Ten predictions for the general election televised party leader debates

1. Military language will be the order of the day for debate pundits. Fighting to the finish, knock out blows and accounts of who is ahead on points: deploy your military phraseology at dawn.

2. 99% of pundits who have previously expressed support for a party will declare that party’s leader the real winner from each debate – even if the party and leader did not appear in the debate.

3. Each party participating in the debate will say beforehand that its leader is not going to easily best the other leaders – and will say afterwards that its leader did easily best the other leaders.

4. There will be a battle over worms.

5. At least one party will run a real time online rebuttal and evidence service, posting up online evidence to bolster what one leader has said and to undermine what other leaders have said.

6. Even though there is plenty of evidence that men and women often view the skills deployed in verbal debating differently, punditry will overwhelmingly come from male commentators who will make comments that rest on the assumption men and women think alike.

7. There will be a plethora of instant polls immediately after each debate. They will be of questionable usefulness (see all those post-budget quickie polls which failed to get the long term political impact of budgets right). But they’ll be better than relying on pundits or vox pops.

8. Clips from the debate will rapidly circulate on YouTube, Facebook and elsewhere, providing a major online part of the post-debate fall out.

9. My one man campaign to badger journalists who only refer to the US when talking about TV debates (despite the many Parliamentary democracies which also have them – and are far better guides for the UK having much more similar political system to us) will sweep to glorious victory as the Guardian and Telegraph duel it out to give the most detailed coverage of controversies over microphone location in 1980s Canadian political debates.

10. And finally: I won’t score full marks for my predictions.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.
Advert

10 Comments

  • A pedant writes: 1) is actually Boxing, rather than Military analogies.

  • Martin Warne 5th Jan '10 - 2:01pm

    My one and only prediction is that they won’t happen.

    The threat of legal action by one of more of the nationalist parties, UKIP, Greens or BNP to force their inclusion and/or a row between Labour and the Tories about the ‘rules of engagement’ will scupper them.

  • Aphrodite Kallipygos 5th Jan '10 - 2:25pm

    Looks like the Party’s got a long term chance in “Loamshire North”.

    Nice piece of satiric fantasy at http://redfellow.blogspot.com/2010/01/headline-story-observer-3-january-2010.html

  • Aargh! #10 can never be wrong. Because if #10 is wrong then you’ve scored full marks. But #10 was wrong meaning you’ve at best got 9/10 right….. paradox!

    In fact it’s like the liar paradox.

  • I would like to know why Clegg is even allowed to participate in the three debates – considering he is not a candidate to become PM of this country. Mind you, 16% in the polls is dire for the Dims. Perhaps a pious, vacuous windbag like Clegg can boost the polls for the Limp Dims. Perhaps I can win a Euro millions lottery roll over, too.

    I am SO looking forward to election night, when half of the Dim front bench is wiped out. To see that sanctimonious, humourless prat, Buff Huhne, lose his seat….

5 Trackbacks

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert

Recent Comments

  • Katharine Pindar
    David, as our party policy is now for a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) to be brought in gradually by increases in welfare benefits to end deep poverty, and no lo...
  • David Raw
    @ Mike Peters. I would have thought that a universal basic income scheme would increase rather than reduce the problem you refer to, and I don’t see why folk ...
  • David Raw
    @ David Warren. You refer to the 1931 so called National Government but fail to add that the then Liberal Party took part in this, though shortly afterwards it ...
  • David Raw
    @ Steve Trevethan. You state delegating certain powers to the Bank of England creates a plutocracy. It might have escaped you that this was Liberal Democrat pol...
  • Mike Peters
    Interesting article but it fails to discuss an important concept - the idea of ‘the deserving poor’ and the ‘undeserving poor’. Put simply, most people ...