The TV debate: tame but transformative

This "TV talent-show craze" is getting out of hand, said John O'Farrell in The Independent. First they had us choosing new- pop stars, then leads for West End musicals, and now it's prime ministers. The format of last week's debate appeared to be based on The Weakest Link) with the contestants

standing tensely behind lecterns as moderator Alastair Stewart barked: "Mr Brown! Mr Cameron!" You half expected them to "shout 'Bank!' every time they scored a few points". The 90-minutc show was watched by 10 million viewers, but after all the hype, it turned out to be a "fairly tame" and polite affair, with none of the heckling and "potential violence we have enjoyed for decades on Question Time, PMQs and Prescott Meets the People". But by the end, it also felt like an obvious and natural part of an election campaign. "Television is the public gallery of the modern age, and overnight it seemed insane that we have had to wait half a century for this programme."
For an event governed by 67 separate regulations, the debate was livelier than you might have expected, said Simon Hoggart in The Guardian - but that's not saying much. The three leaders trotted out their usual tired old lines, illustrated by endless anecdotes about encounters with voters. The jokes were rehearsed ("You can airbrush your posters, but


you can't airbrush your policies," intoned Brown to Cameron), while their ripostes were made up of "predigcsted" soundbites with the smell of spin doctors sprayed all over them. Mean- while, the poor audience - forbidden to laugh, clap or jeer - sat in stunned silence. Viewers



at home could switch off; for those in the studio there was no escape.
Still, the debate had a major impact, said David Aaronovitch in The Times. It's unarguable that it gave a huge boost to the Lib Dems. But there was a wider significance to this inaugural clash, which is that it marked a further shift in power "from the rulers to the ruled", from the politicians to the people. I don't buy that, said Charles Moore in The Daily Telegraph. Far from being a victor)' for democratic account- ability, the debates turn the election into a "game show". That's great for the TV channels: it means they can set the agenda of the cam- paign, and "construct their coverage round each Thursday night. But is it really an advance for our society if the three powers in the land are the BBC, Sky and ITV, rather than the three parties from which we choose our government?" Under this system, voters are reduced to "worms" - the devices used to track the live reactions of focus groups. Still, it's happened now and "cannot be undone (unless, one day, we worms turn)".