Jon Bellamy spoke with Mal Fletcher

Mal Fletcher

Two weeks ago we saw history made with the first ever UK live televised election debate on ITV which had 9.9 million viewers. Most polls put Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg as the winner of the first debate and the General Election is now wide open. With such significant changes taking place Jonathan Bellamy thought he'd talk with respected commentator, Mal Fletcher, to hear his take on it all. Mal is a social commentator; global speaker and author and the chairman of the 2020plus Think Tank on social affairs and leadership.

Jonathan: Was Nick Clegg the winner for you on the first debate?

Mal: Well I suppose when we went into the debate, you know the big question was, who would choke first wasn't it? Who would fluff their lines, who'd get nervous for the big event; who'd come across as too aggressive or disengaged. I think in terms of style you'd have to say Nick Clegg came out on top, yes and TV is about style. He looked relaxed, he looked at home. The format - he was speaking directly into the lens of the camera. Mr Cameron, for me looked at times surprisingly ill at ease. He normally seems quite confident. But he was leaning backwards from the podium a lot, which always makes you look a bit aloof; and at times tended to be peering off into the right stage areas. So I don't know what he was looking at. I guess of the three leaders and apologies to all our Labour users, Gordon Brown definitely looked the most like a fish permanently out of water. I mean, he was a bit dishevelled. I wish somebody would do up his tie for him at times and you know his smile; I know it's been said a lot, but it does sometimes come across as a bit Machiavellian. I'm sure he's trying to look sincere but it just doesn't work for him on television I'm afraid.

Jonathan: Nick Clegg, do you think it's true that he didn't have anything to lose so he could only win?

Mal: I think that he had the advantage probably on three fronts. He had low public expectations as you say; people just didn't expect so much from him. He had less to lose than the other two, in what was already at the time a tight race between them. It's a bit different now. I think he also finds it easier as a leader of a minority party to sound like he's above the political fray. In fact you know Mr Clegg was for five years a MEP - Member of the European Parliament; and for several years before that he was a member of the European Commission; working for the European Commission. So he's not really any less a party political animal than the rest. But TV, you know, perception is 80% of the truth; and he found it easier I think to take the high ground and make it look like he was above the gutter fray below. I think the third way in which he had an advantage was that he could pitch policies that are a little more out there, a little more interesting; maybe a bit more populist. Ideas that might sound good in a TV sound bite but they may not stand up so well to rigorous study. And that's what's starting to happen now.

Jonathan: Looking at the debates themselves, what was your overall impression of it, and do you think this is a positive step for UK politics?

Mal: Well that's the big question isn't it? On balance a debate's healthy for the election process. I think they're inevitable in an age, not just media, but now heavily segmented digital media. In one form or another, they're going to be a major part of our election process for years to come. But the question is whether we in Britain can come up with a distinctly British approach, or will we see politics turning more and more toward America for its models on how to connect with voters. Americans it has to be said are very good at incorporating razzmatazz and star power into their politics. I think showmanship probably comes a little more natural for them. It's more true to their heritage of public life. So the question is can we do it in a British way? I thought the first debate was a little bit staged. I thought the presenter was constantly interjecting. He was obviously trying to stir up some sort of a spat between Mr Cameron and Mr Brown. He'd been instructed I guess to go for great TV; which in the age of Big Brother and Strictly Come Dancing either means glitz and glamour or all-in brawling.

Jonathan: I guess at one level it was great TV because it was the first and it had that anticipation and excitement about what was about to happen, but do you think it went on too long perhaps?

Mal: Yes. I think it could have been an hour. I think that would have been much more interesting - I only watched for an hour and after that I thought I'd seen pretty much what I needed to see. There's not much more going to happen. Unless a fight breaks out in the studio, not much more is going to happen. It's one of the problems with television Jon. It's a great medium; I spend so much time on TV; but Malcolm Muggeridge used to be the BBC's wittiest most acerbic interviewer in the days before Paxman and he said this, he said the camera always lies. You know it does that in two ways. A mere act of pointing a camera in a certain direction provides an edited version of reality. The audience is being forced if you like to look in the direction that the camera wants to look in; to see what the camera wanted to see. In another sense the camera kind of creates a caricature of a person. It takes perhaps awkward physical attributes or mannerisms and then elevates them out of all proportion to reality. So as I said, Mr Brown's smile looks totally unnatural, when it's probably quite natural if you see it up close in real life. So television, you have to take it for what it is. It is largely about style, but of course all of the production suite, window dressing, can't help if your performance is bad to begin with.

Jonathan: Now Gordon Brown said the TV debate had energised the election campaign, but predicted that the focus would switch from style and presentation to substance. Do you agree with that?

Mal: Well I'm not sure that once you've injected TV debates into a campaign, you've got to face the fact that TV being as powerful as it is, is going to shape the dialogue from thereon. So there will be a lot that's about style and the personal affability and authority of the leaders themselves. For me that's a major question. Do we really want or need a Prime Minister who's necessarily a great performer on television? We certainly don't want someone who's a complete dolt. But you know we've seen the age of spin and what that can do to the soul of a Government; and I suppose the question is do we want a PM who could just as easily present Strictly Come Dancing as debate in the house? Do we want a PM who is, through television, seen as the soul embodiment of his party's ideals? That happens in America, where the head of Government is also the head of state. But here of course the head of state is Her Majesty. The political leaders are then free to go and build teams to govern. So our whole system of government is all about teamwork; and if we're not careful I think things like TV debates will hide that team aspect, and we won't get to meet or judge the competence of potential ministers in cabinet style Government.

Jonathan: When you're talking about teamwork you're not necessarily talking about a hung parliament, but that is a real possibility isn't it? Does that concern you?

Mal: Well you know a lot of people here seem to be quite disturbed by the possibility of a hung parliament. Of course in other parts of the world that's actually called a coalition Government. My accent gives me away; I'm from the antipathies of Australia. We've for a long time had Labour versus the coalition of Liberal and National parties. Coalition can work very well, but it tends to work best - it can only really work best when the two parties are very closely aligned in their ideals and their major policy statements and platforms. I'm not sure that a coalition between for example the Lib Dems and the Labour party here would be as close as that. I think it would be a bit like oil and water mixing. There are certain issues where they are - certainly the Lib Dems are closer to Labour than they are to the Tories; but there are certain issues on which Labour and the Lib Dems are miles apart and trying to squeeze them together would be a very different thing. I do think Mr Cameron has a point too - that coalition Government in this sense or hung parliament does mean we end up with backroom deals; which is not necessarily the best form of leadership.

Jonathan: Indeed and of course we're at a time where trust and belief in politicians and politics is probably at an all time low isn't it, when you look at the scandals and stuff like that. What changes would you like to see happen in politics in this nation?

Mal: Well, look, I have to say one of the interesting things Jon about the post-debate situation is that more young people have been registering to vote. Now whether they actually vote on the day or not is another thing. But the interest among young people has risen over the last week and of course a lot of that is inspired by Mr Clegg's performance. I think that's a very positive thing, because if you look at all the sleaze and everything else that's come out in the last parliament, people are tired; they're weary of the whole political process. So British politics I think has needed a boost; it's needed the hope, the energy, the vibrancy, the optimism that young people tend to carry with them in bucket loads. I think that the politicians from here really should be focusing a lot more now, on addressing younger people as a significant part of their audience. That will require that they speak both with honesty and with optimism. There are a lot of young people I believe in Britain today who are still hoping, against the evidence perhaps, that there might be a sort of Obama figure somewhere in Britain. It may be a bit unrealistic, but hey, the ideal is worth aiming for. Obama of course has had a tough time recently with health care and everything; but he came into his position with hopefulness and a spirit of optimism is important to people I think.

Jonathan: Now there are lots of reasons that could influence people's voting and obviously the debates; whether that's style and ability to communicate well, all that kind of stuff. When you come to vote Mal, how do you base your vote? What are the kinds of things that you would encourage people to look for when they're voting?

Mal: Well of course our system of government is not just about who leads the party, it's about who represents us in the local constituency. So that's where it's completely different to a presidential election in the United States. It's more like a congressional election, in that we are voting for local members to represent us about localised issues. Of course that will be done in the context of the party machine. So we have to make sure that we take into account the big picture policies of the party; for example on foreign affairs or on taxation. There are lots of issues that are more to do with where I live and how those big picture policies affect me in my particular area though. I tell people, make sure you look at the local member who represents that party. Don't just vote for the party. Make sure you understand what that local member stands for; what experience he or she has in representing people, whether they have a servant attitude toward the public. Obviously we're very sensitive right now of the people who are in it for the money. I don't doubt that there are a few of those around. Most politicians I know anyway are people who are doing it for public service. But check out your local member, that's a big one.

Jonathan: Very good. Mal, as ever very helpful thoughts and comments, thanks very much for joining us on Cross Rhythms.

Mal: A pleasure Jon.

Jonathan: For more commentary from Mal, please go to 2020plus.net