Newt Gingrich lays into the "liberal elite" to the delight of a raucous South Carolina audience

Ray D’Cruz

Republican hopeful Newt Gingrich honed a key message since the South Carolina debates: only he can beat Obama in the presidential debates.

Until last night’s debate, the message worked well. It combined one of Gingrich’s perceived strengths (debating) with the issue that matters most to Republicans (beating Obama). But the case for his superior debating skill became less persuasive after his poor performance in last night’s Florida debate hosted by NBC.

Gingrich has now threatened to skip future debates that silence the audience. His threat undermines his key message about beating Obama, because presidential debates do not allow raucous audience behaviour. Presidential debate audiences are usually comprised of impartial voters. If Gingrich wants to lay claim to being best placed to beat Obama in debates, he’ll need to show it in the sort of environment that broadcaster NBC set last night. But he didn’t.

Under intense attack from Romney, Gingrich was stunned. His performance included embarrassing pauses, meek rebuttal and a failure to respond. If the former House Speaker wants to claim the title of best debater then comments like this are not enough:

Well, look, I`m not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney`s misinformation. We`ll have a site at Newt.org by tomorrow morning. We`ll list everything — he just said at least four things that are false. I don`t want to waste the time on them. I think the American public deserve a discussion about how to beat Barack Obama, the American public deserves a discussion of what we would do about the economy. And I just think this is the worst kind of trivial politics.
I mean, he said at least four things that were false. We have an ad in which both John McCain and Mike Huckabee in 2007 and 2008 explain how much they think Governor Romney can`t tell the truth.
I just suggest people look at them. Don`t listen to me, don`t believe me. Just look at the ad with Mike Huckabee and Senator McCain and you will understand exactly what you just saw.

Responses like the one above won’t cut it in the presidential debates. First, he simply dodged the criticism, saying that it would be a waste of time countering the claims. No – that’s called rebuttal. Second, Gingrich referred people to his website. Will the 50 or 60 million people who tune into presidential debates really go to candidate’s webpage for a fact check? Third, he tried to shift the target to Obama. In the presidential debate, who’s he going to shift focus to? And fourth, when all else failed, he relied on vague appeals to authority, in the form of John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Not good debating.

In the post-debate spin Gingrich has zeroed in on one of his two pet targets: the media. It is of course a distraction tactic. In the debate he was silent. He couldn’t challenge moderator Brian Williams because Williams asked serious questions and created a serious environment. It was exactly the sort of debate Gingrich asked for repeatedly before the raucous South Carolina audience rehabilitated his campaign: substantial issues and no “gotcha” questions. Complaining now smacks of wanting it both ways.

The threat to boycott further debates is of course hollow. There’s no way Gingrich would forgo the millions of dollars in free advertising that every debate offers. And there’s no way he’d allow Romney to attack him in his absence, in the same way Obama has been pilloried in these debates. It’s an empty threat.

Of all the debates held to date, this primary debate was the one that will most clearly simulate the presidential debate format and experience – and that’s why Gingrich’s claim that he has the debating skill to match President Obama has been so badly undermined in the last 24 hours.

The Republican primary debates have been a disappointment to any serious observer. With a few exceptions, they have consistently failed to debate the issues that might allow an intellectually curious  Republican voter to discern the best challenger for President Barack Obama.

How is this possible? There have been 15 debates since May, each of around 90 minutes – a staggering 25 hours of televised debate. You could be forgiven for thinking those rank and file Republicans who’ve tuned in and turned up have seen some rigorous analysis of the most serious issues confronting America. You could be forgiven for thinking that the candidates – these leading Republicans – have excoriated the usual spin to expose the raw facts relating to these issues. But you’d be wrong, because these are debates in name only.

The final four contenders in the Republican race (Source: NBC)

That’s not to say the debates have failed to make an impact. On the contrary, these debates have winners and losers writ large. Rick Perry’s a loser because he could not recall the name of a government department during his famous “oops” moment. Newt Gingrich is a winner because he indignantly rejected a question about his fidelity. In these debates candidates rarely win or lose on the arguments, but if they can provide a memorable moment easily converted into a 30 second video clip, they’ll be the stand out performer, for better or worse. For the media, a debate is just the story of the debate. Today, the story from the Florida debate will undoubtedly be Mitt Romney putting on the boxing gloves and laying into Gingrich.

Debates in name only

Let’s start with the most obvious criticism that can be made about these debates: they’re not real debates. Debates have some essential characteristics:

A clear proposition. A consistent proposition means all speakers get to argue the same issues. This is inherently fairer to the speakers and allows the audience to better compare responses. The approach adopted in most of the Republican debates sees each candidate asked a different question. Sometimes the difference is slight, sometimes it’s enormous. That’s not how a debate works.

Equal speaker times: Speakers have not been getting equal times in debates. This is fundamental to a fair process. The way in which the rights of reply are being managed are allowing certain speakers to dominate air time, and others to go for long tracts of the debate without being given the chance to speak.

Clash: debates should also feature a clash or confrontation between speakers. In these debates, where  speakers drawn from the same party, there is very little confrontation on substantive arguments. By and large, these speakers agree on most issues. But even where there is a substantial difference, speakers run from serious debate: Ron Paul can advocate a 0% tax rate and though none of the others agree, there’ll be no debate. Rick Perry can advocate a part-time Congress, and not even Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker who campaigns on the achievements of his tenure, will take him to task. Even the two Lincoln-Douglas style debates have been without serious analysis despite Gingrich’s attempts to don the academic robes and give everyone a lecture. The few notable showdowns in these debates have tended to be on personal or character issues.

Development of arguments: debates allow speakers to develop arguments. Arguments are typically comprised of premises, reasoning, evidence and conclusions. In the competitive parliamentary debates held at university, a succinct argument could be presented in 2-3 minutes, which is really quite economical. Yet in these debates, candidates are routinely allowed 60 seconds to answer the question (more so than present an argument) and 30 seconds to reply where a previous speaker has slighted them. Hence, there is no real depth in analysis and a lack of clear argumentation.

Media mismanagement

It’s fair to say that the media is not too serious about debate. From CNN’s embarrassing This or That? segment (“Coke or Pepsi Governor Pawlenty?”) to Fox News whipping its audience into an angry mob to regular commercial breaks and mid-debate “expert” analysis (because people are too stupid to make up their own mind).

They’ve mismanaged the topics, the format and their own moderation of the debates. Most of the debates to date have repeatedly returned to the same issues: tax, spending, debt, federal-state relations, illegal immigration, gay marriage, abortion, Iran, the Middle East and Afghanistan. Watch a debate from mid-2011 and then one from 2012 and you’ll see the same issues debated in the same way. The only difference you’ll really notice are the more constant and defined attacks of Mitt Romney. Too few debates have been themed to encourage depth. Instead, each debate skims the same issues.

The format in most debates allows no focus. Most debates have around 50 questions fired at the speakers (with questions roughly assembled in themes). Candidates are usually allowed one minute responses to the questioner and 30-second rebuttals. Such is the haste of the broadcaster that the results are predictable: speakers who use rehearsed lines designed to maximise audience appeal or simply reframe the question to their liking are rarely held accountable for answering the question due to time pressures.

The moderators have also allowed open season on President Obama, failing to hold candidates to account for clear lies and misrepresentation. Romney, whose focus through all debates has been the president has had a field day. He’s claimed that Obama has no jobs plan, has created fewer jobs than Romney created as Governor of Massachusetts, has allowed the navy to shrink to 1917 levels, has overseen no new trade agreements, that “Obamacare” costs $1trillion and even suggested that the president’s bail out package was a “slush fund” to take care of friends (all claims have been discredited by post-debate fact checks). Despite being immersed in Washington politics, moderators generally do not challenge the speakers to justify lies and assertions.

Chinese elementary students wash school windows and perform other janitorial duties; school officials say it makes them brave (source: Weird Asia News)

A final criticism of some media, and Fox in particular, has been the decision to turn these debates into some kind of American Idol contest. With several exceptions, the standard impartial debate audience has been replaced with a mob that heckles and boos. When Juan Williams asked Newt Gingrich whether his advocacy of child janitors may have some racial overtones, the audience booed. When a gay soldier asked a question, they booed. When a moderator prefaced a question to Rick Perry by noting that Texas executed more people than any other state, they cheered. In these three situations, the audience acted pre-emptively. They were not interested in the argument. The media have some responsibility to design and conduct debates that improve voter knowledge. Decisions relating to format, the role of the moderator and the audience are important decisions that should not be mishandled.

The real issues

There are real issues that should be debated. These are issues that have surfaced from time to time that deserve much more attention. They are complex issues where there is genuine disagreement amongst the Republican candidate group. These issues include:

1. That the US should have a flat income tax. While no Republican wants to raise taxes, some want a flat tax and some do not. Gingrich and Perry (no longer in the contest) want a flat tax, Romney and Santorum want a two-tiered system and Paul wants a 0% tax rate. Given the primacy of tax for Republicans, this issue deserves several debates in its own right.
2. That military funding be subject to cuts. This is a very sensitive subject for many Republicans. Romney Perry and others have said no, without offering much justification except appeals to nationalism. Gingrich and Huntsman believe that efficiency savings can be found in the military. Perry believes that the entire approach to military including overseas bases and missions is wrong and advocated hefty cuts for military but not defence personnel. Another very interesting debate.
3. That marriage should be regulated by the federal government. Satorum and Romney say yes, while Paul says no. This issue taps into the broader issue of state and federal relations and would allow a more detailed exploration of states’ rights and federal responsibilities. Again, this is a very important issue for many Republicans, especially those who prefer a black letter approach to the Constitution. This debate could also address the issue of civil unions and the rights of same-sex couples.
4. That the US should intervene in Iran. Most Republicans candidates think that there should be some action undertaken in Iran, but they differ on the type.  Gingrich appears to favour destabilisation through enabling dissidents, but does not want the direct strikes that Santorum advocates. Huntsman left all options on the table before his demise. Perry advocated returning to Iraq. Paul wants nothing to do with it and thinks that lessons need to be learned from Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, a debate on Iran would open up analysis on Iraq and Afghanistan, and also US relations with Israel and the Arab Spring. Given that all candidates (bar Paul) agree that this is the most pressing matter in international relations, a debate on the subject should be welcomed.

These are important issues for curious Republicans, and themed debates on each would allow rank and file members a much better opportunity to discern their preferred candidate. No doubt there are other issues that also merit debate. Black and Latino issues seem under-represented in the debates so far.

Issues such as energy, health and immigration are difficult to debate given the consensus and the likelihood that each speaker would simply spend their time attacking the President. So these topics are best left to the style of debates outlined earlier. Yes, for all of the criticism of their terrible approach to hosting debates, we can still throw CNN and Fox a bone.

Labour's Mr Goff (left) and National's Mr Key (right) in the final debate

Winner: Phil Goff

Scores: Goff 81 | Key 79

Judge: Ray D’Cruz

The third and final debate of the 2011 NZ election saw opposition leader Phil Goff (Labour) edge prime minister John Key (National). Mr Goff won some critical arguments in the heart of the debate, and used the tactic of direct questioning to his advantage, though not always.

The opening part of the debate was about the economy. Mr Goff used the issue to attack Mr Key’s controversial asset sales, but Mr Key defended the proposals effectively. On the cost of living, Mr Goff and Mr Key pursued the lines they’ve run in previous debates: Mr Goff talking about fairness and Mr Key talking about the overall health of the economy. On housing affordability, Mr Goff was convincing on the need for a Capital Gains Tax, while Mr Key seemed to argue both for and against a CGT. Mr Goff also used a direct question to Mr Key about the rate of home ownership in Auckland to imply he was in touch while Mr Key was out of touch.

As the debate moved onto race relations, Mr Key obfuscated on the issue of Maori seats. On law and order, Mr Key struggled under direct questioning from Mr Goff about the impact of Labour’s extra 1200 police in its last term and National plans to freeze police numbers but announce it after the election. Neither speaker extracted a telling advantage on issues such as protecting the vulnerable, the brain drain and coalition partners.

The direct questioning by Mr Goff of Mr Key was a feature of the debate, and Mr Goff became more and more willing to ask questions of his opponent as the debate proceeded. On the final issue, coalitions, Mr Goff sought to clarify Mr Key’s position with a series of similar questions “was that a no?”, “is that a no?”, “is that a no?”, “is that a no” and “is that a yes or a no?” before the moderator intervened. It must have been a pre-determined tactic given its prominence in this debate compared to previous debates. Some voters will suggest Mr Goff was confident and direct; others will say he was aggressive and annoying. Mr Goff did control large parts of the debate with this tactic and even managed to avoid answering some questions (that’s not a positive under the rules of debate). But he did more damage to Mr Key, ultimately, with the prime minister’s periodic obfuscation under questioning and a lack of eye contact toward his opponent making him appear less certain and trustworthy.

The content of this debate was largely the same as the previous two debates. Yet the tactical decision by Mr Goff to pursue direct questioning gave the debate a very different feel. If the rules permit direct questioning, or are silent on the tactic, it can be an effective way of challenging an opponent and usually leads to good engagement. Mr Goff took the chance, and despite overdoing it at times, extracted enough of an advantage to claim victory in this debate.

Scores: Goff 79 | Key 76

Judge: Ray D’Cruz

Opposition Leader Phil Goff (Labour) won the Second NZ Leaders’ Debate of the 2011 election by gaining an advantage over Prime Minister, John Key (National) in several important arguments. (View it here)

Phil Goff, Labour

This debate was very different debate to the first one, with fewer issues being explored in more depth. It led to more satisfying debate, with speakers having the time to argue, rebut, use examples and distinguish themselves accordingly.

While Mr Key’s opening combined neatly vision with specificity, Mr Goff went straight for one issue: asset sales. It was as if polling had directed him to the issue, such was his focus. It wasn’t compelling.

Despite this Mr Goff quickly gained ascendency from the first two arguments (child poverty and New Zealand’s OCED rankings). On both of these arguments he was able to marshall facts about tax rates and costs of living while weaving a message about fairness. While he quoted social welfare groups and departmental reports, Mr Key, despite starting well on the issue, lost focus. At times he spoke with vagueness: “you know and I know”, “every employer knows” and “a fair bit of it”. That’s not really good enough in a leaders’ debate.

John Key, National

The issue of employment and the minimum wage was hard fought, and the winner of it probably depends on whether you think a $2 raise in the minimum wage costs jobs or is jobs neutral. I don’t think anyone could say for certain after the scrap.  Asset sales was also relatively neutral in the debate as Mr Key was well-prepared and opened strongly on the issue. Perhaps Mr Goff gained a small advantage when the debate deviated from the present to the future and Mr Key uncomfortably ruled out a raft of future asset sales.

Mr Key closed better than Mr Goff. He handled the final issue of coalition partners better than Mr Goff, drawing on his capacity to work left and right as a “centrist” government and flatly ruling out a coalition with NZ First. Mr Key also closed as he began, with a neat summary of key policies. Mr Goff focused on asset sales again, and spoke vaguely about “hard decisions”, “not walking away from hard issues”, “leadership” and “honesty”. It was reminiscent of some of Jim Hacker’s finer oratorical moments. It wasn’t a great conclusion, but the advantage Mr Goff accrued in the guts of the debate was enough to declare him the winner.

Yet again, the “worm” proved to be a distraction, misleading and an insult to voter intelligence – and the “worm app” provided nothing except a platform for party apparatchiks to do their thing.

Scores: Key 79 | Goff 77

Judge: Ray D’Cruz

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key (National) edged opposition leader Phil Goff (Labour) in the First Leaders’ Debate. He won for two reasons: first, he was more consistent; and second, Mr Goff failed to show that New Zealand needs a change of direction.

Mr Key achieved consistency by attaching individual issues and arguments to his overall vision for the country. From his introduction to discussions about capital gains tax, family cost pressures, small business, mining and the environment, Mr Key presented a vision for NZ based around growth, less tax, less red tape and jobs. Even the ‘what would you march for?’ question came back to these issues. Not terribly credible, but consistent. In a debate that offered no real depth in argumentation and where speakers were regularly cut off the by moderator, consistency counted.

My Key’s consistency was undermined by some less impressive moments. Assertions that Mr Goff was spending like a “drunken sailor” and his lazy Halloween jibe made Mr Key sound more like a school debater than a prime minister.  His closing remarks were also poorly chosen. In response to the final question where both leaders were asked to reflect on mistakes, Mr Key identified the controversial government decision to purchase a BMW car fleet as his example. He then qualified it by calling it a political error because it was nevertheless a good deal. If National insiders have a fear that Mr Key’s personal wealth may make him seem out of touch, it was an odd way to end the debate when the more conventional approach may have been to acknowledge mistakes while presenting the broader vision.

Mr Goff argued in a confident and relaxed manner and won some issues such as the reconstruction of Christchurch (he looked a lot less equivocal than his opponent), the sufficiency of the living wage and the environment (he’s happy not drill or dig everything, unlike Mr Key). Yet he failed in his overall objective: to show that NZ was heading in the wrong direction. To carry that proposition, he needed a clearer competing vision beyond the “fairness” and “opportunity” he presented at the start of the debate but never developed. There were too many parts to his message but no real cogency.

There’s another reason this was a close debate: the moderator, Guyon Espiner. Mr Espiner’s excessive questioning, interjections and interruptions meant a staccato debate, devoid of any depth. Due to this approach, we were denied analysis on almost every issue, including whether Labour left a deficit, the merits of a Capital Gains Tax and how Labour’s position on privatisation is consistent with existing partial privatisation. Furthermore, the moderator frequently pitched different questions to the speaker, rather than posing a single question and letting them engage. These mistakes suggest that the moderator did not understand the fundamental elements of a fair and effective debate, and therefore his role.

It hurt both speakers, but probably Mr Goff more. The opposition leader in any debate needs to both show why the government is deeply flawed, as well as why the opposition is ready to govern. These two tasks take time, and require some depth of argument. The prime minister really just needs to show that things are headed in the right direction. When one also considers that the viewing audience will be more familiar with the prime minister and his policy agenda, it is obvious enough that debates that allow no room for arguments will hurt the challenger.

The broadcaster did not stop there either. In what could be an unfortunate worldwide first, they chose to interrupt the debate with “expert analysis” to completely insult the intelligence of viewers. Please, TV One, next time, let them debate and let the audience decide.

Winner: Stephen Harper

Scores: Harper 80 | Ignatieff 77 | Layton 73 | Duceppe 70

Judge: Ray D’Cruz

Three years, it seems, is not a long time in Canadian politics. The three returning speakers picked where they left off: Stephen Harper (Conservative) used every opportunity to talk about the economy, Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois) steered a straight course for his favourite talking points and Jack Layton (NDP) got personal. There was one new face, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.

The debate was a close call because it was a debate in two parts: firstly whose policies are best for Canada and secondly whether Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is fit to govern. Mr Harper did well on the first part, but took plenty of hits on the second part. In the end, his calm, detail-oriented approach worked and he won the debate. He was strongest on the economy, reasonable on social issues and dogged on governance. His closest competitor Mr Ignatieff landed some telling blows, but he ultimately lacked more positive vision for Canada. Too much of his debate was simply about why Mr Harper is unfit to govern. Mr Layton’s approach was overly personal and indulgent. Mr Duceppe was in a debate of his own, disinterested in the average voter.

The first question focused on the continuing corporate tax cuts favoured by the Conservative Government. Mr Harper’s message was simple enough: low taxes create growth and jobs that fund social services. The other three speakers insisted that voters had to choose between allocating money for tax cuts and improving social services. Mr Harper argued it was a false choice because tax cuts, through economic growth, made services affordable. His strong performance later in the debate on health care funding worked well with this approach. He cited expert claims that 200,000 jobs $40B in government would be lost if tax cuts were abandoned. It needed to be countered with contradictory evidence but it wasn’t – by any of the three speakers. By the end of the debate, this core disagreement remained, and Mr Harper’s arguments and evidence remained unmet.

Instead Mr Ignatieff, Mr Layton and Mr Duceppe let their outrage about Mr Harper’s “contempt” of parliament take hold. They zeroed in on future financial commitments (the cost of military jets and new prisons) and Mr Harper’s keenness to hide these expenses and other budget details from parliament. This, they claimed, was why Canadians were back at the ballot box.

Mr Harper defended himself well on two fronts. Firstly he argued that the expenditure that his interlocutors opposed would not impact the upcoming budget. Secondly he argued that the overall navigation by the Conservatives through difficult economic times was sound, and that Canada’s emergence from these difficult times was strong. This was not really challenged yet it went to the overall economic credibility of the government.

Indeed, Mr Harper returned to his safe zone, the economy, time and time again. Sometimes it was too much, and voters may have wondered whether Mr Harper thought he was running a country or an economy.  But in a mass of issues over two hours, and with his credibility under fire, it made him look like a safe pair of hands.

One the second issue of governance, Mr Harper didn’t do so well. His recollection of a 2004 meeting with Mr Layton and Mr Duceppe lacked credibility. Mr Harper was attacked for his treatment of specific international agencies and offered irrelevant rebuttal (citing functional relationships with other agencies). The attacks on his parliamentary approach and processes were messy but held together. Mr Harper was calm and measured throughout, but it was hard to escape the conclusion, through sheer weight of examples and conviction, that the Harper Government lacked transparency and cleanliness.

Mr Ignatieff came second. He hit some high points, particularly on the questions of crime, international relations and governance. These were the moments he looked like a leader. His rebuttal of the Omnibus Crime Bill and attack on the gun register was very strong, with Mr Harper in response quoting former police officers who his own colleagues! But Mr Ignatieff did not offer enough positive economic and social argument to win this debate. His case was essentially a negative one about Mr Harper, which at times he struggled to reconcile with Liberal support for certain Conservative policies. His compelling appeal for better governance was brutally undermined by Mr Layton’s accusation that Mr Ignatieff was also contemptuous of parliamentary, missing 70% of votes. Mr Ignatieff had no response, other than a very awkward smile. It was an important moment in the debate for someone running on a platform of cleaning up the parliamentary process. There may have been a good excuse. He needed one at that moment.

Mr Layton came third. He had some memorable moments, such as the one mentioned above, but his obsession with how people have been changed by politics (and impliedly how he has not) and his lack of policy details (with the exception of health and small business tax cuts) was telling. He looked particularly uncomfortable on the subject of the gun register.

Mr Duceppe came fourth. He probably doesn’t care. He was interested in certain talking points, regardless of the question and laboured them painfully and repetitiously. He was speaking to a sectional audience, and whether he won the debate in their eyes is probably the only relevant consideration for Bloc Quebecois.

The format of the 2011 debate was dramatically different. Gone was the organic five-way panel discussion from 2008, replaced by a highly structured debate. There were six questions, submitted by voters, each of which occupied 20 minutes of the debate – a two-hour marathon in all. The internal structure of each question was the same for all six questions: two speakers in turn would go head to head for five or six minutes before the other two speakers joined in. While the rotation of speakers was a bit strange, the 20-minute focus on an issue worked. It encouraged depth, good interaction and direct questioning between participants. At times, speakers started to get very repetitious. They came back to the same talking points and the same examples. It was quite alarming to think that a 20-minute segment might produce such repetition, but it did. The speakers didn’t really adapt well to this new format. They should have treated each segment as a debate in its own right, with a clear vision to open, some arguments, examples and rebuttal in between, and neatly concluded at the end.

Questions feature in every debate, and usually the main point of interest is who gets to ask them.  The questioner ranges from moderator to media panel to live audience to virtual audience – or a combination of these in a single debate.

The recent set of English-language Irish debates featured two debates with moderator questioning, and one debate with live audience questioning.

It is the live audience debate, the second debate, that is the subject of this piece, because there was subtle but important variation to the questioning planned by host Pat Kenny and broadcaster RTE.

The variation to standard audience questioning was that each questioner told a story  as part of their question. Their story provided real context and meaning behind the questions. The questioner demonstrated through a more expansive engagement with the host a real concern about their society, their family and friends. In many cases we felt the emotion of the questioner.

This approach made more sense of a live audience than the usual approach where the questioner simply asks a question. Around seven people got to ask questions in the RTE debate. These people were non-aligned and selected by an independent polling company.

The first question, from Finnian O’Driscoll (right), began with a story of how his three children have had to emigrate for work. Through interplay with host Pat Kenny, over the course of a minute, Mr O’Driscoll expressed his concern that his grandchildren would never live in Ireland before asking the question “now that we’ve lost our sovereignty and economic welfare have any of you got any meaningful or tangible reasons why Ireland can survive?” It was a minute well spent: it told a story; it provided a context. (This question commences at the 2 minute 50 second mark, watch the debate here).

The second question, from Natasha Byrne identified mortgage stress amongst friends as a major cause of concern before questioning leaders about why banks were bailed out while ordinary people continue to struggle. That question preceded the lengthiest discussion of the night.

The third question, from Seamus McGee (left), was prefaced by a discussion about community groups in rural Ireland. Mr McGee reflected on his local Gaelic Association club and how a few years ago many of the lads had good jobs  as painters and builders, while these days many are unemployed and now emigrating. He then went onto ask “how are we going to get these people back to work?” His question was based on concern about his friends and community. (This question commences at the 24 minute 20 second mark).

The remaining questions followed a similar method, to similar effect. Predictably, most questions were focused on the economic situation. The approach to questioning described above ensured that we heard a very human story about the Irish economic collapse.

We’ve seen politicians employ personal stories to get their messages across. Bill Clinton was a master of story-telling, and John McCain’s invocation of Joe the Plumber in one of his presidential debates became an election story within its own right. Stories are personal and they are memorable. There is much academic research about their impact in communications and that’s why politicians use them. In this debate, it was the audience – the voters – who owned and used the stories, not the politicians.

Pat Kenny’s approach to live audience questioning in election debates is a good one. We hope to see it employed elsewhere.

Election Debates has awarded the fourth and final Irish leaders’ debate to Eamon Gilmore (Labour).

The debate featured the three major party leaders: Micheal Martin (Fianna Fáil), Enda Kenny (Fine Gael) and Mr Gilmore. The debate was hosted by Miriam O’Callaghan of RTÉ’s Prime Time.

Colm Flynn, former chair of the World Universities Debating Championship, said “…in terms of the winner it’s tight call but there was a clear loser: Micheal Martin. Martin lost because his attack approach now came across as anger and frustration rather than conviction over what he was saying.  He found himself out gunned and couldn’t avoid the attacks on his record in government.

He added “Gilmore will, by now, have given up on any chance of being Taoiseach and that freed his hands a bit more. He could engage more in his natural aggressive style and also benefitted from his proposals not coming under the same scrutiny as Kenny’s and Martin’s.

You can read Colm’s full adjudication here.

You can watch the debate here.

Election Debates covered the three English language debates (the first, second and fourth debates). We gave the first debate to Mr Martin and the second debate to Mr Kenny. The third debate was the Irish language debate.

Winner: Eamon Gilmore

Scores: Gilmore 82 | Kenny 81 | Martin 76

This was the long awaited three-way debate between Enda Kenny (FG), Michael Martin (FF) and Eamon Gilmore (Labour). After some fairly bland opening statements the debate moved into a number of sections.

Economy:  At times this felt like it was going around in circles partly because most of this had already been trashed out in the earlier debates so they all knew what the others were going to say. Also the moderator Miriam O’Callaghan had a habit of asking questions that have been dealt with five minutes before which didn’t help.  In this section Kenny did well and probably came out on top mainly because he refused to be dragged down into the row.  At times he looked like a bored parent trying to ignore two children squabbling.  It would have been nice to see more passion from him but he focused on his core answers and because he refused to get into a row he was able to clearly put his arguments across.  Gilmore was stylistically better at times but his facts didn’t seem as strong as Kenny who had clearly well researched supporting data for his proposals.  Throughout this section Martin was being hammered for his record in government and returned to his previous debate strategy of attack being the best form of defence.  However this time he ran into a tag team.  When he attacked Kenny, Gilmore would come in next and attack him.  When he attacked Gilmore the statesman like Kenny would come in and scold Martin for his past performances.  At the end of this Martin looked frustrated.

Tax and cuts:  In this section Kenny was under more attack on his policies.  Telling people to look up www.finegael.ie to get the details just struck me as a cop out. He seemed unable to answer the questions and resorted back to stock prepared answers. He was called on it too when Martin highlighted Kenny’s standard lines of Legacy, 5 year plan and fist in the air.  Martin was aggressive, accusing both Kenny and Gilmore of not being specific.  The fact that he didn’t give a lot of detail beyond “we have published detailed budgets for each department” may not have given any more detail than the others but it sounded more convincing.  Gilmore drifted out of the debate for a while but was strong in defence of his policies and well capable to bring the fight back to Martin’s record in Government.

Jobs: This section felt like it lacked some focus not helped by O’Callaghan asking strange questions (talk about how we can make the banks increase credit flowing to businesses but don’t mention the banks in your answer). Stylistically they were all fairly level.  Gilmore did well on catching the other two on flaws such as the nature of strategic state assets.  He just about shaded this segment for me but at this point it felt as though the debate was taking a breather for a few minutes.

Health: In this section we were back to Kenny and Gilmore teaming up to attack Martin on his record.  In a similar strategy to the first section when Martin would attack one of the others the third would come in and force Martin back on the defensive.  At times it was a withering assault on Martin’s record.  The only blows Martin managed to land in return were both on Kenny in relation to some flaws in Kenny’s Dutch health model and on losing 8000 health care workers from the system.   Gilmore’s proposal to retain but reform the HSE seemed to get less scrutiny and came across as a more balanced approach

The last two segments (social justice and leadership) were more closing statements than a debate.

So in terms of the winner it’s tight call but there was a clear loser: Micheal Martin. Martin lost because his attack approach now came across as anger and frustration rather than conviction over what he was saying.  He found himself out gunned and couldn’t avoid the attacks on his record in government.  Kenny and Gilmore had different goals and to a certain degree they both succeeded.  Kenny while suffering a few blows from Martin and perhaps overplaying the aloof statesman strategy in the first segment will be happy that he didn’t make any major blunders and landed a few blows himself.  Gilmore will, by now, have given up on any chance of being Taoiseach and that freed his hands a bit more. He could engage more in his natural aggressive style and also benefitted from his proposals not coming under the same scrutiny as Kenny’s and Martin’s.  Kenny and Gilmore will both be happy going away from tonight’s debate but Martin won’t be as happy as he was after the first two debates.

Enda Kenny (Fine Gael), Eamon Gilmore (Labour) and Micheal Martin (Fianna Fail) have conducted an election debate in the Irish language.

It was the first debate involving the leaders of the three major parties.

Watch it here (with subtitles) courtesy of TG4.