to make their final appeal to their
local electorate the night before poll. The atmosphere was both serious and
light-hearted among the generous crowds (nationally, probably greater than the
media construct we face today) that listened to the various parties candidates.
My
town has always been a Tory town come a general election; punctuated, that is, by
the rare relapse into voting Labour. All over the country the hustings provided
entertainment of a kind the modern media could never reproduce. If a Labour
candidate was thrown to the Tory wolves in a particular crowd; then a Tory one
would face Labour wolves in turn. Such gatherings tested the metal (and wit) of
the candidates, and made them better MPs through the experience.
Our
local markets tested the merit of the
candidates by asking intelligent, but often insulting questions followed by
abusive comments, accompanied by taunts, boos and other form of derision. It
was the test the people put their representatives through - and the candidates
were fully prepared to give as good as they got knowing that the insults they
were receiving, were primarily from the other parties' supporters and would not
cost them votes – it was pure theatre and as good as a night out.
I
remember it was the 1968 general
election. I was a first time voter and a Labour one at that: but also of a Marxist
by conviction. A comrade and I attended a hustings on our market square, where
the sitting Tory MP was to address the crowd. He was an accomplished fighter (some
would say browbeater) at the hustings, having represented his constituency copiously
as an MP for a decade. He was on the Right wing of his party, and was
considered, even at that time, to be an old-fashioned Empire Loyalist - he had
been born in New Zealand.
My
comrade cottoned on to this biographical tit-bit; and at an open air meeting he
raised his hand to seek an opportunity to ask a question; he was acknowledged
by the sitting MP. "Is it true", my comrade's lips twisted into a
smile, "that you were born from aboriginal stock in New Zealand and cannot
claim residency in the UK?". Our MP's countenance briefly afforded a twisted
lip and a hate filled stare – while, on the other hand, then a good measure of
the people listening burst out laughing at the insult.
This
was typical of the kind of theatre that the hustings brought to an election
campaign, before the stranglehold of television with its well ordered,
modulated beige blandness and superficiality. Democracy is not facilitated by
the media with these debates, but neutered. There was real and a times brutal
local involvement at the hustings. A real battle of wits evolved during the
course of the campaign between the public and the candidates. I am sure of one
thing; that those who were never witness to a true hustings, would have found
it far more democratic and entertaining than either Question Time, or the parade of the Ice Maidens the media wishes to
inflict upon us through a well manicured presentation of superficial content.
AS YOU WILL have gathered, I am not a fan of
televised debates. Instead of promoting democracy they trivialise it into a
beauty contest where the appearance of a sweaty hand or forehead makes the
headline rather than the response from any of the politicians. The television
media have little to contribute to democracy through such debates. They should
be done away with and I hope Cameron's refusal to allow the media to dictate
their terms will be followed in forthcoming elections by other politicians from
other parties
The
hustings were the true test of our candidates' ability at a local level. The
politicians, after all, came face to face (literally) with the electorate: and
if the television media tries to traduce this as all old hat; they had better
think again. This was what democratic involvement by the people was meant to be
all about – face to face contact. The visual media cannot replace such an
organic link with the electorate at times of general elections by pitifully inviting
party leader's to three televised debates – no wonder the figures were so low
The
hustings predated the digital age, and started in the steam age. They
represented the closest contact the people had to their local representatives,
and allowed them to test them locally - an arrangement that has never been
allowed to exist in the digital age. In the digital age we must all obey the
screen. Only through the screen can we be truly democratic; only the screen can
steer us into…what?
No comments:
Post a Comment