UK Decides #5: Debate Fever Grips The Media

Three men caught in the headlights, gripping podiums in front of them like three boys facing school examiners, or men facing the firing squad. What a ridiculous way to decide an election. But debate fever grips the media. Apparently 3 out of 5 polls gave Nick Clegg the win by a narrow margin last Thursday, two gave it to David Cameron while Gordon Brown lumbers along in the rear like a growly old bear.

There seems to be an obsession with who wins each debate. The Sun crowed “The Cam is back” and inside “Clegg is Nuked”, City AM said “Cam saves his skin”, Daily Telegraph “Cameron Fights back”, Financial Times “Brown and Cameron fight back”, Guardian “Clegg weathers the storm”, Independent “Clegg’s adventure continues”. So there it is, from right to left.

The obsession with who wins may be because, in terms of substance, the debates have been so vacuous. This time Dave C and Gordon B united in closing down Nick C, who looked a bit fed up, tired and defensive. Remarkable then that he was the winner in any poll, indicating that his support is fairly solid.

I tried to uncover any significant, detailed differences between the two main parties, as explained in the last two debates. Not worth bothering. On Thursday they agreed in superficial clichés on defence and foreign affairs - Afghanistan is the real conflict the troops must be in (Iraq was a mistake), nuclear defence by Trident is vital because of threat from Iran, Israel should not build more settlements, the Pope should visit but sexual abuse scandal is very bad. Lib-Dems risk UK security by not going ahead with Trident (although some Generals say the decision should be deferred) and, according to Dave, Lib-Dems are also dangerously anti-USA. All pretty meaningless; a despairing Afganistani commentator pointed out that the critical issue in her country right now is whether to fight the Taleban or let them share Government.

There is some difference with immigration policy, Conservatives would put a cap on immigration levels (but not saying what level), Labour relies on a points system that is already limiting immigrants, and both accuse Lib-Dems of being impractical because they want to ensure immigrants only go to regions where their work is needed, and want illegal immigrants to be sorted out and pay taxes. There is also some difference about the EU - Dave would somehow halt EU over-influence in UK affairs, Gordon says being in EU is vital for economy, Nick says being in EU is the only way for UK to influence world affairs. There were some fatuous electioneering spats, like whether Labour pamphlets lie about conservative policy and which party would best care for the elderly.

There are various coded, largely unnoticed items in the media which suggest that the size of the public cuts needed in the long term to recover from the recession is very high. One analysis in the Daily Telegraph suggests savings of 370 billion pounds over the next 10 to 15 years are required. Of course no party would want to spell out too clearly what they will do about that. An emerging slogan for the Conservatives is “Big Society not Big Government”, which seems to mean business would manage education and welfare (but not health) and presumably Government might not have to pay. The Lib-Dems think a good start would be to be honest about what is needed and work together. Labour would not cut - yet. The Daily Telegraph suggests it is “as plain as a pikestaff that a coalition would be much less capable of administering the pain than a single party” and that “we seem to be sleepwalking into political and economic disaster”.

The figures for the first quarter, just out, show that growth is down and unemployment up. On the other hand international trends are more confident despite the meltdown in Greece, and the IMF has now proposed to tax banks so that contentious issue can be somewhat sidelined. (It seems there is more interest in regulating for volcanos than in relation to the financial system.) The Centre for Economics and Business Research points out that this year’s bonus haul from banks will be 6.8 billion pounds and that with the National Insurance tax the Government will take 4 billion of this. City workers will retain 3.6 billion so the balance of rewards has shifted to the Government but “the public’s appetite for a larger slice of bonuses will not go away”. Figures like 6 million bonus for chief executives of banks seem fairly startling to me, and the incomes of traders astronomical. The Sunday Times Rich List reports that the three top hedge fund bosses have seen their personal wealth rise by 1 billion pounds in the past 12 months!

This information is relevant to the only really clear policy distinction between Conservative and Labour, stated ad nauseam - whether the scheduled 6 billion national insurance tax increase will save or destroy the economy. Dave and some business leaders are adamant that growth in business/employment depends on scrapping the NI tax; Gordon and some economists are equally adamant the tax is vital to prevent unemployment in 2010. So really just the traditional choice between an employer’s party or an employee’s party, which is what Gordon claims. Since the two views cancel each other out, voters can only go on who they trust and which slogan they believe.

Unless you despair of both and go for Lib-Dem. The prospect of a hung Parliament has certainly struck terror into the Conservative campaign. The 23 April Independent published a poll (which they claim the Sun suppressed) showing that 29% would be delighted to have a Lib-Dem Government, 38% wouldn’t mind and 21% would be dismayed. 25% would be delighted with a Conservative Government and 20% wouldn’t mind. 18% would be delighted with a Labour Government and 23 % wouldn’t mind. So, there is a real fight on with this election. Today Dave is concentrating on electoral reform, proposing open selection of all candidates, electorates able to dismiss MPs mid-term and now a requirement that an unelected PM, like Gordon, must hold an election within 6 months. I guess he hopes this will satisfy voters disgruntled with Brown and distract attention from the Labour/Lib-dem plans for a referendum to alter the FPP system and have an elected House of Lords.

Hopefully, with all leaders stepping up for the last two weeks, there will be more substance and not just PR. But you might like to know that Dave is now going for the tousled hair, sleeves rolled up, sporty, bright and alert look. Anything he can do, Nick can do effortlessly as well. They both contrast with the slightly tousled suits and fatherly demeanour of Gordon, who seems to rely on looking reassuringly competent.

The next debate is this Thursday with the subject for debate the economy.

(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