The Prime Ministerial "Debates"

So, the Prime Ministerial debates are over. Gone in an instant, consigned to the history books. And they will probably be more interesting as historical artifacts/anecdotes than they were to watch on prime time TV.

Of course, the debates were promoted as an awesome achievement for British democracy, mainly by people who presumably have never seen a US Presidential debate. Because had they done so, they would have known that the vast majority of what happens in a Presidential debate is boring. The famous moments - Nixon sweating, Ford putting his foot in his mouth, Reagan patronising his opponents etc - are the exception, not the rule. Want to know why there was so much fuss about that bulge in Bush's jacket in 2004? Well, it was because the rest of the debate was boring. Presidential debates consist of boring men in a boring room being boring. And the UK Prime Ministerial debates perfectly replicated that.

I've watched two of the debates, and despite there being less than 24 hours since I saw the last one, I really couldn't tell you anything that happened in them. It isn't just a case of not being able to remember the highlights; I can't remember the low points either. I can't remember anything. Mainly because the debates were so judderingly boring.

On reflection, I've only got two things I want to say about the Prime Ministerial yawn-a-thons. Firstly, the debates were simply a question of how effectively expectations were managed before the debates actually took place. We know that Gordon Brown is pretty much shit at everything, so the fact that he managed not to soil himself, berate an old lady or call one of his opponents a "cunt" meant he did ok in the debates. Sure, he lost each and everyone of them, but he didn't so as badly as might have been expected. Cameron struggled not because he did badly, but because almost by default he was seen prior to the debates as the best debater. He had to win each debate; anything less would be a disappointment. And the only reason why Clegg's performances have been so roundly praised is because prior to the debates, few people knew who he was and those that did questioned whether he actually had the power of speech. It is easy to do well in a political debate when you have said nothing at all before. Just opening your mouth and forming a word represents a giant step forward.

Secondly, it was extremely telling that so much of the basis of the debate was already assumed and agreed. Take climate change - the leaders discussed who had the best plan to combat climate change, but not for one second did any one of the men vying to be Prime Minister query the extent of climate change or the dubious science behind it. Likewise, with the EU, the parties argued over who would best manage our relationship with the EU - it was all predicated on the unspoken assumption that we stay in that Union. And with taxation - the leaders yapped on about whose tax credits would best enrich the ordinary person, but there was no debate about whether the overall level of taxation in this country is appropriate. This wasn't a political debate; it was technocrats debating over minor tinkering with the existing system. Don't believe Cameron, Brown or Clegg when they talk about change; these debates have shown that they want nothing more than the maintenance of the status quo.

In some respects, I think it would have been better to have the leaders of the minor parties in on the debates as well. With the likes of UKIP, the Greens and perhaps even the BNP debating as well, then the leaders of the main parties would have been more challenged, and perhaps forced out of their cosy consensus. Their fundamental assumptions would have been more challenged by those who sit on the outside of the political mainstream. It would have made the debates more lively, more controversial, more interesting and more political. It certainly wouldn't have made them into the tedious exercise in mediocrity that we've had to endure this time around.