Kieran Lawrence looks at autonomous weapons and the effect they could have on modern warfare
Continuing a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Angela Merkel
Ben Bland examines the fallout from the Iowa caucuses and looks forward to the New Hampshire primaries.
In the first of a series on world leaders, Miles Deverson takes a look at Nicholas Sarkozy
The media is giving off that curious impression. Has this election been overrun by personality politics - incidences where charisma overtakes substance, where policies flounder in the sight of style? Where has ideological voting gone, if it has indeed gone anywhere? The televised debates made history for a number of reasons that I needn't go into, yet they still came across to me as a rather tedious version of The Weakest Link or as a recent article in The Guardian aptly dubbed it 'The X Factor for uglier people'. 90 minute debates where one's attention is likely to wander to things other than the words being spoken can explain some people's fascination with Brown's smile, Cameron's hair and Clegg's ties.
However, this curious business of personality politics began long before the election campaigns launched. Long before the televised debates graced our screens, during a calmer time when plenty had still been said and written about the leaders of the three mainstream parties. This election was always going to be more about national politics than local- another curiosity in itself. But I digress. The media's thrown all manner of inane information our way in an attempt to help us decide who is more Prime Minister material. For instance, Brown eats too many bananas, Cameron's secret weapon for securing him the election his pregnant wife “SamCam”, and Clegg…
Those ellipsis dots (often followed by a 'who?') pretty much summed the man up before the first election debate. It was the bizarre twist that made history and propelled both Clegg and his party from the grasp of general indifference and into the hearts of Cameron's Great Ignored. For a fleeting second, at the very least, Nick Clegg's presence was made known to the nation (those who bothered to endure the debate) and the words were spoken. "I agree with Nick." Four words have never unleashed such unrelenting bafflement in recent times.
Oh, and these are the times! The opposition parties were confused and outraged at their leaders' attempts to capitalise on this personality factor, the public too enamoured by this fresh young thing who looked dapper and promised change with conviction. The polls subsequently went mad as Cleggmania besotted us. But, wait- what? What exactly was so alluring? All the parties had harped on about change. Why were the voters tempted to 'flirt with Clegg' as Lord Mandelson phrased it? I doubt the fan girls and a good number of the waves who joined the Lib Dem Facebook groups were swayed by the party's policies. It seemed the pundits agreed. This had all the signs of a classic “personality over policies” case. Clegg had charisma, style and was that cool new kid on the playground. Brown declared that the polls were not a popularity contest, in indignant response, but it does make you wonder. Of course, things have since returned to less hysterical levels and have withstood the notorious storm of bigotgate, which leads to the conclusion that the polls (and personality politics) should be taken with a pint of skepticism.
These are baffling times, historical times where nothing is certain, but don't let that dissuade you from voting! And for goodness sake, I hope you weren't sucked in by all this personality nonsense.
sadly i think a lot of people, especially the youths have fallen under its spell! makes you wonder if lowering the voting age is wise!
"What exactly was so alluring? All the parties had harped on about change."
I think that in part is the answer. When all three parties talk about change and only one is really suggesting change, they're going to come out on top. I still have no idea why Cameron is going on about change when there is absolutely nothing new in their entire manifesto. I guess just to try and steal Obama's popularity. Same as today's front-of-Sun, I guess 
Thank you both for your comments! 
@Anon: It is a curious thing, but I doubt lowering the vote to 16 will have a drastic effect. The 16-17 demographic would have to be more politically engaged than the 18-25 or 26-35, which I see as unlikely. Could be wrong though.
@Jason: Heh, true. Although that's an strategy doomed to failure. The word 'change' has been abused and worn out thanks to Obama's campaign. Whenever I see that word, I become extremely suspicious and cynical. I prefer the spoof front cover of The Sun myself 
http://twitpic.com/1lcxad
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report