UK Decides: Election Diary #3 - The Debate

The much vaunted, first ever Leader’s Debate was disappointingly hohum. The Iceland volcano, which grounded all UK planes that day with billowing bursts of ash and glass particles was far more interesting. Not that the clouds are visible in London, which has continued to have clear skies.

Disappointing to me because I had naively thought political leaders here would somehow reflect the depth and sophistication and vibrancy of the UK. But no, politicians are the same everywhere - the discussion was trivial, point scoring, in-substantive, boring and pathetic. The PR instructions were obviously - keep it really simple, repeat the slogans, smile and keep calm. To be fair, the stilted format, nervous stiffness of the three men, selected questions and bossy control didn’t help. The next debate in a week’s time may be more lively.

I have turned to the Mirror and the Financial Times to enliven my understanding. A columnist in the Daily Mirror, which has about 3 pithy pages out of 70 on the election, pointed out that the Debate is not aimed at those who have been paying attention anyway. It is aimed at those who “don’t know their a--- from their elbow, the don’t knows, the moronic minority, the curse of democracy”. Well the Mirror should know.

The Financial Times thunders that the UK is drenched in debt and that all three parties have a 30 billion hole in their manifestos. The Conservatives have the largest hole in their plans because they have to find 6 billion to reverse Labour’s planned national insurance rise as well as give tax cuts Over 50 academic economists have now written in support of Labour’s policy and warn that public service cuts now would further damage the economy. Presumably this cancels out the 50 or so business CEs who consider the Conservative’s policy of cutting the National Insurance increase is vital. The Financial Times grudgingly allows that the Lib-Dems recognize the problem, but says they haven’t got the answer. “Nothing so far reflects the scale of the fiscal challenge that will confront whichever party has the misfortune to emerge victorious”, according to the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies.

This also sums up the economic picture on display during the Debate. Cameron thinks 6 billion can easily be obtained by cutting waste, such as the 1billion credit card expenses of public servants last year. He proposes to cut the public service, and also the number of MPs, by 10%. Brown maintains he has only just kept Britain afloat so far and, with a lack of private investment, money must not be removed from circulation this year throwing people out of work or we risk a double dip recession. (He must have seen the video on managing inflation, running up to 2005 that I also watched in the Bank of England’s museum.) Clegg can’t understand how reducing expenditure on paper clips and pot plants will save enough money and claims the other two are hiding the truth from the voters. Among other uncomfortable truths he mentioned is the cost of pensions, both the grand public service version and for general public. These costs will have to be cut back and we should start talking now. Only he has a realistic plan which will both start reducing the deficit and also protect the jobs and income of ordinary folk.

And the winner is Nick Clegg by a country mile, as you will probably know by now. This was shown by the worm produced during the debate by a handful of uncommitted voters in the Bolton marginal electorate, (which actually showed they didn’t always understand what was said, as we know from our worm experience). An ITV poll of 4000 voters taken immediately after the debate showed strong support for Nick Clegg. And 9 million people watched the debate and were impressed by him, reflected in the latest poll with 33% for the Conservatives, 28% for Labour and 30% for Lib-Dems, a huge turnaround. A new chummy catchphrase for Brown emerged during the debate, “I agree with Nick”. But Nick, it seems, doesn’t always agree with Gordon.

The risk for Conservatives now is that the swinging voters in more marginal electorates, fed up with 13 years of Labour, will swing to the man of the hour Nick Clegg rather than David Cameron. And Nick has just as much charisma as David, plus an outstanding career so far and some actual substance. Going into the debate Cameron had all the advantages of a central position on the podium and as the last summing up speaker at the end. But the debate ambushed the Cameron charm offensive, which relied on hardship stories identifying with ordinary people he has met during the campaign - the man who has been burgled 5 times, the hard working black tradesman who decries benefit abuse by new immigrants, and above all the importance of family based on his own personal situation. The Conservatives are committed to maintaining and improving the wonderful NHS, seemingly based on the Camerons’ experience with their handicapped son (now deceased). Brown tried to expose the fact that the Conservatives will not commit to maintaining current funding for education and Police, whereas Labour will do so.

Enough about the debate. There are other parties – Green, Independent, Scottish Nationalist, Welsh, Northern Ireland. For all I know maybe even more. They might as well not exist so far as the media in England are concerned. Apparently the voting turn out last election was less than 40%! The few people I have talked to are pretty disinterested. Disillusion with the Blair Government seems to run fairly deep, but there is also deep suspicion of the Conservatives. How relevant is voting anyway if all parties are equally bad - a pox on all their houses. Can Nick Clegg be the saviour who will reinvigorate democracy? Like the volcano, perhaps this election is heating up. "

(occasional coverage of the UK election campaign continues…)

Margaret Thompson is a director of Scoop Media who is coincidentally on holiday in London during the UK election campaign. The election will be held on May 6th.

ENDS

© Scoop Media