Is that the best Britain's leaders can offer?
Friday, April 16, 2010 Did anyone see last night's election debate? Pretty underwhelming, if you ask me. I watched for the first 30 minutes before turning over to watch Have I Got News For You (which was equally devoid of political bite) before switching back.
I then watched the Ten O'Clock News on BBC1, followed by Newsnight, during which a series of politicians from the three main parties were asked to say who won the debate. Well, of course, Alan Johnson, William Hague, Chris Huhme, Theresa May, Vince Cable et al were never going to concede that a rival party leader had "won" so what we got was spin and more spin.
I don't think there is any question that Nick Clegg came out of it best, if only because a lot more people will now know who he is. Sharing a platform with the two main parties was a huge plus for the Liberal Democrats and, as several other commentators have noted, the most common expression used all night appeared to be "I agree with Nick". If I was Nick Clegg this morning I would be pinching myself with glee.
One of the reasons I switched over to HIGNFY was because I couldn't bear to watch Brown's smirking face, or listen to his feeble, rehearsed jibes such as "You can't airbrush your policies even if you can airbrush your posters" or ""This is not question time. It's answer time, David."
Yuk.
But you get what you expect from Brown. The man never disappoints. He's a grade A bruiser who is fighting for his political life.
Most of all, though, I was disappointed by David Cameron. For once, I almost agree with the Daily Mirror whose headline this morning reads: "Gordon Brown crushes naive David Cameron as kid Clegg shines".
One or two people have said that Cameron's closing statement was the best of the three, but how many people were watching by then?
My guess, as TV critic AA Gill implied on Newsnight, is that the viewing figures will have fallen the longer the debate went on, and that the second and third debates will attract an ever decreasing audience.
Cameron had the opportunity to floor Brown on so many issues and he flunked it (as he done on so many occasions during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons). The PM is a sitting duck yet Cameron barely laid a finger on him. In fact, early on (when I assume most people were watching) it was Brown who had Cameron on the back foot more than once and it seemed as if Cameron had no answers to Brown's taunts.
Astonishing.
I don't believe that these televised debates will seriously influence the result of the election. For all the talk of floating voters, I am sure that most people already know how they are going to vote and nothing that happens in the next few weeks will make much difference.
It was dispiriting nevertheless to witness three party leaders with so little to offer in terms of charm, charisma or oomph and to think, is that the best Britain has to offer?
PS. I loathe their policies and I would never vote for them, but for me the best party leaders in Britain are Alex Salmond (SNP) and Caroline Lucas (Green party). Salmond is sharp and savvy while Lucas is intelligent and articulate.
Last night made me think that we should perhaps have a separate televised debate featuring the leaders of the smaller parties, if only to show the country what they're missing.
Simon Clark
Massive 14pc poll surge for Lib Dems after TV debate (Daily Telegraph)
Reader Comments (16)
So Nick Clegg won the first big debate did he? Not from where I was sitting he didn't.
If they had carried out a poll asking who was the best new boy on the block, then I would say Clegg was undoubtedly the winner.
It is all very well for Clegg to stand there and berate Brown and Cameron about their policies and their records in Government; he could do that for the simple reason that he does not have any record in Government. His party have never been there! The last time his fore-bearers "The Liberal Party" were in Government was 95 years ago, in 1915 when David Lloyd George was elected Prime Minister of Great Britain, and held the position for 1 year.
Of course neither Brown or Cameron could pick holes in Clegg's record, or his party's record come to that, other than the lefter than left views that they seem to be spouting these days.
Clegg won the viewers choice purely because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the simple fact that neither he nor his party have ever served in a Government, therefore he is clean.
But does being clean qualify him to run the country? I don't think so!
I second that Simon, I bet if there was a debate between UKIP and BNP there would be an electricity shortage.
I thought Dave Cameron came out the best (of a bad lot) and that his lookalike Nick Clegg came across as a smart bullshitter, I wont mention Gordy as he's yesterday's man.
You must be joking about that Green person, all greens should be wiped out in my opinion.
As for 'hoots mon there's a moose about this hoose', he's good for a laugh.
The only one that mentioned smoking was Cameron but I'm not sure if it was a message of hope or despair as I was nodding off at that point.
Ann (and others), I feel very uncomfortable about people promoting or talking up the BNP on this blog. I'm all for free speech but saying anything positive about the BNP is entirely counter-productive. Will you please stop it!!
Yes, a debate between the minor parties would be an excellent idea, for exactly the reason you say, Simon. But that, of course, is precisely why they won't do it!
Sorry Simon, had already made a comment on Wednesday's blog about the unmentionable ones before I saw your instruction.
I found the whole thing pretty stale and hopefully the next two are much better. Brown came across as he normally does and made no noticable slip ups. Clegg came across quite well and while he may not be the next Prime Minister he could hold the balance of power. Cameron came across as a Tory Blair which seems to be his intent. Does he not realise that neither Labour nor Conservatives want Blair back?
There is a great danger for Cameron that he is throwing away an election that even Ian Duncan Smith could have won. What a shocking indictment that would be...
@Simon Clark - Simon, I can hardly believe that you wrote that. It's exactly the same as a civil liberties campaigner ignoring smokers on the grounds that no 'right-thinking' person could consider that smokers should be included!
I can appreciate that Forest would in no way wish to be seen to be associated with the BNP but I hardly think that a comment which just mentioned them (I didn't have the impression that ann was talking them up) would constitute that. Anyway, isn't it plain that comments don't necessarily reflect the 'editor's' policy?
Well i was quite looking forward to seeing this but my first impression was that they were all participating in a game show something along the lines of " call my bluff "
Which one of them is telling the truth?
Afraid it did,nt do anything for me at all.
Lucas is intelligent and articulate.
No she's not. She's completely bonkers.
Ann (and others), I feel very uncomfortable about people promoting or talking up the BNP on this blog. I'm all for free speech but saying anything positive about the BNP is entirely counter-productive. Will you please stop it!!
Simon thats pathetic Ann did not say anything positive about the BNP she just remarked that a debate between some of the minor parties would capture a large tv audience, Im all for free speech but, no your definitely not!
Hey Joyce and Frosty, it's Simon's blog. If he doesn't want to be associated with something, he's entitled to ask us not to talk about it. He has free choice too, doesn't he?
@Rose, yes, absolutely, Simon's blog, Simon's rules but can you still claim to uphold the principle of freedom of speech when you impose excluded subjects? To me, it's no different from a civil liberties debate excluding smokers because we're considered unacceptable.
Smokers exist and ignoring us isn't going to make us disappear as the establishment would like. Likewise the BNP, no matter how repugnant, is a legitimate political party which isn't going to disappear because no-one acknowledges its existence.
Anyone see Eddie Izzard's Labour PPB this evening ?
Apparently, he wants to see a COMPASSIONATE Britain.
And (apparently) Labour IS the Party of Compassion.
It HAS to be Gordon.
Q.E.D.
Very quickly, I cannot believe what Simon said about the BNP. It can only be that Simon is afraid of the idea that Forest could be associated in any way with the BNP. But the BNP have some genuine political arguements. It would be an awful thing if freedom of speech was to be dictated by Simon or anti-Simon or contra-Simon. "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest>"
Guido makes a good point over at http://order-order.com/
See "Tactical voting......."
People should aim to wipe out Liebore completely.
Thinking about all this, quite apart from the (with all due respect, Simon) slight hypocrisy of speaking for an ignored minority but then insisting that another group be deliberately ignored (and, after all, Ann hadn't actually praised the "unmentionables", had she?), refusing any mention of any party only allows them to extend their territory behind the scenes without fear of being revealed in the glare of publicity. In my experience, whenever this particular party are mentioned anywhere, the vociferous responses from other people do a sterling job in pointing out the true nature of some of their, shall we say, less palatable policies, which wouldn't see the light of day if the first person hadn't been able to mention them in the first place.