1: This is going to be a long four weeks
The debate was not exactly riveting viewing. It was less like a high-octane presidential election debate and more like a slightly more polite – and longer – than usual version of Virgin’s regular weeknight politics show, with a panel of guests that were in turn more cagey than usual.
Viewers who for whatever reason lamented the absence of Maria Steen – or even Maria Steen’s handbag – will have seen little on Monday night to convince them they were wrong about that.
A habitual guest on the show, Catherine Connolly was the most comfortable in the format, though those who regularly tune in will not have heard anything from her that surprised them.
Heather Humphreys was cautious if composed, apparently focused on avoiding mistakes, seeking perhaps to tread a middle way between Connolly and Jim Gavin. She had a folksy anecdote or reference for most situations.
READ MORE
Presidential debate: Who came out on top and who struggled?
Gavin struggled to make an impact in the first half of the debate, and seemed to be knocked off course by some questions put to him.
On balance, first impressions suggest that Connolly was the dominant figure, though most of her contributions are likely to raise cheers from left-wing supporters, rather than appeal to any new voters.
2: Neutrality will be part of the presidential campaign
The opening minutes of the debate made it clear that neutrality is likely to be an issue over the coming weeks. In her opening statement, Connolly spoke about the need for Ireland to speak up for peace and went on in the early exchanges to issue repeated warnings about the “military industrial complex”, dodging around presenter Kieran Cuddihy’s questions about her recent comments about the military build-up in Germany reminding her of the 1930s. She clashed with Gavin on the triple lock, which the Government is intending to abolish via forthcoming legislation.
Neutrality and international affairs more generally – our attitude to the European Union and the United States especially – comprise one of the clearest dividing lines in Irish politics. Connolly sits on one side of that line; the other two candidates sit on the other.
3: But a lot of what the candidates talk about will have nothing to do with the presidency
Much of the debate was taken up with discussion of current issues facing the Government – housing, of course, but also migration, the state of the Defence Forces, the far right, crime on the streets.
This suited Connolly, who was across many of the issues raised and delivered well-honed criticisms of the Government. She has the luxury of nearly a decade in Opposition, never having had to face the compromises and disappointments of office. She made full use of this structural advantage.
4: Gavin has yet to find his groove as a candidate
Though he was the candidate who tried to talk most about the actual presidency – rather than Government policy over which the president has neither input nor influence – Gavin had a difficult debating debut. He appeared anxious at times and struggled to land any memorable soundbites that might convey to people why he would make a good president.
At times he was taken on both by the presenter and by Connolly, and struggled to deal with them. He wisely declared that he was not there to defend the Government, but it’s not as easy as that to distance himself from a Government led by his party. He is hardly a man without achievements, but this is a steep learning curve for him.
As a candidate, the jury remains out. His two opponents are giving us exactly what we expected.
