Although 4 out of 10 voters may now be able to identify Nick Clegg in a police line-up, I’m not convinced that his unremarkable performance in the Leader’s debate was as spectacular as some commentators have claimed. The TV highlight of the second week of the campaign did not produce any ‘game-changing’ moments; nobody fell over; nobody swore; nobody threw a mobile phone. And my guess is that by the end of the third debate the public’s overall impressions of the three leaders will have hardly changed.
Week 2 also saw the launch of the party manifestos. The Tories ‘Little Blue Book’ contained some truly worrying Thatcherite themes – because we know that when the state gets rolled back, the most vulnerable get left without the support they need; and we learned that the Lib Dems ‘honest’ tax reforms will not actually help the poorest in Britain. Labour’s manifesto demonstrated that the Party remains truly radical – and the only party with an unequivocal commitment to supporting our public services. So on the manifestos – a Labour win.
Peter John, leader of Southwark Labour group
Clegg was a worthy winner of the post-debate polling in the sense that his personal style best suited the calm format of a TV debate – the exact opposite of the PMQs bearpit. However, it appears that people being polled about the debate were judging the “winner” based on technique rather than content, as though this was a university debating competition. They can’t have been listening to the content because Clegg’s bizarre mix of liberalism on crime and immigration, Thatcherism on the economy and cutting public services, and CND on nuclear weapons is according to most polls the opposite of what the average voter wants.
I thought Gordon held his own in a format that didn’t play to his strengths and that he suceeded in getting our attack message on the risk of the Tories across well. What he needs to do in the next two is give people a bit more of the “vision thing” – what our aspirations are for a fourth term – he needs to verbalise the sunlit uplands on the cover of our manifesto.
Cameron must have deeply disappointed his team. After all the hype, he was, to steal a phrase from Lloyd Bentsen, “no JFK”.
We won’t know the impact until tonight’s polls, which will tell us who the LDs have taken vote share off. My hunch is Labour will be stable and there will be a 4% shift from Con to LD which will mean the main parties are almost level-pegging.
Luke Akehurst
Week two was inevitably going to be centred on the leaders’ debate. This was fairly even contest; with perhaps Nick Clegg coming out as the guy you would have a pint with at your local. The trouble is that I don’t want my country run by the guy down the pub. Gordon was serious, Cameron unsettled.
The manifestos were also launched. These will be largely unread by the electorate. The Lib Dems made great play of theirs containing costings, yet their proposals somehow remain unconvincing. The emerging narrative seems to be centred on two topics – the economy and democratic renewal. The progressive voices are marginally ahead on the economy and streets ahead on voting reform. This is where the Conservatives are losing out.
I hope the narrative moves onto the environment next week, where clear commitments on CO2 reduction versus right-wing climate deniers could be a game changer.
7/10 for us this week – a slight improvement.
Julian Ware-Lane
The polls show Nick Clegg out on top last night and whilst he did put up a good, stylish, performance he lacked the substance of Gordon Brown – by the way, what on earth is ‘squillions’ in monetary terms? But, Clegg was able to gain ground presenting himself as the “outsider”, distinct from the two “tired old parties”, which resonated well with the public, although it will be interesting to see if he can keep them captivated during the two coming debates.
Cameron, expected to outshine the other two, fumbled – losing his composure and seeing his support drop in instant ratings every time he was unable to commit to one of Labour’s public service guarantees. He had somewhat unconvincing anecdotes for every issue “I recently met…” was heard often and he threw out tacky and unlikely false facts such as “the UK has worse cancer survival rates than Bulgaria”. I know that doctors and nurses in the NHS are delivering first rate treatment for those with cancer.
Gordon Brown was cool, statesmanlike and provided the substance that the other two lacked. He gave strong responses to the economic questions, reiterating that the right decisions need to be made and taking the gambles that the Tories suggest could take us into a double-dip recession. He needs to up his game, however, to better Clegg in the coming debates.
Most of all, the debate made clear that there is an important choice at this election about the direction you want Britain to go in. The country knows this too – and it’s what I’m discussing out on the doorstep. With less than three weeks to go now, we must show that Labour can achieve the change we need.
Rachel Reeves, Labour PPC
Photo: IK’s World Trip 2010
Commenting on the debate. I thought Brown did OK, he held his ground was combative and coherent and at the same time Prime Ministerial. Cameron, started well with his relaxed I’ll work the room style, but seemed to get flustered and then lacked anything substantial to say when put on the spot about his ‘efficiency savings’. Clegg too worked the room – I felt he out Cameroned, Cameron, but the constant reference to his party’s newness annoyed me – they’ve been around a lot longer than Labour and this holier than thou ‘lets all be collegiate’ is just such nonsense as anyone who has had anything to do with them in local government will know – they’re as tribal as Labour or the Tories. But of course the public don’t see this. Another thing, this idea that we should just work together to find practical policy solutions is seductive, but there is something anti-democratic about this view of politics, it implies a managerial elite working out policy priorities behind the scenes (for the benefit of who exactly and informed by the priorities and prejudices of a political elite) as if political ideology, class or identity are an irrelevance. There is something authoritarian in their (Lib Dem) world view and I just wish Brown would take it on.
I was also perplexed about the timidity on the dealing with the deficit argument Brown was putting forward. Cameron’s attack was that withdrawing pay rises for high earners in the public sector would provide efficiency savings immediately. I thought Brown could have responded by saying that such a public sector pay review would need to come when the economy was growing sufficently strongly again, (after all it is absurd that some local authority senior managers earn more than the PM) but by withdrawing such pay awards now, quite apart from being difficult to secure quickly, would have the effect of reducing consumer spending in the economy pushing us back into recession. I think Brown could have then gone on to articulate that the public and private sectors fortunes are intertwined. A good deal of private sector contracts are sourced from the public sector, so any attack on it by reneging on Crossrail for example (where Cameron is vulnerable) would have a detrimental effect on nurturing the private sector out of recession.
On Clegg’s performance – the media seem determined to talk up the Lib Dems and thus the good coverage given to Clegg last night. I thought he was OK and he put in a solid performance, but you’d think he’d done what Lionel Messi did to Arsenal the other week – the Lib Dems might be doing OK, but FC Barcelona they are not. We are almost back to the hysteria of the David Steel call to arms “Go back to your constituencies and prepare for Government”. I think we’ve heard this before.
It was noticeable despite the overarching theme within the Tory Manifesto being the ‘Big Society’ Cameron I don’t recall Cameron mentioning it.
I thought that Cameraon had the best joke (about barbed wire on the M62) but no one noticed it. Ditto the best gaff (about keeping Trident to stop the Chinese attacking us) which everyone missed. Another thing that appears to have gone over the heads of many are the strange results of polls which flashed up on the ITV website. Cameraon started the debate in a position which roughly reflected his position in the national opinion ratings, but had fallen to 18% by the end of the transmission. Where he came across as giving the best answer (on MPs expenses for example) he still only got 18%. It was stated that 56.000 people had taken part. Is there a reason, if the previous statement is correct, why the Conservative leader came off second best rather than ending the evening in last position?
I don’t think that GB did enough to engage the emotions in this debate. Too much rational argument, which works with wonks but not in X-factor shows. I suggest that much more emphasis should be given to issues that rouse the passions in the remaining debates. Surestart certainly and even the possibility of a return to fox-hunting might swing a few vital votes in our direction.
What about Cameron’s insult to the NHS comparing us unfavourably with Bulgaria on cancer clear up rates? He should have been hammered over that! The Tories are pooping themselves here as they see the prospect of Tory council seats falling to the arch-enemy. They absolutely loathe the Lib. Dems. as much as the BNP and the chance of a hung council with them, the Tories, in opposition cannot be contemplated. I’ve fallen over laughing at the idea myself. The boy Clegg and his confused army will drop back in the polls no matter how excited (hysterical?) the meejer are. I thought Brown came across as authoritative. Who was watching this, the X-Factor audience?