It was Pat Leahy from the Sunday Business Post who inadvertently prompted the reflection. In the RTÉ Spin Room programme that followed the University of Limerick leaders’ debate, the panellist’s opening remark began "You’ve still got to pick out a winner…" Really? The very assertion begs the question: what are the leaders’ debates for and what is their purpose? Is it simply (as Pat would imply) a beauty pageant where there is a winner and losers? I’ve tried the question amongst colleagues and associates over the last fortnight and elicited almost as many variations as I did responses. So then, is it true the topic that has generated most noise on the airwaves lately has no clear or common purpose? To those involved, however, there is clarity. For each political party the object is clearly to enhance its chance of winning in the election. For the broadcaster, its hope is to boost audience ratings. Suddenly we are faced with conflicting wants we now need to reconcile. Cue the format: let’s have a debate! That way political leaders can attempt to bolster their campaign and at the same time it may yield up some entertainment in the process. Yet the very title is misleading. When I punch the word “debate” into my iphone dictionary app I get the definition: 1. Discussion involving opposing points; 2. Deliberation; 3. Consideration; Obsolete: fight or quarrel. Curious then how the element that is now obsolete about debate is the very thing that characterised the pedigree of all three TV editions of the leaders’ “debate”. Indeed if we had a euro for every time the host had to intervene to prevent leaders shouting over, interrupting, or directly avoiding the question we would be half-way towards repaying the national debt. At many points the whole affair resembled your worst Christmas family nightmare. It is the breakdown of order amongst our most senior politicians that veers towards entertainment. It reminded me at times of the once famous Frankie Goes to Hollywood Two Tribes video that pitted Reagan against Gorbachev in a sand-wrestling pit. Little wonder then that Simon Cowell threw his hat in the ring in Britain last year with an offer to produce the next round of party leaders’ TV debates saying “I would love to do that. I’d do it in a heartbeat. 100% I’d have walk-ons, music, fire…and a trap door if people didn’t like what they said. And I’d definitely have a clapometer.” On the subject of the clapometer, at one particularly anarchic nadir Claire Byrne threw her hands (literally) in the air and chided the contestants (er, leaders) “All we’re hearing now is nothing”, which drew the loudest audience applause of the night. The whole affair was very symptomatic of what routinely happens in business meetings. Smart, often senior people coming together frequently without a clear or common understanding of why they are there. Some attempting to monopolise airtime with their own agenda whilst neither listening nor answering the question they were asked;…
FlowIrelandAdmin18th November 2016
