A look at the second leader’s debate
It’s here, the much-anticipated second leader’s debate. What will happen? Will Clegg triumph again? Will Brown again posture towards the Lib-Dems or will he try to go it alone? Will Cameron finally bring up his Big Society policy, even though it has nothing to do with foreign affairs, the topic for the second debate?
Below is a brief synopsis of how I think it will go for each leader.
Nick Clegg
His star is shining bright, so there will be sky high expectations of him. Unfortunately, foreign affairs is probably the Lib-Dems worst subject. Clegg has flip-flopped on the Euro issue and now says taking on the Euro would be a mistake, but at the same time, it is there in black and white in the Lib-Dem manifesto that one day the UK should accept the Euro. Essentially, the Lib-Dems love Europe, especially Clegg. This isn’t necessarily going to go down well with some swing voters, but the question is, how many of these people are actually going to vote for the Lib-Dems anyway?
Clegg is also in an interesting position as expectations are high. Brown and especially Cameron are going to try to ground him. But all Clegg has to do is misquote Reagan again and again - “There they go again” in response to the two bigger parties’ attacks. He probably doesn’t need to answer a question other than make everyone feel sorry for the little guy. I feel this is the best option, because going on the attack and trying to be equal to Labour and the Tories on foreign policy is a mistake - because he’d lose.
David Cameron
If Clegg is under pressure, Cameron is under just as much if not more. He has to up his game significantly from the first debate, where he forgot to mention his key domestic policies. Problem is, foreign affairs isn’t the Tories strongest subject and they have been out of power for 13 years, so their international reputation may not be as strong as they’d like it to be.
Cameron will be hit on his ‘iron clad guarantee’ for a referendum on Europe. It obviously isn’t going to happen and there are a lot of conservatives, not party members, just conservatives, who don’t trust his Europe policies. Likewise, Brown and Clegg are both going to hammer him on the Conservative’s relationships within Europe, including his Polish partners.
His promise to keep an independent DFID and legislate a 0.7% aid budget will also come under fire from ultra-conservative voters. I know many aid groups are pleasantly surprised by this, but when you can’t secure your base, it’s not the best strategy to try to out flank your opposition from the left.
Cameron is also going to mention the Iran question, but his intervention during the green revolution was reported by some as a gaffe. The UK and the USA statements focused on a “we’re watching with interest”, because they knew public support of the protestors would enable the Iranian officials to claim the unrest was caused by UK and USA intervention. However, Cameron came out and decried the lack of support from Brown to the protestors and publically stated that the protestors had the support of the UK people. This was naive foreign policy.
Gordon Brown
Gordon Brown has relationships overseas, in fact believe it or not, he is very well-respected internationally, in 2009 he was voted world statesmen of the year and is respected overseas more than in the UK. This is his biggest trump card and needs to play it. This is hugely beneficial for issues such as the Tobin Tax, Iran, Afghanistan and the Middle East in general. Afghanistan funding will again be a weak spot due to issues such as the numbers of helicopters etc.
He also needs to be more forceful I feel. Although he performed above expectations in the last debate, I think the Iron Chancellor needs to be on the stage. Due to the lack of audience interaction, jokes don’t necessarily play well on TV due to the silence in the studio - it makes it sound like the joke has fallen flat. Brown did well confronting Cameron on the police issues in the first debate and I thought the “it’s answer time not question time”, was effective. He needs to do it again, especially on Europe.
Brown is less pro-EU that Clegg, he keeps Europe at an arm’s length, but with an open palm, not a clenched fist. This will make voters feel more comfortable.
But he still has the image problem and that will be his biggest weakness.
All-in-all, it will be a fascinating evening and I’m looking forward to seeing the polls the next day.
Cross posted with my personal blog
Tags: afghanistan, Brown, cameron, clegg, Conservatives, debate, election, eu, Europe, foreign policy, International Development, labour, Lib Dems, polls
Digg It | Reddit | De.lic.ious
Comments (24)
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:09 am Posted by Ged Carroll
The one thing that the two major parties will have to address is the trust deficit, it is interesting that some polls now show voters wanting a hung parliament as a safety net against the perceived risks of the major parties.
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:26 am Posted by Chris Greaves
Ged, you mention “the two major parties” but I’m confused. Today’s poll of polls on the BBC shows Tory 33%, LibDem 31% and Labour 27%. Either there are three major parties or you are excluding Labour, who for the time being are our governing party!
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:42 am Posted by William Heald
I think David Cameron will be helped by scrutiny being on Nick Clegg this time as the front runner rather than on himself at the last debate. I think people liked Nick Clegg last time because of his style, but this time I think the Conservative and Labour Parties have some scope to attack him a bit more and see if he stands up. I think people will be looking to see if he has both the substance and the style.
Also I think the fact that Labour’s lovebombing of the Lib Dems has gone slightly awry may help DC. Last debate there was some ganging up on DC because he was the frontrunner, but this time there have been a couple of days of animosity between Labour and Lib Dems, which means we may see less ‘I agree with Nick’ from Labour. Last debate they gave Clegg an easy ride, this time I think he will face critiques from both DC and GB. I personally think that Clegg’s high point has gone and over the next two debates his star will slowly decrease as his policies are found out…
Ps. Chris I think Ged is correct to refer to the Lib Dems as the third party because they only have 50 odd seats, their best possible result would still see them a distant 3rd in the Commons and they have not governed the country in over 80 years. But Im glad they have finally had a few brief minutes in the sun.
April 22nd, 2010 at 9:54 am Posted by Fee
Clegg is indeed riding high, but whether what the polls say materialises to seats remains to be seen. I think he will bring up the very unpopular Iraq war again, and highlight that the Tories and Labour MPs voted for it to deflect attention from his party’s pro-Europe, pro-immigration policies. He will also try to utilise the “I’m the underdog, I’m not like them, vote for me” sentiment.
Cameron needs to step up his game, and be more convincing in his performance, to the studio and TV audience. The Tories being traditionally anti-Europe may appeal to some voters. He should smile more too.
And I agree that Brown may have the advantage here, the party having been in government for long enough. He will bleat on and on about substance, no doubt. But people may remember that he is the one who let the flood gates open to EU migrants, without proper local provisions in terms of schooling, housing, healthcare. Not to mention the lack of equipment for the military. Brown definitely should not smile - his sneers last week (accompanied by jibes penned by Campbell, no doubt) were cringe and a bit scary.
I’m hoping for a more lively debate, less interruptions from the chair, and less press release statements.
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 am Posted by Chris Greaves
The projected seat wins for the LibDems with their present share of the vote shows just how much the constituency boundaries have been gerrymandered by the other two parties in their favour during their period of power over recent decades. It shows just how important it is to introduce a system of proportional representation for Westminster. How patently wrong would it be for the party which has the lowest share of the vote (of the three main parties) to finish up as the largest party in Westminster? This ability by an incumbent government to constantly tinker with boundaries to their advantage, albeit behind the smokescreen of the Boundaries Commission, must be brought to an end, and proportional representation must be the only way forward in terms of actually getting a fair result.
Westminster has had its fair share of scandal in the very recent past, some of which is still ongoing. The matter of boundaries could easily become the first big scandal of the next parliament and we need to recognise that now before voters are turned off even more, when people see clearly that their vote won’t make the difference it should.
As for the implied question of lack of experience by Nick Clegg, the exact same thing was said about Tony Blair before he won so convincingly back in 1997.
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:33 am Posted by Hugh McKinney
Clegg may have the momentum but there is only one way for him to go. How does he effectively prepare for this debate? More of the same? Change of tactics? The other two party leaders will certainly have worked hard to close the gap but what does Clegg work on?
The real problem facing Clegg is that there are two debates to go and the only real impression that will be left on the voters minds is the impression arising from the third debate, fuelled by the immediacy of the media.
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:40 am Posted by Chris Greaves
Surely it is not quite fair to suggest that Clegg has only one way to go, unless the unspoken subtext is that the “way” is up. Clegg’s surprises so far have certainly been on the upside, and we have no reason other than speculation to suggest that things will likely change soon. Of course he will come under severe grilling tonight, but if anyone thinks he won’t have prepared for that, they underestimate both the man and the party. Mind you, people have been doing just that for ages now!
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:42 am Posted by William Heald
My problem with PR is that in the UK we elect MPs according to the area they stand for. In each constituency they have a straight fight with ther other candidates. The people of the area they represent decide whether they want representing them and if they do then they win and go to Westminster, if they lose they do not. This system means that the candidate voted for by the majority of people locally is sent to westminster to represent them.
I believe that is fair, because in the UK the political system is based upon local people electing their local representative. If the Lib Dems can persuade more people locally to support them in more constituencies then they will win. But I dont agree that Labour should not have a majority if they win the most seats, if enough local areas want them to have their MP in westminster then that is a mandate to run the country. It works and gives strong majorities.
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:53 am Posted by Chris Greaves
The problem is that votes don’t equal seats, and the essence of democracy is the vote. If a third of the people vote for a certain party, then surely it is not unreasonable to hope and expect that about a third of the seats are represented by that party.
Even the Conservative party is not totally opposed to the reasonableness, and above all, lets be honest, fairness of that concept, with organisations such as CAER (Conservative Action for Electoral Reform) fighting for the same fairness.
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:06 am Posted by Ian Glover
Will, while you correctly assess that the current system works and gives strong majorities perhaps that in itself is the problem with British politics?
There is a distinct lack of cross-party co-operation in the UK. The leaders partake in one-upmanship even when that is not in the interests of the country. Perhaps weaker majorities - or even a hung parliament - would result in more all-party consensus and serious, meaningful debate in the HoC?
Coalition governments work in other countries and aren’t necessarily seen as being weak. The only true case of a coalition in the UK in living memory (1939-1945) certainly worked. In truly testing times shouldn’t all politicians be work together to get us out of our current difficulties?
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:40 am Posted by Hugh McKinney
Surely though, the necessary compromises that would be necessary to drive policy in coalition Government would simply result in weakened, ill-defined legislation that nobody wants and nobody voted for as manifesto commitment are lost in the compromise.
This would only result in a greater need for the courts to interpret the legislation for clarification, leading to reduced respect for a Government that cannot secure key items of its promised legislation.
The war is a very bad example for this style of Government as we cannot possibly compare wartime and non-wartime society.
April 22nd, 2010 at 11:45 am Posted by Fee
Ian has a very good point. I certainly hope that hung parliament means a spirit of cooperation amongst those in Westminster. But I’m afraid it may turn out to be secret deals or concessions made in corridors or back room, and ultimately the needs of the country and the voices of the people will be drowned by political gains.
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:06 pm Posted by Ian Glover
Coalition Governments can make strong laws and decisions and be decisive. It also means that decisions can be ratified much more quickly. Look at New Zealand:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/19/hung-parliament-effective-government
I don’t necessarily see the correlation between ‘weak’ legislation drawn up by a coalition government and an increase in interpretation through the courts of these acts.
Surely there is as much chance of uncompromised legislation being challenged in the court as compromise legislation?
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:18 pm Posted by Nick Osborne
Hugh, doesn’t democracy require compromise? Legislation without discussion, debate and compromise would be dictatorial.
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:27 pm Posted by William Heald
Ian cross party agreement is the basis of Westminster, it is only people who do not understand how Parliament works who think it is all one upmanship. Behind the scenes Westminster thrives on cooperation: select committees, APPGs, Bill committees. They are not all enemies.
But I think in terms of a new Government’s manifesto the British system works well because general elections allow a Government to bring in their set of ideas, which the country have voted for. A coalition will mean naturally a weaker Britain because parties cannot pursue their policies effectively. For instance if Lab get in with Lib support, how are we going to run an effective country since Nick Clegg has said he would want Gordon Brown to resign. Do we just wait around for them to sort it out.
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:37 pm Posted by William Heald
But I would say Chris that our voting system is based on electing local representatives. I do not see why if a party gets over 60% of the votes in a region such as the South West and as a result has a number of MPs in that region that should have any other influence on the rest of the country.
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:03 pm Posted by Chris Greaves
If a party gets 60% of votes in a region, and none anywhere else, then that party’s national share of the vote would be nothing like 60%, and their share of the seats in Parliament should reflect that. But if a party has 30% of the votes and that 30% is spread across the nation, then that should reflect in a share of the seats of approximately 30%. Is that not fair?
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:09 pm Posted by Ian Glover
William - I’d suggest that the vast majority of people don’t understand how Westminster operates. The majority of the electorate aren’t privy to the workings of Westminster and only get to see the ‘Main event’ which takes place in the HoC. The highlight of this event is almost certainly Prime Ministers Questions - this seems to me to be the ultimate in one-upmanship.
IMHO these TV debates merely confirm that, not only does one-upmanship exist in politics, but it is prevalent and important to politicians.
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:22 pm Posted by William Heald
But the Lib Dem 17% share or whatever the total was last election is not spread equally across the country. It is concentrated regionally in the areas where MPs were elected such as the South West and Scotland. In these regions people voted big for the Lib Dems and were rewarded, but why should it be that just because they get a big share of the vote in certain areas such as the South West that should be spread out across the country. They are local votes for local candidates and they are rewarded on that basis. If enough locations vote for local Lib Dem candidates they will get in and if Lib Dem policies appeal to people across the UK then surely that will happen?
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:53 pm Posted by Chris Greaves
But Will, you are still missing the point. If the national vote is Tories 33.1%, LibDem 33.1%, Labour 27% and others 6.8%, the Tories and LibDems both have an identical share of the national vote but the Tories would hae 249 seats and the LibDems would have 125 seats, as per the BBC website tool, both parties, to repeat, having identical shares of the national vote. It simply cannot be fair for one party to have half the number of seats of the other for the identical number of votes!
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:29 pm Posted by Hugh McKinney
Chris,
Regional variations will always skew the voting figures anyway, to the benefit and the detriment of all the parties to some extent.
If the Lib Dems achieve a certain figure nationally that doesn’t preclude high regional support skewing the national figures in their favour.
If the BBC website tool shows the Lib Dems on 125 seats against the Tories’s 249 seats for the same share of the vote this strongly suggests regional clusters for the Lib Dems and that the Lib Dems do not have the support of enough people in enough key steats or marginals to make a difference.
Why then should the people who did not vote for the Lib Dems on a national basis be foisted with a Lib Dem MP?
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:34 pm Posted by David Millar
The times they are a changing… You may or may not be aware that proportional representation is now used to elect the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolved bodies and for local government elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Only Westminster and local authorities in England and Wales still depend on the first past-the-post system.
If you want to look into the arguments for and against PR (err, that’s proportional representation!!), you could do worse than visiting the Electoral Reform Society’s website http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/
April 22nd, 2010 at 2:54 pm Posted by Hugh McKinney
“You may or may not be aware that proportional representation is now used to elect the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolved bodies and for local government elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Only Westminster and local authorities in England and Wales still depend on the first past-the-post system.”
That doesn’t necessarily make it better - just different.
April 22nd, 2010 at 3:14 pm Posted by Chris Greaves
I agree that it “doesn’t necessarily make it better” for the two parties with a vested interest in the status quo. However, it clearly is better for the nation, and if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t have been introduced in the mentioned areas. Do people remember the last time that something was introduced that was not in the interest of the nation as a whole but just for the benefit of a favoured few? I think they called it the Poll Tax! That produced riots. I don’t read of any riots about PR, even though it will produce different results from the traditional system. Therefore it must be presumed that PR is seen as an improvement, i.e. it is better as well as different.
Post Your Comment