Election debates need more than soundbites - Ewan Aitken

The first time I voted was in local elections in 1980, having been too young vote in the 1979 general election, the first one which I was aware of and wanted to vote in. I have never missed a vote since.

I have even had the slightly weird experience of voting for myself on three occasions, once as a candidate in local elections and once as a parliamentary candidate.

I have become slightly obsessed with politics over the years. I believe it matters a great deal. The mark of any nation is the quality of its democracy. Not just who wins, but the quality of those who stand and the ability of all of us to influence the decisions of those who win.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Despite all that, I did not watch the Westminster leaders debate earlier this week ahead of the upcoming UK election. I knew I would just get annoyed. Not at what was said, though there would be an element of that, but at the format and the binary nature of the conversation.

There is no space for proper, thoughtful views on the difficult and complex subjects we really need our leaders, whatever their political hue, to grapple with. We cannot be governed by soundbites, yet we seem to be asked to choose who governs us based on such things.

Populism is a poison which has persuaded us that there are simple answers to complex problems. It is “fake news” at its most extreme. When we combine that with our collective reduction in attention span that is the gift of social media and the belief that controversy is the way to win viewers, this week’s debate was all about performative politics not real decision making.

When I was an elected politician, the best conversations I had were often with people I disagreed with, when there was space to expose the challenges in each situation and seek solutions which paid attention to all the competing drivers, trusting that we could disagree without judgement or condemnation.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

As education convener I once proposed merging two primary schools. The parents whose school would close were not happy. I met with them over 25 times in different contexts, sometimes in small groups, sometimes in larger gatherings. I never refused a meeting and I adapted and changed the proposal based on their comments.

In the end their school was still closed but the merger was better managed and there were additional things introduced into the community to mitigate the issues they had raised. Not all were happy with the conclusion, but they understood why I had reached my decision. I knew much better how to implement it in a way which better took care of the community. The process took much more time but through wise disagreement we reached a better outcome.

That space was created, not by me but by the community impacted by my proposal. They were prepared to have the discussion, not immediately run a campaign of opposition. They created a space where we could listen to each other, even when it was hard to hear. And we got a better outcome as a result. They were the real political leaders, and their choices have much to teach us about how to do politics better.

Related topics:

Comment Guidelines

National World encourages reader discussion on our stories. User feedback, insights and back-and-forth exchanges add a rich layer of context to reporting. Please review our Community Guidelines before commenting.

News you can trust since 1873
Follow us
©National World Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.Cookie SettingsTerms and ConditionsPrivacy notice