Kathy Sheridan: Do election debates matter anymore?

Die Hard on the Doorsteps, the election 2020 series got a smart fillip on Monday night with a health debate that was actually enlightening. Hopeful even. How amazing is that?

We watched in wonder as five politicians discussed the most distressing, entrenched scandal facing the country with only the occasional witless attempt to knock political lumps out of each other. It’s a low bar but we have to start somewhere.

The wonder is that so many politicians fail to grasp this. One theory is that some never moved beyond the college debate mindset when the rival’s evisceration was the sole point of it. It may also be the case that advisors and activists are screaming for their guy to deliver the point-scoring and the gotcha moment and the guy feels obliged to give it to them. Or maybe they imagine that adopting the emoting, down-with-the-people Mr Angry persona is how you make yourself distinctive and memorable.

Monday's debate worked because rather than harking back to who neglected what in the shameful past, the discussion dealt with the present

They miss the point by a mile; that’s precisely what makes the average voter want to eviscerate them all in an industrial mincer. They might take a leaf out of Robert Carlyle’s prime ministerial performance in Cobra, Sky One’s drama set in the heart of government in a monumental crisis. He tells a fearful lynch mob that he doesn’t feel their pain . . . pregnant pause . . . because how could he ? He is not in their position, he says, before proceeding to give them information and a plan.

Over 65s are expected to ‘crawl into corner and die’, says election hopeful Valerie Cox

---

Election 2020: Everything you need to know

---

McDonald not competing to be taoiseach despite Sinn Féin surge

---

Election 2020: Strong economy not enough for voters who want hard signs of prosperity

---

On Monday, the tone for RTÉ’s Claire Byrne Live was set by a more humble Simon Harris as Minister for Health and the measured, authoritative voice of Róisín Shortall, the architect of Sláintecare, that rarest of beasts in public policy; a highly complex, finely-drawn, 10-year model of a decent healthcare system, a plan that already exists, requires massive investment and – get this – was drawn up by an all-party committee. To repeat: a workable 10-year plan exists that will inevitably get up a lot of professional noses and allow for no tax cuts and they all signed up to it. Remember that.

The measure of the show was that we learned more about something fundamentally important to this country. For context, Alison O’Connor was given the floor to dish out a straight, five-minute primer on health politics, choosing the word “manipulate” to describe how various vested interests operate and noting that health politics is a far more vicious arena than national politics, a point worth further analysis. The show worked because rather than harking back to who neglected what in the shameful past, the discussion dealt with the present while leading us towards a plausible plan for the future.

Because this was big picture stuff – ably directed by Claire Byrne – it forced the quibblers out of their well-rehearsed portrayal of themselves as uniquely understanding of the people’s pain. They had to attempt instead to sound like national legislators in full command of the brief. It’s worth noting that Róisín Shortall did no emoting; she was just resolutely confident about the detail and integrity of the plan.

Tonight’s debate between Leo Varadkar and Micheál Martin (Virgin Media at 9.30pm, moderated by Pat Kenny) will be a test of this approach if not much else. Will they favour the down to earth/I-feel-your-pain/here’s another squillion nurses/houses approach, over unpatronising complexity, cool realism and credible, costed plans? In fairness, it’s not easy.

There is a skill in combining the statesman persona with a man of the people aura, as the popular British Labour MP, Jess Phillips, discovered during the party’s first leadership hustings at the weekend. Her attempt to appear “statesmanlike”, as she put it, while trying to appeal to a swathe of different party factions, was terrible. Her critique of the format is as good a guide as any on why leadership debates rarely tell us anything useful. “I have absolutely no idea what kind of test of leadership it is for five people to stand on a stage and deliver frankly dull pre-rehearsed lines, some that have clearly been focus-grouped to death”, she wrote in the Guardian. “How does it show how you will lead a team, inspire people to action or reach out into the country ? It doesn’t. It proves some people can practise lines”.

Let's see if tonight's debate is about more than who is best at practising lines

We all know something of the sweaty preparation that goes into such high-stakes debates and Phillips has a point (even if her entire piece is an admission that she failed to prepare for the occasion). A “natural” debater will probably win the popular verdict, often without majoring in reality. Bertie Ahern’s debate “win” against Enda Kenny a week before the 2007 election played a pivotal role in turning around the voters but who now believes – even among Fianna Fáil-ers – that it was the right result for the country ? Ahern got his three elections in a row but at what cost?

Both will be competent performers. Leo Varadkar has his record in office to deal with and the choices he made. Micheál Martin danced with old Fianna Fáil – quite the legacy – yet kept his word over the confidence-and-supply deal. He also stood up for the two recent referendums "despite vociferous objections from his own deputies" as Conor Lenihan put it here, but that raises another question about many of his own deputies. Let's see if tonight's debate is about more than who is best at practising lines.