Leaders' Debates: More of the same?

Ceri Ames: the TV debates are a further move towards the trivialisation of political debate.

As you may have noticed, Nick Clegg has been declared the victor in great leaders' debate. Even if the surge in support for the Liberal Democrats 'sticks', I fail to see why this is in some way a vindication of these debates.

Sure, an election where the LibDems achieved 30-odd percent would almost inevitable lead to a hung parliament, and give the LibDems their shot at a governing pact.

Presumably they would try to get agreement on electoral reform, but they have been very cagey about what exactly they would insist on- and given the hostility of both Labour and (especially) the Tories to this, I can see this being jettisoned in favour of other polices.

Given the choice between making no deal by insisting on electoral reform, or of taking the opportunity of getting some say in policy (and of appearing responsible etc), I think the LibDems will make the latter decision.

Obviously, I would love to be proven wrong, as electoral reform would make the LibDems' showing, and thereby these debates, the watershed moment some commentators are trying to claim for them.

However, for me these debates have been a further move in the trivialisation of politics and political debate. Given the level of disengagement and disillusion with politics in the UK at the moment, the leaders' debates have been presented as a way of re-engaging people, of fostering interest in politics.

Now if this were the case, I would be all in favour. But these debates are not doing this, they are not engaging people with issues; instead they are being presented by the media as the issue, the personality and performance of the individuals are being judged. It is appearances, and judgements on the appearances, that are being discussed, rarely the actual policies and the issues to which they respond.

Politics is messy, political issues are often difficult to assess and to decide upon. They can't be reduced to the level of these debates, with their one minute answers and emphasis on avoiding mistakes.

I've no objection to trying to engage people, the majority of whom think politics is 'what politicians do' and is therefore corrupt, boring and has little to do with them, just as visiting the Science Museum can enthuse and engage people with science. But that isn't what these debates are doing or are designed to do, any more than a visit to a museum makes you a scientist.

In the long-run, the debates, by focusing on individuals and continuing the type of coverage of politics that we endure now, can do no more than temporarily arrest the decline in trust and engagement in politics that they are trying to address.

2010 Election special: Non-Voting

In Part 1 of our Pre-Election guide, Neil Robertson explains why not voting is "a small protest against a big injustice".

As a voter who's long felt left behind by Labour, who's unimpressed by the wet flannel liberalism of Nick Clegg and who remains underwhelmed by parties on the electoral fringe, this election has often felt like a choice between "the lesser of who cares?".

For me, the prospect of voting this May - a task I might have once grasped with enthusiasm - seems like a tawdry chore, with each party appearing like a cheap imitation of my own values.

Still, after a good few months of dismayed dithering and yawning, I finally came to a decision about how I'm going to vote in this election:

I won't.

Here's the thing: 6 years ago a British prisoner called John Hirst went to the European Court of Human Rights demanding that our government give him and his fellow inmates the right to vote. The court ruled that our blanket ban violated the Human Rights Act, and ordered the government to make the necessary changes.

Naturally, the government has deliberately dragged its feet ever since; issuing objections and obfuscations at every turn, and getting no closer to changing the law than the establishment of some weak-willed 'consulation exercises'.

This was fine for the first five years, but now the election has brought the matter into sharp relief. After ignoring repeated warnings that the General Election must not take place without the ban being lifted, in December the Council of Europe suggested that the election may breach the European convention on human rights. The council repeated that claim last week, along with the notice that, unless the law is changed, tens of thousands of prisoners would be within their rights to sue the British government.

As it stands, the coming election promises to be the first in modern history where tens of thousands of British citizens have illegaly barred from casting a ballot. Whatever crimes these men & women may have committed, however dubious their character, can we really claim to be tough on those who break the law when we are happy for the state to break its own laws in order to punish them?

For me, the answer is an unequivocal 'no'. I cannot, in good conscience, exercise my legally-guaranteed right to participate in the democratic process when tens of thousands of Britons are illegally deprived of theirs. For that reason, I will be staying at home come election day. Not out of apathy, nor out of a lack of available alternatives, but as a small protest against a big injustice.

Neil Robertson blogs at The Bleeding Heart Show.

[Tomorrow: the Pirate Party, by Aaron Murin-Heath].