Election debate: the beginning of the end?
After the first round of election debates, both Corbyn and Johnson have struggled to capture the imagination of the electorate. Dissimilar in debate style, Corbyn centres his focus on inspiring people behind an idea, but the 30 second answer slot persistently kept by the ITV production team, meant little of substance was said past an anecdote or two. Johnson, on the other hand, kept his answers short and punctual. Clearly trained to rein in his rhetorical flair, Johnson finished his answers returning to the same punchline of “Getting Brexit Done”, or “Unleashing the Potential of Modern Britain”. His answers, at times seemed laughable, but I left with a sense of knowing his clear flagship policies - more schools, more police, and leaving the European Union. Corbyn, with a focus on the ideals of his socialist utopia, left me feeling slightly confused as to his policy positions, particularly over Brexit, and his dealings with the SNP.
What seems more concerning is the manipulation of social media. With the CCHQ twitter account changing its name to a Factchecker to misinform the public on the truth behind Corbyn’s campaign promises, it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the truth from political calculation. Most worryingly, there is considerably outcry on Twitter surrounding BBC’s usage and editing of clips used on the Question Time twitter page. One of these, where a member of the audience claims that Labour’s promise to raise income tax for only the top 5 percent of earners is a complete lie, is so blatantly not based on facts, that posting the answer on the Twitter page is beyond reckless.
In an age where trusting politicians is becoming increasingly more difficult, there is a duty of care that media outlets must bear to ensure that the quality of debate is enhanced, not tainted. The exclusion of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats from the election debate is another example of where a pluralistic democratic parliamentary system is artificially returning to a two-party state, owing to political censorship rather than the normative strength of the two parties. As both leaders have clear faults to the electorate, permitting two female candidates, with clear ideas and mandates, the chance to debate would cause considerable disruption to the current state of affairs. With pollsters predicting a Johnson win, Corbyn needs to something spectacular to shuffle the balance of powers.
In 2010, Nick Clegg was able to force his way into government on the part basis of his debating mastery. Is it not time to widen our debating platform to see if there is anything better past the stale bickering of Conservative and Labour leaderships?
