As I write, I am watching the first US presidential debate. It’s awful. Trump and Biden are like two washed up, punch drunk boxers.
One lives in a fantasy world of his own making and the other seems to be playing Henry Fonda in the sunset movie, On Golden Pond.
If either candidate was a family member, I would stage an intervention. Is this really the best America can do?
Biden values ideals, democratic principles and has moral fibre but he’s out of steam.
Trump is an amoral flawed character, lowbrow on almost everything, but is driven by vengeance.
Either way this won’t end well for the USA or anyone else, because when America sneezes the world gets the flu.
The weakness of both candidates plays into the hands of those who threaten western democracy and international stability.
The British leader debates were dry affairs. There were no presidential-style performances on show.
Only Farage campaigns as if it was 1966 with pub selfies and town hall rallies. Clacton and those other clapped out seaside resorts with their ‘kiss me quick’ hats, bawdy bars and decaying fabric reflect the malaise in British politics.
If as expected, Starmer and Labour get into power they need to inject some pizzazz and hope.
At least in Britain voters had the benefit of watching and listening to party political leaders debating. They got to see the whites of their eyes.
In the north... we wuz robbed: whilst some parties put forward leaders, others decided to promote flagging candidates.
The BBC shouldn’t allow a political party to dictate who participates in so-called leaders’ debates. It’s for leaders, not Sunday leaguers.
The decision by both Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionists to field speakers who were not leaders felt wrong. It was also possibly unfair to other candidates in South Down and Lagan Valley.
Having stand-ins or substitutes is a political cop-out. If a party decides not put forward their leader, an empty podium can mark their spot. In fact, they should put a lettuce on the rostrum
The purpose of such debates is to see whether party leaders are capturing the imagination and attention of the electorate. It’s also about putting them under the spotlight, holding them to account for the direction of their party and the decisions they have taken.
Having stand-ins or substitutes is a political cop-out.
If a party decides not put forward their leader, an empty podium can mark their spot. In fact, they should put a lettuce on the rostrum.
So how did it go?
By a distance, the most impressive performer was the SDLP’s Colum Eastwood. He comes to life in front of a TV camera, exuding energy and empathy. The result is a less shouty Eastwood.
Naomi Long of Alliance was runner up on the leaders’ debate, though at times she got outflanked by both the DUP’s Gavin Robinson and Eastwood. Long has a direct style which is more appealing than the woolliness of her deputy.
Gavin Robinson had the toughest gig of the night. He was competent more than compelling but whether his candour lands with unionist voters will be decided at the ballot box.
Robbie Butler (UUP) and Chris Hazzard (SF) appeared to make up the numbers on the night. There were no memorable soundbites from either. Doug Beattie and Michelle O’Neill should have stepped up - it goes with the top job.
Whether these debates make a difference on election day is hard to tell. The secret is not to fail on live TV. Survive that and anything is possible.
