So the first ever pre-election priministerial live debate passes, embracing presidentialism and giving the public, at least for a while, the chance to remind themselves that politicians are relatively real people. What this live debate has done, looking past the political engineering and one-upmanship, has once again linked the public to popular politics much like Nick Griffin’s tumultuous appearance on Question Time a few months ago. This has both its benefits and its flaws, on the one hand any attempt to get the public to engage with politics has to be seen as a positive, this goes without saying. On the other hand this idle attempt at showcasing the future leadership of this country leaves quite a strange taste in the mouth.
The debate itself went largely without incident with each candidate at their stereotypical best. Gordon Brown unexciting and uninspiring, David Cameron hollow, with style (make-up) over substance and then Nick Clegg, the leader of the third party in British politics, eager to make a name for himself on the equal footing in which the live debate provides. In essence each leader did everything that they were expected to do, David Cameron wanting to point nuclear weapons at China aside, they all managed to neither significantly help or hinder their cause in a way that was going to have a big influence on the way people will vote. Out of the three leaders up there only David Cameron had anything big to lose and in most respects he reminded everyone watching that despite some populous ideas on immigration and school discipline he has very little else that will distance himself from the other leaders, apart from maybe the most orange face. As a signal of intent David Cameron provided almost nothing in the way of a nucleus for change.
If the inevitable does happen and Mr Cameron does win a majority on May 6th the comparisons are likely to be drawn with New Labour’s victory in 1997. Coming on the back of 18 years of a Tory government the New Labour agenda promised, and provided for a while at least, the prospect of real change lead by a man who provided the real promise of making a difference. If David Cameron and the Tories think they are on a similar bandwagon after 13 years of a Labour government, they are sadly misguided.
As for Gordon Brown the debate was never going to portray him in the greatest of lights. Gordon Brown is just not made for modern, publicity driven election campaigns. Gordon Brown is the type of politician that should be left in the backroom to read big dusty books on Milford and Keynes and devise policy, not out in the shop window scaring the babies. To be fair to him though he handled himself ok but wasted too much time on reminding the public of the Tories flaws. He should have taken this time to convince the public that to vote Labour won’t mean the continual breakdown of society and the risk of a place on the economic slagheap.
The real winner of this debate and the one with the least to lose was Nick Clegg. Being the least well-known of the three all he had to do was not to make a tit of himself, which he managed to achieve quite comfortably. Giving concrete policy promises and answering the public on first-name terms he provided the freshness and ease of speech which Mr Cameron can only yearn for. Only time will tell what this could do for the Liberal Democrats but with solid and respected politicians like Vince Cable behind him they surely have to be taken much more seriously on the back of this performance.
The debate was odd that’s for sure, with the set looking like it cost the equivalent of the X Factor’s firecracker budget it was hard to give the occasion the seriousness it deserved. Added to this the presenter looking at best like an overeager sixth former and at worst Alan Partridge at his camp and socially inept best it lacked the sheen and legitimacy that the BBC adds to these occasions. Let’s just hope that the bland realisation that politics is dead can in part be resurrected by two more debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment