Gerard Howlin: In a low-energy presidential debate, only one candidate lit a spark

Last night’s presidential debate on Virgin Media was the Kieran Cuddihy show with the candidates as extras. The presenter was relaxed and loquacious, the three candidates – Heather Humphreys, Catherine Connolly and Jim Gavin – repeated their lines by rote. There was barely any interaction between them; no discussion about the office, its potential or limits. Instead, long questions about issues as diverse as Gaza and housing were met with occasional moments of flair but mostly banality.

Because she entered the debate as the supposed front-runner, Humphreys had most to lose. She never put a foot wrong, but her energy seemed to flag as time went on. This was only the first of many debates, but if these levels of caution and trite statements are repeated, the assumption that she can come in ahead of Jim Gavin, and that his transfers can elect her, may prove a miscalculation. As the highest profile candidate carrying the most expectation, she left the most behind last night. It should be a warning to her campaign.

Gavin – Micheál Martin’s candidate who was subsequently adopted by Fianna Fáil – tried hard but didn’t make much of an impact. A man of many parts and wide-ranging achievement, the fact that he was the only non-politician showed clearly – and not in a good way. He was emphatic in everything he said but said little of interest, except briefly on defence and law and order. He gave the impression that he was reading from a PowerPoint, which he wasn’t. If he has a vision, it didn’t come through, or he lacks the skills to communicate it.

Connolly did best among the three candidates. It remains to be seen if she persuaded many of her cause, but she at least had an identifiable one. The military-industrial complex was her favourite reference, and Gaza the topic to which she returned most often. Her geopolitical analysis may have been lacking, but what she did have was a sense of conviction, points of difference, and some of the skills needed to convey them. Her political base was likely encouraged – and at this early stage that is a start.

Connolly potentially has a base large enough to make her a contender if they turn out to vote. Voters under 35 and those who feel left behind are less likely to do that, so energising her campaign as Mary Robinson did in 1990 and creating momentum will be everything. It would be an exaggeration to say that she was on fire last light, but she was the only candidate with the lights on in a stilted interlocution between three candidates and one presenter. Connolly’s capacity to cause an upset on a Robinson scale depends on her turning out her own base and building an accord nationally with the middle class. She didn’t make much progress with the second part of that brief last night.

[ Presidential debate: who came out on top and who struggled?Opens in new window ]

Humphreys was confronted several times by the Government’s record. She was less than full throated in defence of its spotty record, and relapsed into recitations about achievement that hadn’t been heard since Fine Gael’s failed Keep the Recovery Going campaign in 2016. Her performance was lacklustre and vacuous.

Gavin wasn’t burdened with having to account for the Government’s record of office. But he failed to explain what he was doing there, or why we should vote for him. He seemed literally out of place in a line-up of presidential candidates.

Unburdened by responsibility but blessed with some capacity for performance, Connolly differentiated herself by standing apart on issues, and speaking to them better – if sometimes not entirely convincingly.

A first, inconclusive debate is unlikely to matter in the end. But it has introduced the line-up from which we will choose our president. It demonstrated that Humphreys and Gavin have a lot to do. More incisive questioning could leave Connolly badly exposed. But in the end, last night’s thuddingly dull debate suggests that her greatest advantage may be the inarticulation of her competitors.