Elections nowadays simply mean many of us plump for the candidate we consider the most likeable liar, writes DAVID ADAMS
IF PROOF were needed that we have reached a point where presentation is virtually all that matters in British mainland politics, it was provided in spades by last week’s televised “debate” between the leaders of the UK’s three main political parties.
The media and the public are in agreement that Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats was the clear winner, but he hardly achieved his victory through managing to convince people of the credibility of Lib Dem policies.
Like his two opponents on the programme (Gordon Brown and David Cameron), Clegg avoided like the plague any detailed discussion of his plans. He merely made sweeping statements and grandiose promises, and endlessly recited supposed personal anecdotes. If anything, he was the least forthcoming on policy.
On the thorny issue of immigration, for instance, Clegg chose not to mention that the Liberal Democrats are proposing a blanket amnesty for anyone who has been living illegally in the UK for at least 10 years. And he was quite happy to give the impression that money saved from his party’s commitment to scrapping Britain’s Trident missile system would help ease the current economic crisis, when in fact the existing Trident agreement with the US cannot be changed until 2024 at the earliest.
But none of that mattered to the pundits or the public. Indeed, in fairness, no one is even bothering to pretend that it did, or that the televised debate really had anything to do with politics, except in the very loosest sense.
People are quite clear that Clegg triumphed simply because he appeared confident and relaxed, looked straight into the camera when he spoke, and mentioned by name in his closing statement a dozen or so people from the audience who had asked questions during the programme. He is being widely congratulated on his media skills, but nothing else.
On the back of its leader’s television triumph, Lib Dem election prospects have been transformed, with support in the opinion polls rising by around 10 points. Previously a distant third, the party has leapfrogged Labour and is now within a point or two of the Conservatives.
It would seem then, based on nothing more substantial than his demeanour, and his repeated claim that it is the case, that a vast swathe of the British voting public has decided that Nick Clegg and his Lib Dem party are best suited to run the country.
This would be disturbing enough if the underlying issue here was simply one of gullibility on the part of the viewing public, or deliberate sleight of hand by a politician, but it isn’t. The hard truth is that even if he had been so inclined, Nick Clegg could not have afforded to try to explain his party’s proposals in any great detail on last week’s programme. If he had, he would have lost the debate.
Every survey shows that the public are bored by political detail, to the extent that they turn against political leaders who insist on explaining things. Gordon Brown’s tendency to lapse into specifics is constantly cited as one of his great “weaknesses”. We can hardly blame politicians such as Nick Clegg for playing to what the public wants in order to get elected. Nor can we fault the broadcast media either; serious political coverage is there for those who want it, but, tellingly, audience figures for such programmes are minuscule.
Style and presentation have of course always mattered in politics, but only as complementary to policy. These factors have never almost completely excluded politics, as is happening now.
Perhaps nowadays we hold politicians in such low regard, considering them to be, without exception, such complete charlatans that rather than spend time listening to what any of them has to say, many of us simply plump for the one we consider to be the most presentable and/or likeable liar. Either that, or we choose to opt out of politics altogether.
It is a fair bet that the vast majority of those who only decided to vote for the Liberal Democrats after watching Nick Clegg on television have no more idea about his party’s policies now than they had before. Nor are they particularly interested. They will vote for his party for no better reason than he came across as the most likeable of the three leaders. If they do think about it at all, they probably reckon that he can’t do a worse job than any of the others.
Maybe the public’s preference for style over substance, and its lack of appetite for detail – whether in relation to politicians or anyone else – is merely symptomatic of the celebrity-obsessed culture (and goldfish-like attention span) of our times. Have elections become like a version of X Factor in the public mind – only less important and exciting than the real thing – where a contestant’s performance and imagined persona are all that matters? It certainly appears so. Where will it all end?
It’s hard to know whether to be more concerned about growing numbers of people not bothering to vote, or about what might be visited upon us at some stage by those who still do.