This is my response to the debate that I stuck on my website if anyone can be bothered to read it:
DEBATE WAS ROLE PLAY RATHER THAN GAME CHANGER
Nothing new was learned about the political situation, no-one made up any ground that was unexpected, no-one made any unpredictable plays; it was almost script like in its inevitability; and what is more, no one could make up any ground that was not predictable, no-one could make any unpredictable plays. What became evident within the first five minutes of the sham of a debate was that the system was dictating the patterns of behaviour of all three leaders, rather than true passionate beliefs.
Now, I'm not saying that they didn't believe in some of the things they were talking about; I'm sure they did. What I am saying is that the whole thing was an illusion of debate, a simulation of democracy. Once we had realised that all three leaders were going to do a professional job, it was clear that the debate would end in a victory of sorts for Nick Clegg. The Liberals were in the position of being able to sidestep the same old ding dong between the two 'great' powers of Labour and Conservative. Brown was always in the most difficult position as a long-term incumbent whose government has been linked to various failures. His position that defended his record and explained they had to do more was as predictable as the Conservative and Liberal lines about them having had 13 years already.
If Brown, Clegg and Cameron had switched places; if Brown was the leader of the third largest party, Cameron, the defending Prime Minister and Clegg the leader of the opposition then we would have had similar lines of reasoning. Basically they are interchangeable pieces within a system that constrains the limits of what is said.
Looking at the media views of the discussion you would believe that there were huge gulfs in outlook between the parties. The media is so excited by the story of a debate that they fail to see the constrained nature of the whole farce, the predictability. Sure, it is exciting to watch them in action, but the entertainment and chatter it created is a distraction from the fact that we live in a fairly stable, predictable system. Focusing on tiny things such as their ties, their suits, their body and facial language, the emotional reactions of viewers, takes us away from the fact that no-one is coming up with any radical ways forward.
The debate is simply an alibi, a justification of a democracy that doesn't exist in the way it could. The examination of minute details of difference between parties makes us forget that much of our reaction to political commentary is based on ignorance. Even MPs admit that they cannot understand all the legislation that is being passed, nor can they be expected to. When the so-called experts are not clear on things, how are we, the public, that have other things to be getting on with, supposed to know what is really going on? This ignorance is at the heart of the predictability of what is said because if someone moved away from what is supposedly known they would be taken for a madman.
This is our dilemma
taken from www.spacemag.org
Yes.
www.spacemag.org - contribute your stuff... satire, comics, ideas, debate, stupidy stupid etc.
