Political Face-off

The Broadcaster Sky is trying to gain signatures to push the leaders of the main three political parties to participate in an American-esque debating face-off. The Head of Sky News John Ryley, has written letters to Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Tory leader David Cameron and Nick Clegg, Leader of the Lib Dems putting forward the live televised debate can help restore the lost of faith in politics. It is a proposed move to re-engage voters around the time of the General Election.

This will be the first time a political debate between British leaders is broadcast live on TV giving voters the opportunity to have their questions heard and answered by the top brass. So far Cameron and Clegg have agreed with enthusiasm with the latter stating he would “relish the opportunity” to go against his opponents.


I do feel that Sky have looked at our cousins across the waters and seen the enthusiasm, the hype and interest of everyone that is brought by the election period, and thought it would be a great idea to import the same techniques to get British audiences ‘re-engaged’.
However it is obvious that Sky is consciously naive of the effect it will have on ‘actual engagement’ for the purpose of commercial gain.


I shall explain to you by what I mean by ‘actual engagement’. The hype and excitement that surrounds American elections is caused by media and Spin Doctors. There is extensive advertising, PR in the form of television debates, the use of Youtube, Twitter and Facebook and rallies. Voters become highly familiar with the politicians, their lives and the slogans they promote. As a result there is massive turn-out and everything looks like a success. The country is officially more democratic, there is a voting and political culture and it gives people something to look forward to more than a leap year. These are all positive and desirable attributes for any nation to have however this has been slightly ill-defined as political engagement. Yes, voters are more engaged, but it’s not in the politics; it’s in the celebrity politicians, the gossip and emotional connections voters have with politicians. Looking at this you can see what I mean of ‘actual engagement’; engagement in policies or the political process. Voters are no more informed of policies than they are about how often Gordon Brown changes his pants. (It wouldn’t surprise me if they did know the latter).


So this is why I say Sky’s proposal is ‘consciously naive’, because it’s highly predictable that this TV face-off will end up like PMQ’s – Childish point scoring. The ‘dumbing down’ of politics is nothing new to British Politics, with many people viewing Cameron’s attempts to PR his way into government, however the introduction of the TV debate will take it to new lengths. If this is the case, people voting like it’s a popularity contest, and then surely having more ill-informed voter’s results in a less democratic system as votes are, well, empty?


I agree there is already a lot less policy based politics now in Britain than there was, and there is a struggle to get younger voters interested, however making politics about the biggest smile and the best youtube account isn’t the way get people’s political taste buds buzzing. This is what the Sky Debate is really, but also makes some money for Sky as well.

Of course criticism should be ½ the argument, solution is the 2nd half. I am yet to think of anything that could be done to make the actual politics and policies more interesting off the top of my head; however I shall come back with some ideas for a post soon.
Do you think it’s a good idea for Sky to have this debate or is it just a waste of time?

Cheers, Scott