Televised FG leadership debate would be a pointless snorefest
WHOSE bright idea was it to propose a televised Fine Gael leadership debate?
Apparently, both RTÉ and TV3 are keen as mustard to have a televised head-to-head featuring Leo Varadkar and Simon Coveney. Has nobody told either station that 99.5pc-plus of the population don’t have a vote in the contest or that we don’t live in a one-party state?
What could possibly be the point of such an exercise? There is just about a case for televised debates at general election time. With an electorate of millions, a TV debate between the would-be Taoisigh can arguably help inform those about to cast their vote.
Well, that’s the theory anyway. In the early election debates, it actually pretty much worked in practice too. With the interviewer Brian Farrell deliberately keeping a minimal profile, there was a genuine contest of ideas and arguments between Charlie Haughey and Garret Fitz Gerald, one of whom was guaranteed to become Taoiseach.
But in recent times, the debates have become something like a soap opera with the presenter centre stage alongside the candidates. There’s as much coverage of how he or she did in asking the questions as the politicians did for answering them, with top marks awarded for those seen as putting politicians in their place.
That was best exemplified when Vincent Browne, during one of the 2011 Presidential debates, produced a pile of books as evidence to back up his point during his interrogation of Martin McGuinness. The question went on for the best part of two minutes and included Mr Browne telling Mr McGuinness: “Just a minute, I’m not finished” when the then Northern Ireland deputy first minister had the temerity to try to answer. One can only imagine what Brian Farrell would have thought.
If he was watching. Because it certainly would be hard to keep up with all of them. We’ve had debates as Gaeilge, debates between would-be Tánaistí (the political equivalent of bald men fighting over a comb), debates between presidential candidates and debates involving politicians who had as much chance of becoming Taoiseach as, well, Richard Boyd Barrett.
The nadir was surely that debate last year involving seven participants, two of whom weren’t even leaders and one of whom not only didn’t become Taoiseach, but actually lost their seat in the election.
It says everything about the relevance of those debates that the party of the man the media pronounced as the star performer (Stephen Donnelly) ended up with 3pc of the national vote. If the debates mattered, the Social Democrats would have ended up with at least seven or eight seats, instead of merely holding its three.
The truth is that televised leadership debates are rarely influential. The possible exception was in 2007 when Enda Kenny’s faltering performance and Bertie Ahern’s strong showing were seen as a key factor in Fianna Fáil’s late surge. But even in that case, there is sketchy enough evidence about whether the debate was actually that significant in influencing the election outcome.
We can say for certain, though, that it didn’t influence the 2002 general election when Michael Noonan got the better of Mr Ahern or in 2011 when Micheál Martin was certainly the best performer. A year ago, did Mr Martin’s strong performances and Mr Kenny’s weak efforts dictate how Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael performed on election day? Maybe, but marginally, at most. Despite their flaws and imperfections, it can be argued the debates served a public service good. People were days away from deciding who to vote for and this allowed them to see the main candidates up close and personal.
That argument doesn’t hold when it comes to the Fine Gael contest. Voting is confined to its TDs, senators, MEPs, councillors and members. In total, that’s an electorate of something over 20,000 – less than 0.5pc of the population.
Even if we leave aside the fact two-thirds of the voting strength is held by the parliamentary party of 73, you don’t need TV to reach out to this electorate. The Fine Gael regional hustings is sufficient.
It’s true, of course, that it’s more than the Fine Gael leader being elected. Whoever wins will become Taoiseach. The argument will be made that the contenders should be setting out their vision for Ireland. It is certainly important that we hear that from the would-be Taoisigh. But when have we ever got such depth from a televised leaders debate? The only thing we ever remember from these debates are the soundbites or the gaffes – Michael McDowell’s ‘Northern Bank’ rebuff to Gerry Adams in 2007 or Lloyd Bentsen’s “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” putdown of Dan Quayle in the 1988 US vicepresidential debate. And, memorable as both lines were, they had no impact whatsoever on the election result.
Remember also, we’re not talking about ideological adversaries here. It’ll be two (possibly three) members of the same political party who’ll be at pains not to alienate the Fine Gael grass roots or make life difficult in the next cabinet by rubbishing the rival candidate(s).
Every argument will be prefaced by “I have great respect for Leo’s achievements” or “Simon and I agree on most things but...”. It’ll be the most polite polemic in the global history of TV debates. Or to put it another way, a complete snorefest.
AND, with one party having a monopoly for the duration, it will also be a de-facto hour-and-a-half-long infomercial or free advert for Fine Gael, almost reminiscent of the old Eastern bloc.
TV loves to breathlessly put itself at the heart of political life in this country. It’s almost like it hasn’t happened unless it’s a televised event. But sometimes, even in this era of mass media, there’s no substitute for the old-style political hustings and taking the message directly to the voters. Leo Varadkar, Simon Coveney and any other Fine Gael leadership candidate should deliver a courteous but firm ‘thanks, but no thanks’ response to any invitation for a televised debate.
This isn’t TV’s gig. And just this once, our leading politicians shouldn’t dance to the TV stations’ tune.