A party can have thoughtful policies and still struggle to get anyone to listen. That doesn't prove the policies are good. It doesn't prove they're bad either. It may mean that hardly anyone has heard them explained.
Politics rewards the ability to attract attention. Governing requires rather more than that, and I think we have become too willing to confuse the two.
Getting heard
The case for a good communicator is obvious. Most people have jobs, families and things they would rather do than read a manifesto. A politician has to give them a reason to listen. Someone who can explain a difficult decision and persuade people to accept it has a skill a government needs.
There is no realistic version of democracy in which presentation doesn't matter. Churchill understood that. So does anyone who has tried to persuade a room full of people to do something unpopular.
The trouble comes when the qualities that attract attention become the main test of whether someone can govern. Being quick in an interview doesn't tell us whether a person can manage a department. Refusing to concede a point might produce a popular clip while making it harder to correct a bad decision later.
Government involves detail, patience and work whose benefits may not appear before the next election. Much of it is boring to watch. That makes it difficult to judge through a political conversation organised around who won the exchange.
The ideas we never get to hear
Smaller parties face a particular problem. They need attention before their policies receive a hearing, but their lack of attention is then treated as evidence that the policies have been rejected. Sometimes an idea really is unpopular. Sometimes it has barely been considered. Those aren't the same result.
This isn't an argument that obscure parties must be wiser, or that voters are being fooled. A convincing public performance can show energy, judgement and the ability to bring people along. An unread manifesto can also be rubbish. We still have to examine what is being proposed.
That would be easier if checking a politician's record took less effort. What did they promise? How did they vote? What happened afterwards? People shouldn't have to spend an evening finding out whether the confident answer they just heard is true.
That's part of what I want this site to help with. A good performance will always matter. It ought to be easier to find out whether there's anything behind it.