Debatable Value

What is the point of those bloody televised election debates involving the party leaders?  Do we actually learn anything from them?  I've always been dubious about their value as the participants just trot out all the sound bites we've ever heard and try to talk over each other.  They are, of course, a relatively recent innovation here in the UK - in elections of yore, broadcasters seemed to grasp the fact that we don't have a presidential system in this country, so getting the party leaders to duke it out one-on-one really wouldn't be terribly illuminating.  But, inspired by US presidential debates, the likes of Sky News decided that they wanted to emulate the format, no matter how inappropriate it might be for the UK domestic electoral system, with the other TV networks feeling that they had to follow suit.  Unfortunately, the format only serves to reinforce the notion that, somehow, prime minister's are directly elected, which they aren't.  As I never tire of reminding people, what we are electing is a new parliament, with whoever can command a majority in the newly elected Commons, (usually the leader of one the two main parties) being able to form a government.  At best, we're electing which party we want to run the country, but mot a specific prime minister.  Which is why that self-righteous outrage that idiots on social media like to expend on 'unelected prime ministers' when the PM changes mid-parliament, simply displays their ignorance.  Indeed, the point of parliamentary democracy is that we are able to change leadership without having to o through the whole rigamarole of calling another election.

But to return to the point, do these debates actually have any effect on how voters view the participants?  Well, the fact that back in 2019 Boris Johnson failed to participate in any debates, let alone allow himself to be interviewed one-on-one by any political journalists, yet the Tories were still elected, allowing him to continue as PM would seem to indicate that they don't.  His absence was a carefully calculated strategy, in order to avoid the public being exposed to his buffoonery and shambolic incompetence, - a strategy that worked as, it seems, keeping a candidate away from public scrutiny turned out to be far more effective than participating in the 'cut and thrust' of a televised debate.  It also rendered the whole of the public debate process meaningless.  It also proved, pretty conclusively, that if a candidate avoids this sort of public scrutiny then the electorate doesn't take that as evidence of their unsuitability for office.  Because the majority of voters, it seems, are well aware of the fact that we aren't directly electing the likes of Boris Johnson (unless you happen to live in his constituency, that is), but instead were voting on the issues, (which in 2019 was Brexit and the public's apparent fatigue over the apparently endless debate - they just wanted it over, one way or the other).  The fact is that no matter how inadequate as a potential PM Johnson might have looked, the Labour Party failed to present a viable alternative - Corbyn was equally shambolic and came with his own baggage -so people stuck with the devil they knew.  Five years and three prime ministers later, the Tories have lost the public trust, Starmer seems less shambolic than Sunak so, once again, these debates are utterly meaningless, people have already made up their minds.