With the right intonation and a respectable air of authority even the most meaningless of catchphrases can sound persuasive. Actually ‘persuasive’ is perhaps the wrong term to use; how many people are actually ‘persuaded’ before an election? There are usually very few floating voters, the vast majority support ‘their side’ in any political discussion and will not be moved regardless of the arguments put forward. This begs the question of whether arguments are actually all that important – something many on social media were asking after the recent TV election debates.
The format of the debates was itself a political battleground for a number of weeks. Unsurprisingly, the subject of appropriateness of a ‘leader debate’ in a political system where voters only elect a local MP was not mentioned; instead the main focus seemed to be who should and shouldn’t be there… and who was scared (several MPs thought it appropriate to fold their arms like chicken wings and cluck when one honourable member tried to speak – and apparently this signalled the moral high ground of the discussion).
The leader debates are seen as important because of the audiences they attract. In the days before mass communications politicians might travel across constituencies and appear at scores of events to reach a tiny fraction of the number who now watch the television debates. This doesn’t even take into account those who will catch up with the programme through digital TV services and internet sites like Youtube; even those who miss the live event can ‘catch up’ afterwards – isn’t technology great? We have an editorial feature on technology beginning on page 80 of this issue with an article from Sarah Bradbury asking if it is actually our friend or foe, the answer is more complicated than you might think.
In terms of the leader debates, technology has helped maximise exposure but not necessarily improve content – in fact in some ways it can be a distraction. In the 1960 US Presidential Debate, radio audiences listening to the arguments felt Richard Nixon was the clear winner, the younger and more attractive JFK fared better amongst those watching on TV – in that example did technology really improve democracy?
Technology has transformed our lives, and some argue that modern technology allowing constant access to social media has actually changed the way we take in information. If concentration levels and attention spans have altered dramatically then perhaps the whole notion of a two hour debate (which seems hardly long enough to discuss one issue in full) is actually outdated. Although to be perfectly honest calling the recent seven-way leader event a debate is a little misleading. There wasn’t much discussion, each party leader just churned out criticism of their opponents, regurgitated the latest party soundbite and confi dently reeled off statistics. Statistics are hugely important for politicians despite, or perhaps because, their meaning can be so vague. If you want an example then look at the recent study produced by Dental Protection, it showed that 91 per cent of dentists believe they are more likely to be sued now than fi ve years ago. What does that headline stat actually mean? Not that more dentists are sued – just that they believed they were more likely to be. I was critical of the introduction of the Friends and Family Test last year precisely because of its subjectivity, and the same applies here. The
important statistic is whether dentists are actually more likely to be sued, surely? That isn’t to say that the risk of
being sued isn’t increasing, or that facing legal action isn’t hugely traumatic when it does happen. It is, and we will be covering the topic of GDC investigations in upcoming issues. Of course for many principals the risk of legal action doesn’t just come in the form of clinical negligence cases from patients, as business owners
there are also the problems surrounding employment and HR law. On page 24 of this issue Becky Lawton looks at the impact shared parental leave could have on employers.
As always, and let me be very clear about this because I think it is important, we welcome all feedback about all aspects of the journal. If you would like to comment on this issue simply email me at emackenzie@georgewarman.co.uk