I just think it's hilariously sad, that as a country, we've now become so obsessed with media performance. In exactly the same way America has been for the last fifty years.
There have been no new policies, or manifestos issued since the orchestrated debate was broadcast, but based on the best acting performance, we've awarded the competitors a first, second, and third place. All that was missing was Simon Cowell, giving each contestant a little critique, and telling them if the public vote them back, they'll have to give 110% next week.
To me, what's important are polices. What's actually going to happen if a party forms the next government.
Do I care who the best orator is, in this equivalent of the upper sixth form debating society? No, I couldn't give a fig, as long as they have the ability to communicate effectively.
The most watched programme on our boxes is Britain's Got Talent, and to me this 'live' debate was just as farcical.
They are done in front of an invited audience, who are forbidden from spontaneous applause, or making audible comments. The participants have been coached for weeks, by media experts flown in from the U.S. Teams of people have worked on everything from their voice tone, to the way their ties are knotted.
It's theatre.
Not very good theatre.
All this talk of us needing a great 'statesmen' is nonesense too.
Why?
Are we going to send them off to the finals of World Statesman of the Year 2010 in Latvia, later in the year?
You don't need to be a great orator, physically 'attractive' to the masses, well groomed, and more polished than the Koh-i-Noor diamond, to be a great politican.
As a closing thought, regarding statesmenship. The history books will probably record the greatest British statesmen of the last half century, as being someone who carried a handbag.
