PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: Round one

We have had the first of the debates ahead of the presidential election and, in my opinion, it was rather underwhelming. While the structure and time limits  made it hard for one candidate or the other to shine, I think it was an opportunity missed by some. People may say the presenter did not push hard enough on certain lines of questioning but again time restraints and fairness would not let excessive probing.

Senator David Norris, in answering question surrounded the unpublished clemency letters, reminded me of a boxer that complains too much to the ref – they are clearly struggling to hold their own. Senator Norris (or his team) is not helping his cause with the confusing answers about why the letters will remains private. That said  I think those who will vote for Senator Norris have already made up their minds to do so and all the questions in the world will not change their views.

Sean Gallagher succeeded in trying to de-politicise the role of president, when questions with a political tone were asked he did well to refocus the debate. However, he was perhaps exposed as being under qualified for the role.

I felt sorry for Michael D Higgins having to effectively state that he wasn’t going to die any time soon and had the strength and stamina for the job – there is no doubt that he feels presidential but his connections to Labour  could hinder more than help his cause.

The same could be said of Gay Mitchel – there will likely be a contagion effect if the election becomes a referendum on the government. He would be better served focusing on what he brings to the party and not taking shots at Martin McGuinness. Such attacks will only galvanize McGuinness’s existing support.

And the Derry man did well in answering the same questions which keep coming up. It boils down to whether or not your believe or care that he wasn’t a member of the IRA post 1974. Is  he comparing himself to Nelson Mandela or others? Either way, it will eventually put some people off.

Mary Davis didn’t shine for me, not unlike Dana Rosemary Scallon, she is nice. Both made good points and gave the impression they would bring an airy, positive, welcoming feel to the Aras. I just wonder if the public want something a bit meatier in these times and that their greatest hindrance is the general strength of the field.

Things will change as we edge closer to polling day I am sure. The candidates may be best placed on letting us know why they should be president and not why someone else shouldn’t. It is going to come down to transfers – as an example, Gay Mitchel doesn’t need to lose a potential number two by criticising someone’s number one. Micheal D Higgins has pulled of the greatest ‘stroke’ so far in ensuring Senator Norris contests, others could learn from this.

It is going to be an interesting month!!

Greg Hughes

greghughes@highlandradio.com