By: Lady J

Lady J — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 21:54:43 +0000

Let it be known that I am not a Labour Party member; but I decided to write and submit this posting out of pure frustration of the media biais I am witnessig towards David Cameron and against Gordon Brown. The Daily Mail, The Sun, The daily Telegraph, The Obeserver and the Times etc, I expected to be biaiased, after all they are the rightwing mouthpiece of the Tories; but the BBC’s blatent cheerleading for a Cameron win and in particular Channel 4’s, with the Braodcaster I respected most, Jon Snow who has become the biggest cheerleader for the Tories makes me fear that our coutry has lost its democracy by the people for the people and has become a country whose prime Ministers is the one favoured and chosen by the media and not by the people.

Team Labour, do not loose hope. I have a lot of faith in the British people, they will put the media to shame.

By: sarah

sarah — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:13:35 +0000

I think the three leaders’ debates have had a pretty negative effect on political discourse and campaigning. (There are some benefits since more people have tuned in, but it really is pretty old style communication – novel for the UK, innovative, no.) The overweening focus on the ‘debates’ as the defining moments of the election campaign is obviously more appropriate to a presidential system rather than a parliamentary one. While Rory Bremner’s comment on the Daily Politics Show that people will look at their ballots and ask “Who are these people listed here? Where do I vote for Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg or David Cameron? “was a joke, it did get to the heart of the matter.
The debates – the lead-up and the instant (did they look into the camera, did they sweat?) and then protracted post-mortems- have utterly dominated popular political coverage; the press entourage then tracks these same leaders around the country (you are lucky to get a glimpse of the actual candidate in the constituency involved) re-enforcing the message that it is ‘all about the leaders.’ (Looking more closely at the methodology of the polls of who ‘won’ would be useful, because they do frame discussion of ‘who’ is winning for days, but that would be a separate post).
Of course, the ‘leaders’ are supposed to embody and lead the party and manifesto policies for which people will vote, but we need a lot more scrutiny of the teams available to form the government. Given ‘shadowing,’ there are ample resources and good reason to examine the politics and competence of potential ministers. There has been slight opportunity to do so: you have to be a real policy wonk or nerd to dig out these encounters.
In the Populus poll (which asks some questions besides who won) the question (also a constant media meme) is posed about being ‘in touch with ordinary people.’ To answer this, it is just as important to think about/analyse what the House of Commons would ‘look like’ with different party outcomes. On the sidelines, there has been some comment that the LD surge could well produce a whiter than ever HC; there has been some useful comment (only here and in the Guardian, it seems) on how the campaign and its coverage is women-free (unless you are a wife). Is anyone profiling the class (or at least occupational and educational background) and gender and ethnic implications for its composition of different outcomes? I am not trying to be reductionalist/essentialist, but this is – at least – part of the answer to the question posed.
The focus on the ‘leaders’ serves the Tory strategy well, since Brown has always been the focus of their attacks and given his poor communication skills, there was little to gain from submitting to this agenda.

Let’s get back to Team Labour for the final stages of this campaign.

Comments on: Final leaders’ debate: bloggers’ reaction

By: Lady J

By: sarah