In this case, I am not speaking of the phenomenon of his Got Talent and Idol franchises, but rather of the prime ministerial debates that have thrown this coming election wide open. Seemingly out of no where have risen the Liberal Democrats, headed by the refreshingly charismatic Nick Clegg, who have succeeded for the first time since the 1920s to create an irrefutable three-way-race between the Conservatives, Labour and them. Now, whether or not you agree or disagree with the nature of these prime ministerial debates, and the way they have created a somewhat presidential atmosphere within British politics, it is strikingly clear that the televised debates have imposed a profound impact on the wider public. Not only did 9.9 million people tune in to watch the historic first leg of the debate, focussed on domestic affairs, but the debate itself had a decisively poignant impact on the polls that followed it, clearly placing Nick Clegg as the ultimate victor of the debate. The Times even published an outlandishly fanatical headline stating, 'Clegg is as popular as Churchill'. As ridiculous and populist as that sounds, it does somewhat capture the atmosphere of the current political scene. Although polls seem to suggest the Conservative leader David Cameron clinched the second televised debate, centered on foreign affairs, the Lib Dem's bubble has yet to burst. A couple of weeks ago, the notion of 'Cleggmania' would have been brushed aside as an impossibly daft likelihood, yet the feverishness is still flourishing.
This comes to show how the media is able to mould and shape the conceptions of the masses. We are a society obsessed with appearance and presentation, which works to the favour of both Clegg and Cameron, two middle aged politicians promoting an endorsement for 'change'. Yet what differentiates between Clegg and Cameron? After all, they are both unaffiliated with the 'horrid' Labour Party, who have brought 13 years of 'failure and disappointment' (as each party endlessly makes sure to remind us). I believe what differentiates Clegg and Cameron is this: the public's unquenchable desire for an 'underdog' to shake things up. This personality trait can be found within the very fabric of Nick Clegg. He appealed to the public as an open, honest and uncorrupt leader, who leads a party advocating change and fairness. What is more, it was his repeated message that the Lib Dem's were different than the other two main party's that appealed most to viewers during the debate. The fresh optimism that appears to be epitomised within the character of Nick Clegg has wooed voters away from the two 'old' parties, with the hope the Lib Dem's will somehow reinvigorate British politics.
However, I am somewhat sceptical as to whether the public are making a rational decision to support the Lib Dem's based on the policies and ideologies of the party, or whether they are simply conforming to the populist impulses that has proceeded the live debates. Although I would like to believe the surge in support for the Lib Dem's is one based upon careful deliberation and genuine conviction, when all is said and done, I believe the public are not advocating the Lib Dem's, but Nick Clegg. It is the persona of the Lib Dem's leader that has transformed the political scene, which has initiated both positive and negative connotations. On the positive side of things, it has reenergised the public's interest in politics, as well as created a palpable sense of competition between the three main party's... oh not to mention a political goldmine for the media. However, it is this populist conformity that I strongly worry about, as it is one based not on an informed decision, but on adrenaline. The public have seized the opportunity to convert to the 'anti-politics' that were visible within Nick Clegg's performance in the live debates, and have used this notion as the basis for their political conversion. What is more, it is easy for Nick Clegg to say he believes the political system is corrupt with inequality, and believes radical change is needed to shake the system from top to toe, but the pressing question is, do you believe him? After all, politics is the art of the possible, and time and time again leaders have been unable to deliver their manifesto promises as a result of inability to do so within the 'real world'.
I fear these debates have instigated a version of political reality T.V. for the public to sit back and enjoy. It is a formula they are highly accustomed to, hence the unprecedented repercussions of these debates. People are supporting something they do not fully understand, and are not aware of the consequences their un-thought alliances will inevitably bring. We are slowly yet surely veering away from the traditional role of the prime minister in favour of a more presidential figure, which I believe is small-minded and lethal for British politics. If we are unable to understand the main issues, what hope is there? If we simply place precedence on style over substance, what will come of our political system? I'll tell you what, it will be overrun with young, exuberantly captivating individuals, without a rational thought in their minds. Their sole purpose will be becoming the 'face' of the party, ignoring the crucial question of whether they are fit to run the country. Don't get me wrong, I am incredibly impressed with Nick Clegg, and am excited with the prospect the Lib Dem's present the nation with. However, I am afraid people will overlook the policies in favour of the persona. We must not get bogged down with the collective opinions of the wider public, which are often sensationalistic and based upon irrational bursts of widespread adherence. Rather, it is worth remembering that fads are often short lived, and shallow in substance. Vote with your brain, not your heart. This isn't another instalment of the X Factor, and should not be treated as such (to the dismay of our beloved Simon Cowell).
