The first leaders’ debate aired yesterday on the Seven Network, but why was public interest so muted? And why, for the majority of viewers, was Home & Away on the main channel while the debate instead aired on the less popular 7TWO? Crikey readers share their thoughts:
On the dwindling interest in leaders’ debates
Trish Cahill writes: The BBC rejuvenated the idea with a multi-party leaders’ debate which surely is worth looking at as the two leaders format has got a bit stale. I think the BBC had six parties on stage. I gather it was a ratings winner and the only downside was voters across the UK thinking they could vote for Nicola Sturgeon and her Scottish National Party when she wasn’t standing personally and the SNP was only standing in Scotland!
Ian Smerd writes: In the US debates can be informative because the candidates are running for a single office … President. In Australia, the leader is only part of our electoral equation and, in my opinion, should not be the main focus of attention. Of more importance, in my opinion, would be a focus, including a “debate”, on the relevant minister and shadow minister. It is somewhat misleading to create the impression that we are electing a prime minister. We should be really paying much more attention to the competing parties’ policies.
David Arnold Writes:
- Politicians are now sufficiently media-trained that their speech is basically content-free
- There’s nothing new in the debates — no announcements, no questions we haven’t heard before. It’s really just an opportunity to try to trap someone into straying off-script and the smug schoolyard point-scoring that then elicits from the “winner”
- Anything at all interesting will be on social media in the morning anyway, so you can watch it then and avoid wasting your life the night before.
Terry J Mills writes: I don’t think we have lost interest with the leaders’ debates but I would question why we are going to 7TWO and then the minority of subscribers (will they get 50,000) at Sky pay TV and then possibly the Press Club. The latter is the natural venue even if they have to hold it in the evening rather than lunchtime: Monday night on ABC would get them half a million viewers easy.
Send your comments, corrections, clarifications and cock-ups to boss@crikey.com.au. We reserve the right to edit comments for length and clarity. Please include your full name if you would like to be considered for publication.
Several things emerge for me. One is that these debates are a farce. A second is relief that Shorten appears to have gained the “upper hand” in the first debate – plenty of time to give it up later and like Andrea de Desaris (former F1 driver with a reputation for crashing – nicknamed Andrea De Crasheris), Shorten could still crash while running strongly. Moreover, the Murdoch and Stokes media is ready to embark on a campaign of confected outrage at Shorten’s merest slip.
It has already gone ballistic over Shorten’s super “gaffe”; lied blatantly about Labor reintroducing death duties and repeatedly overlooks Morrison’s own hollow and puerile utterances – “trust me, don’t trust the other guy”. What on earth? Scandals around the purchase of “future water rights” – nothing to see here, so that disappeared. But Morrison is the guy who wants to continue as PM and is convinced he can offer “more of the same” – which is incompetence, corruption and broadly, policies that favour the wealthy and big business – fine if there was room for those at the other end of the economic scale, but for conservatives, that categor, the” down & outs” is nothing but a drag on the economy, so policies around that group are inherently punitive on the failed assumption that taking from the poor and giving to the rich is the passport to economic nirvana.
Morrison remains the dunderhead who thinks that his “charm” is enough to win people over. He has nothing to say (and never has, unless he can draw upon his repertoire of weasel-words he accumulated while carving out an inglorious and failed business career that tells you how incompetent he truly is). HIs script is attacking Shorten.
That seems to be why whenever a Labor politician is interviewed they have to be critical of the other LNP politicians – because the LNP folks are all being kept well away from the spotlight to focus on the prize buffoon, Morrison. They might be campaigning hard in their electorates, but it seems obvious that they are considered liabilities. I think Cash was trucked out to practice her gurning, spew forth her spittle-laden insults and shreiks over the “tradies losing their utes” (why would less dual cab utes [now costing $50,000 to put on the road – definitely a low-income accoutrement] on urban roads be a bad thing?) and I think the feedback was that she was not winning over the electorate, so back into her box she had to go. If Australia is lucky, she will lose her seat, but then collectively, we are idiots.
Why does Australia, with a Westminster-style democracy, have leaders’ debates?
Good question – and with the ratings continuing to bomb the way they are it is not a question you will have to worry about after this circus is over.
There definitely should be more participants, imagine the ratings if the Black W(r)iggler, PHONie and PUP were on their hinds legs in front of an audience, though I would prefer the questions came from experienced, unbiased journalists – on the off-chance that some existed.
Unlike UK/US with their iniquitous FPtP, our transferable preference and, at least in the Senate, semi PR, means that smaller parties deserves exposure.
For good or ill.