Alastair Stewart and the new theatre of TV politics



Alastair Stewart, moderator of the first ever UK General Election televised debate



“The TV debates were a tipping point in how we do politics” according to Alastair Stewart, who made history as moderator of Britain's first ever televised election debate between the three main party leaders. And having experienced in the flesh the effervescence of the man himself, I couldn't think of anyone better to do so.

For Gordon Brown, there was much to fear from a new spotlight on his persona. For David Cameron, it was a chance to prove his statesman credentials. Nick Clegg would be the new boy with the clean slate, railing against the 'Labservative' duopoly. They had everything to lose, and everything to gain. For the broadcasters, the debates were a long-awaited “alignment of the planets” as according to Ric Bailey, the BBC's political adviser, previous Prime Ministers had refused their rivals an equal footing.

It would have been easy to write off the debates as presidential. But for Stewart, they were a chance to revert to “old fashioned campaigning...when TV meets people who are trying to get your vote”. And it worked. Viewing figures compared favourably with, say a Friday night episode of Coronation Street, with the first debate watched by 9.6 million – and remaining consistently high for the Sky and BBC broadcasts.

The debates came at an opportune time for parties to get their message across when public trust in politicians was at an all-time low, in the wake of a damaging expenses scandal and an enormous budget deficit. Stewart reflected the overall feedback seen afterwards in the press, and throughout on social networking sites such as Twitter. Brown came across as “ill at-ease, and made no 'killer' points”. Cameron “hadn't a clue what he was doing”, but Clegg “shone from the outset, with a natural, compelling narrative”.

“The penny dropped in enormous numbers” as the public fell for Clegg's seemingly invincible message. Joint favourites of the 2010 General Election had been the Tories and 'change' – and the result fulfilled a general desire for a hung parliament. But as Stewart said, “the real impact didn't change the outcome” - but did confirm the perception of politics as presidential...the brutal ideological battles are now struggles of the past”.

In articulating party policy, those “three to four minutes of interplay were better than reading out verbatim statements on policy” and for Stewart, from that “brash, commercial channel”, prime time viewing figures were encouraging: “We got 10 million people to watch a TV show about politics – and I'm personally very proud of that.”

Stewart's perception of the debates was unsurprising. And, like Stewart, I'm only partially in agreement with Andrew Rawnsley in that the TV debates dominated to such an extent that they 'sucked the oxygen out of the rest of the campaign'. It could be the fault of the parties themselves, for not creating enough 'real' events. Arguably the only other exciting element of campaign in 2010 was Brown's infamous encounter with Gillian Duffy, which benefited Labour ultimately as they snatched the seat from the LibDems. Might the campaign have benefited from more unscripted encounters? Maybe. “Television has to reflect the tussle that's going on” said Stewart, and, what's more, “there were lots of local candidates who were not being covered by national TV. Local TV needs to work better.”

And, having delivered his script, in true TV style this seasoned pro shuffled his papers as if signing off from the evening bulletin. I half expected the lights to go down and a rousing theme tune to play him out...

Voting with a conscience

I am voting Labour in the European parliamentary elections tomorrow, because I know that the party is standing some excellent candidates who will make great MEPs for London. And I am casting a Labour vote because it is a vote against the BNP and UKIP - which alone is reason enough to vote.

I'm voting Labour with some difficulty however. It's not because I don't agree with the values of the party - I've been a member for so long that cancelling my membership would be like divorcing a member of my family - but the party in government, in its present form has stopped inspiring me. I haven't done any campaigning for the party in months - but then again I haven't felt like defending the record of politicians in general - let alone Labour politicians.

Like the rest of the British public, I'm furious with MPs who have abused the expenses system. A lot of it isn't a massive surprise to me - I used to work in an MP's Parliamentary office and many people I know who work in politics would have been witness to some of these extravagant claims - Labour and Tory alike. But it's the arrogance and the inability to recognise where serious changes need to be made which really makes me angry.

At times like this, we need real leadership - and in this situation, our Prime Minister hasn't led, but followed, and cautiously suggested half-hearted attempts at reforming the expenses system. When our entire constitutional settlement is in question, Gordon Brown hasn't met the political challenges posed by other MPs and the public at large - at a time when we should be going back to the drawing board and sketching out ideas for real changes in the way we do politics. Much as though I admire his command of economic policy and leadership during a time of global recession, there is a distinct lack of communication over what's going on in the PM's head. Does he have any answers to the current crisis of democracy? Or is he happy to struggle on with a big question mark over how MPs should reconnect with their constituents who are spitting feathers over ludicrous and excessive claims? I don't know, and I'm not prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The Guardian's editorial had it spot on today - and when the most credible Labour-supporting newspaper of the chattering classes starts to seriously question Gordon Brown's authority. Good luck to the rebels who are, as I speak, attempting to gather enough support to challenge the leadership. I hope we can have a General Election soon because if Labour is proud of its record (and I think it really should be) then it won't be frightened of a test at the polls.

I don't know whether the party can turn itself around in the next year, the next five years, or the next ten years in its quest to become credible with the electorate again. It will need someone articulate, open to new ideas, probably much younger, and less tainted by the battles of the past to succeed. But - and my boyfriend will probably disagree with me on this one - I do believe in voting according to the values you are brought up with and for me, that's about the belief in collective action and the idea that we can achieve more in unity than we achieve alone.

Vote Labour tomorrow if you genuinely believe that Britain should be represented by a broadly progressive force in Europe - but don't feel that by voting Labour tomorrow that you're voting for the current incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street.

Time to make a choice...the Labour Party deputy leadership campaign

My two ballot papers for the Labour party deputy leadership contest arrived in the post exactly a week ago. I still haven't sent them off. But, after a week more of reflection, hustings and televised debates I'm going to make the following choices.

1. Hilary Benn
2. Jon Cruddas
3. Harriet Harman
4. Alan Johnson
5. Peter Hain
6. Hazel Blears.

Benn really made an impression on me at a conference in February, and I feel swayed enough to give him my support. There's a lot of passion there, some great ideas to change the party and a real sense of optimism. He really seems to believe in politics, and the ability of the Labour party to change the world through its ideology and values. I hint a touch of Blair in the way he addresses people in his speeches, never a bad thing as far as the media are concerned.

He doesn't try to make any secret of the way he's voted in the past for example. I'm not happy with the fact he voted for the war, but at least unlike Harman, who will get my third choice, he is honest about his beliefs and doesn't try to make political capital about the situation there now.

Cruddas is doing very well, and has brought so much to the debate. As an orator, he's gained confidence in public. He voted for the war too, but he's now making welcome contributions to the housing debate and really excellent ideas on how to re-invigorate our party. He recognises that the fact the party has lost 200,000 members we've lost since 1997 is a real issue. I don't think any of the other candidates have really understood this. I'd trust Cruddas as our campaigner in chief.

Harriet Harman comes across as patronising, too middle-class and ideologically inconsistent. Supposedly courting the 'soft' left, she's also proud to have sent her children to a grant-maintained school - never the policy of this government. Irritatingly, she never quite reveals why standing as a female candidate is so important - she just takes it for granted that the general membership will default to a female deputy leader if Brown is PM. If she's really a feminist, she needs to put forward a better case as to why it's important to have men and women at the top in politics. Oh, and saying 'I'm the southern candidate' is just so ridiculous. She does however get my third preference for being an experienced Minister, who has admirably campaigned on human rights and equalities issues. She also has an excellent, well organised constituency party.

I initially thought I'd plump for Alan Johnson in this contest, but he just hasn't tried to win my vote. He came to a London Young Labour reception in February and stayed all of five minutes, barely attempting to convince the assembled yoof that this cheeky working class ex-postman who was brought up by his sister as a teenager would be someone to lead the party's activists into the next general election. I felt he had nothing to offer the youth movement of the party, but he's no. 4 on my ballot because of his Cabinet experience and the fact he comes across well in the media.

Peter Hain has nothing to contribute to the campaign apart from the fact that he was Secretary of State in Northern Ireland when power sharing was restored. He never fails to mention this in debates. Oh, and apartheid in South Africa. Don't forget that. I actually feel sorry for him, but want him nowhere near that Deputy Leader's office. I think, that despite his achievements, he'd be the wrong man for this job.

Hazel Blears is the Marmite candidate. I've met her personally, and she's lovely, but she has been far too close to the Blair regime. I just couldn't trust her to stand up to Gordon. She's got great working class credentials - 'My brother drives a Manchester bus' - but she's also quite divisive. When I was helping out Hilary Benn in ringing councillors to ask if they'd vote for him, all I got was 'anyone but Blears'.

So, there you have it, I'm off the postbox now!