There were several moments last night when David Cameron could have gone in for the kill on Gordon Brown. But he didn't. You could almost sense him wanting to pin the PM down an pummel him on the lack of equipment to the military. But he didn't. He wanted to eviscerate him on the deficit. But he didn't. Why?
It must have been a predetermined strategy based on the fact that people tend not to like it when Cameron becomes aggressive. The dial tests show it. So instead, he adopted a strategy of appearing Prime Ministerial and not sinking to the depths of debating point scoring. He left that the Brown, and a fat lot of good it did him. In that sense, the Conservative strategy could be said to have worked.
Except it didn't quite. Because Nick Clegg managed to attack the other two without veering into shrillness or too much petulence. And when he did, he quickly rowed back. Clegg attacked but seemed perfectly reasonable at the same time, and that's what Cameron has got to do in the next two debates. He let Brown get away with blue (or red) murder last night. He can't afford to let that happen again.
Cameron is more than capable of hitting Brown where it hurts while appearing to still smell of violets. He needs to let himself of the leash in the next two debates and play to his strengths. Fair heart never won fair lady.
UPDATE: There is a very funny summary of the debate written by The Guardian's John Crace HERE.
55 comments:
It's one down two to go - so I think we will see something entirely different from Cameron in the next one.
There seems to be a lot of Clegg-worshipping around at the moment; don't you feel it would be good to take him down a peg or 2 in the next debate?
Or will the "gosh, the Lib Dems exist" mania subside before next week?
Or, alternatively, can we rely on Clegg taking Labour votes only and gain the seats that the Left/sort-of-left spat gives?
Out on the doorsteps of Wiltshire I've definitely noticed a division between inveterate Conservatives who want Cameron to produce policies and then go in for the kill on Clegg and Brown, as against swing voters who claim to want a more positive and clear-thinking message that shows an honest desire for realistic change.
It's a hard one to balance.
Perhaps you worry too much. I was nervous, too, but... keep the faith.
Cue bots to say I am whistling in the dark.
Simple answer - he is following opinion polls and focus groups and not acting like a leader.
The biggest issue is the scale of the debt. Cameron touched on it by saying how much the Government borrowed. The dialog was rooted is pre-debt crisis language, in terms of competing on who could spend more.
The political debt bubble has not yet burst. Politicians are still living in fantasy land.
Cameron needs to tell the public what they know - we are deep in debt and need to cut back. If he wants to find his messsage go on the Internet and look up the language of debt councilling.
If none of the leaders can take responsibility then none of them deserve power, roll on a hung Parliament v
Having sat through it all, the (not particulary Lib-Dem supporting) family agreed that Clegg was the best overall.
Brown tried his clunking fist once or twice, but the "now it's your turn to answer" jibe fell flat from him with his PMQ answering track record.
Cameron did not shine, he looked ill proportioned in physical shape with that suit, and he came over as ill proportioned in nerves as well.
Tory slogan: "Time for a change". Well, yes, We agreed; and Clegg looked the best to deliver it. A pity UKIP was not there to give a more distinctive policy choice on some matters.
'Letting them get away with murder' has been going on for years now - with ALL Tory spokesmen. You feel like shouting at the screen, "There's an open goal, you twit! Kick the bloody ball!"
But they don't and you think, ah, it's all part of a cunning plan. But now I'm beginning to think that the 'cunning plan' is to lose the election and let Labour clear up the mess.
What other explanation can there be for their sheer spinelessness?
The problem is your running against a perception vs reality problem.
Nick can go agressive cos, hes not like other politician.
If Dave goes agressive, well its just politics as usual.
Perception trumps reality.
I did like the "holier than Thou" aproach.
This is why I despise NC and his populist spiel. His carping is not good for democracy, his policies are not good for the economy, but the problem with populists is that, well, they can be popular.
Mr Cameron, could you please untie Mr Dale and allow him to continue blogging, please? This is most unbecoming...
Clegg was like a smartly dressed broker standing on the sidelines.
http://www.plenty2say.com
I do wish Cameron would pick up Brown on the nonsense that not increasing N.I. "takes money out of the economy".
The money doesn't go away; what changes is who has control of it. On the whole I'd prefer private enterprises to be investing it rather than Brown be wasting it on crackpot social engineering schemes.
Somewhat O/T but a seriosly intended question:
Does anybody know which party plans to remove the pensioners' winter heating allowance?
I ask because I've had a leaflet in which a pensioner is quoted saying that 'Removing it (the heating allowance) would be a disaster'
The leaflet is from the Labour party in Glasgow South.
Cameron is another politician who has trouble with numbers.
He spoke of a 40-year old black man who came to this country at the age of 6 and served in the Royal Navy for 30 years.
It just doesn't add up.
I did wonder how the Tory Blogesphere would explain away DC and his lukewarm performance.
This was supposed to be Camerons forum the place he finally nailed this election but he failed.
Now we have you claiming Clegg will take more votes from Labour than the Tories thats wishful thinking iain !
The next one is a real Gem DC went soft on Brown lol. I do enjoy your posts they get more ridiculous as the election gets closer.
Clegg did well in the debate, but <a href="http://toryrascal.com/2010/04/16/leaders-debate-1-the-dispiriting-debate/>I'm not at all convinced it will mean a big win for the Lib Dems on polling day</a>.
Debate was turgid. Clegg insubstantial, Brown weird, Cameron clearly frustrated by the format.
One of the things I noticed was that whenever DC started to talk (when invited to do so) GB immediately butted in with his MM MM MM. This ended up with the unedifying spectacle of DC and GB talking at the same time. Alistair Stewart then instead of cutting Brown off and allowing DC to speak handed over the baton to NC. This not only provided a negative impression of GB, it also rubbed off on DC and made NC look as above the political fighting.
Brown was either being increadably clever, or just his usual self that we have all come to "love" normally displayed on the Today programme.
How do you counter Brown, either have a free for all or for the presenter to take a firmer grip of proceedings.
Dave has to pin Gordon on the economy in the third debate. There is nothing much Gordon can do except reel off tractor production statistics in response and they'll end up scraping. Dave needs to draw blood, I'm afraid, either on that or on pensions, bullion, NI etc. Gordon hasn't anything positive to say about any of it.
Dave must also hold Cleggy to account a bit more - there were some flakey figures thrown around last night which were not challenged - on Trident and ID cards for example. Also, Gordon got away with saying that police spending would rise when in fact he has already acknowledged that it is merely going to be maintained. Will he say next week, and in the manner of the Chilcot Inquiry, that he inadvertently misled people? Will he 'eck as like.
I think there is something to the argument that the extra exposure of Nick will help Lib Dem support in the south and west (not good for the Tories) and in the north (good for the Tories, who may pick up unexpected seats in Lancs etc). There is no love lost between Labour and the Lib Dems in these seats: so much for Lord Adonis and his plea for them to vote tactically . I think the tactical vote in previous elections that got Labour candidates home will unwind.
The other outstanding impression was that Gordon looked really clapped out. Is he now the only person in the party who thinks he can pull off either an outright win or be the biggest player in a hung parliament? We'll never know what is really going on behind that furrowed brow. He came across as a thoroughly creepy guy and seemed the least well suited to confrontational encounters outside the Commons.
Yes indeed, his reticence if it was a tactic, did not do him or his case justice, against Brown's misleading mantra and Clegg's confidence, bordering on cockiness.
He remains however, the most convincing candidate for prime minister.
@golden balls. Spoken like stone balls! Libdem and Labour are locked up in the North where Tory presence is minimal and in Scotland where Tory presence is minimal. Places like Leeds, Libdem may only attract more Labour supporters.
Sorry Iain I'm afraid you are wrong. Cameron didn't attack for one simple reason. He hasn't got a clue on the economy himself.
Take the NI issue, it's a winner for the Tories but Cameron doesn't know why. Last night Brown kept accusing him of wanting to take £6billion out of the economy. This is the figure reached by the PROPOSED increase of 2% in NI. So in fact levying this tax is taking money out of the economy, out of the wage packets of workers and the incomes of business and spending it on ONE MONTH'S government interest repayments.
I'm sorry as a businessman I find Dave and George completely unconvincing. Luckily for them Labour are far worse but if I were them I would worry about the LibDems who seem to have the media push behind them at the moment
Attacking Clegg would be counterproductive.
Asking him some awkward questions on the flaky policies is another matter.
"Why did Cameron play safe"
Because he is not entirely stupid and realised that negative campaigning and/or smart alec comments do not appeal to floating voters on whom the debates are targetted. Negative campaigning only works to strengthen the views of your own supporters - which is why most commenters here want more of it.
What was so thoroughly depressing regarding the so-called debate was that it consisted entirely of a restatement of previous views - which is probably why Clegg came across as the freshest since his views were not as well known. Was anything new/unknown said whatsover?
As for the heavy overlay of standard PR presentation techniques it verged on the sickening - did anyone else want to vomit at the end when Clegg gave a name call of all those who asked questions.
BTW what happened to the "Big Society" - looks like the big idea isn't considered so big after all.
I wonder what the effect of three debates will be?
We have foriegn amd economy theme the next two weeks.
For Clegg this might be a problem. A single debate gives him a moment to beat all expectation. With three there is a chance of burn out.
The big news is that Clegg is awesome. He wasn't, he was new and unchallenged. Second time round, people will tune in expecting awesome, and what will they find?
That there are three debates may mean that DC has to pace himself.
On foriegn policy he will have to remain statesmanlike. He will need to be prepared on Europe and the smears. A few NC loves the euro comments wouldn't go a miss, after all people are not as keen on the EU as the other two are. Dave needs to be a eurosceptic, just not a fanatic.
On the economy this is where he must bring out the big guns. It must be forensic. He must expose in detail what Gordon did wrong. It was right to pull his punchs on the domestic debate and just mock the inefficies for economic growth arguement. He needs to save his good stuff to put Gordon on the spot. On the economy he must make it clear why we need action, why we can't muddle about with a hung parliment.
People have not yet got why debt is such an issue. The tories must ramp up the pre debate events to bring this into focus.
I'm a tribal Tory. But I'm having serious doubts about Cameron. It's been his decision to present the Tory party as one man band. It's been his decision to focus on presentation over content - US President-style. If he can't then handle the presentation - what's left?
My 'Hollow Man' blog today is decidedly heretical.
I'm also a tribal Tory, but am not a fan of Cameron/Osborne/Gove. Cameron was the one who asked for the TV debate, and now he has them he isn't able to perform. Im personally not in favour of this type of unedifying, and frankly utterly boring programme.
Cameron needs to be attacking Brown's record. If he's not up to the job, and fails to get a majority he will be out on his ear, and the Tories will likely become the third party. It will by then be irrelevent anyway as any Brown/Clegg alliance will signal the end of this once great nation.
There is only one poll that actually counts, and that takes place on May 6. Cameron needs to concentrate to get the message across to the electorate, another 5 years of Brown will finish this country once and for all.
"faint heart never won a lady" is what you meant. Or as we used to say in the Navy "faint heart never f***** a pig".
It's not cool, or clever, to stand with both hands in your pockets and attempt to stare down other people, whilst they're speaking. It's slovenly, lacks manners and shows no respect.
Clegg (judged on this appearance), if not a charlatan, is little more than an oik.
It did feel quite awkward with Brown attacking and Cameron refusing to fight back..
But I also found it hilarious how whenever Brown pinned Cameron down he just randomly changed the subject. Brown asked him why he couldn't give assurances on cancer treatment and he started rambling on about National Insurance!
Bizarre.
Cameron was dreadful. Clegg won on style, Brown on policy. Cameron insisted on telling us a story before getting to the point.
We also saw Brown do better with the public on ITV's online poll which had over 45,000 voters.
Http://www.andrewmckays.blogspot.com
Anybody else out there totally bored and fed up with the `election`...how many more weeks is there to endure before the hoons get their noses back in the trough and little else changes....
The next debate will be very different. As it is on foreign affairs, the correct approach will be to appear statesmanlike. With higher expectations and the reality that Clegg has the gravitas of a Big Brother contestant, I expect his star will wane a little.
Cameron will be desperate to put in a more assertive performance and make his mark but foreign affairs is not the best subject matter for that. You can't be glib when discussing the threat of rogue nations like Iran and China (sorry couldn't resist) and on Europe neither Cameron or Brown will feel comfortable about having to discuss their broken promises on a referendum.
The task for this debate will be to assure voters that you can be entrusted with the keys to Britain's nuclear arsenal and in that respect I think Brown will have his most comfortable debate. Clegg may struggle when pushed to explain his Trident policy and I expect Cameron to go after him here. All in all I think it will be a debate for the geektariat and one in which the general public may tune out before the 90 minutes is up.
What we really need to see now is the next set of polls and I don't mean some unweighted nonsense post debate. We need to see how the real numbers have moved if at all. The key will be whether any LibDem gain is at the expense of the Tories or Labour. It could be the differene between a hung parliament and a near landslide respectively.
I do not think Cameron has the killer in him, I have met him several times, he will tell you he agrees with you, he berates you for interupting him, (if I did not he would go off on a tangent) he agrees with you and then will not back it up, my first thoughts on our first meeting march 2005, wind-ban, nothing has changed, I am conservative but will not be voting.
I object strongly to your expression "going in for the kill". Why do bloggers so often use similes and metaphors of violence and death?
Iain, I am hoping that David Cameron is being careful. Like you, I wanted to punch the Brown in the ugly face, last night. But there are two more 'debates'. I reckon Clegg has played his aces. What on earth can he now say that won't sound like the class bore repeating himself. And if David had attacked Brown, then Mandelson and Campbell would have had time to redirect their missile for the next sessions. I am hoping that David has been advised to attack Clegg in the next 'debate'. And wait till the last one to eviscerate brown - because he won't have an opportunity to retaliate - and then the election will be upon us.
I think Cameron needs to wake up and stop being the nice guy and filling up every time he talks about the NHS. He just comes over as too soft to be PM. He needs to shape up and get stuck in before its to late.We do not want another smarmy Blair type or a nasty Gordon Brown, but a strong MAN.
I think that we did see the real David Cameron on the first debate. He looked very odd indeed - and that's saying something when he was alongside Brown who, as Neil Kinnock has said, looks better on Radio. I can’t quite put my finger on why Cameron looked so strange – almost like an alien – but no doubt the clever folks at Central Office are on the case.
Cameron’s voice was OK – how has he managed to re-modulate away from the Eton accent? Quite an achievement. As Iain Dale says he didn’t go for the throat at either Clegg or Brown and at times he got lost completely. His pre-drafted peroration at the end was excellent – as a CV. But I doubt that it really worked with a very cynical electorate.
He made, in my view, two bad mistakes:
The “40-year-old black man” was an appalling description of the man he met in Plymouth. It throws together all non-Caucasians into one black pot. Far better to have identified where the man originally came from as a six-year-old (The West Indies? India? Somewhere else?) rather than just categorist him (vaguely) by his colour. The question was about immigration not about colour!
The “As someone who has got two children, one of whom started at a state school in London…” was bollocks. His daughter is at a Faith primary school in Kensington utterly unlike the vast majority of state schools that ordinary kids have to go to. And does anyone believe that when the time comes Arthur Elwen won’t go to Eton like Daddy? Of course not!
I agree with Boo the Bear, the debates are not about pleasing journalists, nor pleasing the voters who have already decided, it is about convincing the undecided voter that you are
a) Balanced and civilised (i.e. not Brown)
b) Connected policywise to realities of what need to be done (i.e. not Clegg)
Osbourne won the economics debate (although you can be forgiven for thinking Cable won it if you only read the commentators) because he introduced the notion that reducing tax is a good not a bad thing.
Cameron won debate one (again contrary to the commentators - including Iain Dale) by coming over as a fully rounded human being. But he needs to earn the highest office by being less at ease with himself and more combative (although not more personal) in the next debates.
I think the British public like their candidates to suffer a little, especially if they have been to Eton, before they give them the crown.
P.S. Do people notice that Clegg is another ex-public school boy? Unlike Cameron (who is highly intelligent) Clegg just seems over promoted - his colleagues certainly seem to think there is little more to him than a pretty boy.
One of the main themes of the night, from Gordon Brown, at least, was "I agree with Nick." The last time I saw this tactic was in the Democratic presidential primary debates, when many of the candidates (including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) fell over themselves to agree with rival Joe Biden. They did this to such an extent, that the Biden Campaign released an ad with snippets of them all echoing "I agree with Joe."
Biden won many of the debates, but got no where near winning the nomination.
Biden was a candidate that everyone agreed with, but nobody remembered to vote for. Whither Nick Clegg?
PR people seem to want to reduce things to barely undifferentiated mush. I find this at odds with the desire that I encounter all the time on the doorstep for some real leadership.
Surely there's scope for a bit more of gently reminding Brown of which way is up - that he got us into this mess, that he's had 13 years to make changes and has failed to do so, that his government is obsessed with controlling every detail of our lives. Surely too there's more scope for making something of the big positive ideas, which only really came over in Cameron's closing speech.
And as for (my personal shout-out-loud moment, it being close to home) letting Brown get away with the contention that Lords reform (desirable as it is) would reduce costs!!! Elected members require salaries, offices, support: even with halved numbers the cost would be 3 times the current bill.
Cameron is a big girl's blouse.
He does not have it in him to go for the jugular.
You would need Alex Salmond on THE PANEL for that and the Browcamclegg would sh1%& theselves if he were to get on. So they banned him. Siple.
3 Stooges talking the same talk with not a fag paper between them despite what they may have suggested.
It was only debate 1. Far too early & too risky to start throwing the knives. DC is a gentleman. He should remain one.
Brown, by contrast is so completely hopeless, so unable to seize any moment himself or even get his words out properly so it really won't take much.
How did he ever imagine he would make a satisfactory Prime Minister? I really find such vanity and self- delusion beyond comprehension.
The debate was set up for Clegg, of course he could say all the easy stuff. Of course the dustbin vote is presently rearranging itself around him this morning.
However when we build them up in this country there's only way it ever goes next.....................
@p.smith. Brown not only broke a promise on a referendum on the EU Constitutional (Lisbon) Treaty, he guillotined its ratification through Parliament declaring that it wasn't the EU Constitutional Treaty. The Conservative promise was for a referendum should the Treaty not have been ratified before a general election; a general election that has been denied until far too late for such a referendum to take place. The Conservatives have now undertaken that should they form an administration the UK will repatriate powers and subject any EU treaty-making to a referendum.
The keys to the UK nuclear arsenal are held by the United States, not the UK government. The UK has nuclear weapons under US control sited on its territory. It has no independent nuclear deterrent.
So what about the other parties in this election?
The establishment sure want to stitch up and rig this election in their favour dont they?
Hey I know, why not just have one big party called the liblabcon party and let them run the UK based on the consensus of all three?
Similar policies and aims and objectives and dont mention the shiny great big sword of Damocles in the form of debt hanging over us all!
Is this what our age old democracy has come to?
Three lookalike greasy spivs making promises they know they cannot keep and promising a future thay cannot deliver and dont mention the elephant in the room in the form of the EU this big elephant is just itching to s**t all over us.
Three parties that are in fact the same, regional toadies crawling to their foreign overlords in the hope of favours for selling out their country.
They say that people get the government they deserve, well enjoy.
Iain I can recommend you read this journal entry from Kenneth Roy on last night's debate.
It is a Scottish perspective fro someone who is no friend of the SNP.
It is titled
"We are now living in a foreign land"
and the link is
http://www.scottishreview.net/KRoy237.html
Perhaps by excluding the SNP all three parties have shot themselves in the foot.
They have opened up the subliminal distancing of the two countries and the SNP are laughing all the way to the voting booths.
@hatfield girl - with regard to your first point on the Lisbon treaty, I'm afraid your post reads like a Central Office bulletin. I have no particular desire to argue the point (not being a rabid Eurosceptic) but it is utter sophistry to suggest that Cameron stated explicitly at the outset that his referendum promise only applied if the treaty was unratified. He repeatedly refused to confirm his position on a ratified treaty until after it was ratified. It was an act of political cowardice designed to mislead Eurosceptics that his promise was absolute when he knew full well that by the time he ever became PM, it would be ratified. What then was the point of his promise? Don't take it from me, there are plenty of conservatives here who will set you straight.
As for his promise to repatriate powers, you must be living in cloud cuckoo land. He will do no such thing and he has no desire to start a fight on Europe. He simply wants Eurosceptic votes on May 6 and on May 7 he will have nothing further to do with them.
As for his promise of a referendum if there are further treaties ceding sovereignty, it is essentially meaningless given that none are planned. He may as well promise a referendum in the event that Angela Merkel declares political anschluss between Germany and the UK.
Don't get me wrong, Labour's broken promise was disgraceful but in that respect Cameron's desire to emulate Tony Blair apparently knows no bounds.
@hatfield girl - p smith is right. David Cameron is like any other politician that has reached the heights of the slippery pole... full of half-truths and slyness. Go and reread the article in the Sun (26 Sep 2007) to remind yourself of his much trumpeted "cast iron guarantee".
No wonder there were lots of outraged Tories (and UKIP defectors) when it turned out that the guarantee wasn't worth the paper it was written on. (But I never believe anything I read in the Sun.)
@p.smith David Cameron can hardly call a referendum on a done deed now, can he?
And if using the country's parliament and constitution to determine what powers the EU can assert in a member state is cloud cuckoo land then Germany, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Poland, Italy (can't state with certainty on the other 22 so leave those aside) are there too. No need to 'start a fight' with the EU; it's standard practice for member-states to require the EU to conform to their own constitutions. Only New Labour is so grovellingly conformist to their every whim.
There had better be some new treaties in the offing or Ireland, Germany, and the Czech Republic will want to know where their special arrangements under Lisbon are. Croatian Accession is next, I believe. But, as you say, there are lots of Conservatives here who can set me right if there is an earlier one in line.
EU hardly registers a s single issue in the top 3 concerns of voters. Wasting time on it by itself is foolish. But in the next debate worth saying to Brown and Clegg about the Labour's manifesto promise, and how Clegg scuppered it in the Commons. Could also gently remind Clegg sbout his MEP pension whih makes him unrelaible as an Eirocrat.
Who was the idiot who agreed to Clegg getting in all three debates, having three rather than two, and making them 90 minutes long rather than an hour?
Cameron will have to come down hard and factually on crime and Labour's failure to control our borders.
@Right Hon. I'm not a referendums fan under our constitution. They can ony be called by the party in power; they aren't binding on the Executive; the question asked is often not the question answered; and they sit uneasily with our arrangements for governance.
David Cameron could only offer what he could provide - if he had formed an administration before Lisbon was ratified he guaranteed to hold a referendum on its acceptance.
Brown, in power, betrayed an absolute commitment to hold a referendum, pretending that Lisbon was not the Constitutional Treaty. Now he states there are no more treaties coming; whether this is ignorance or more lies, he's unattractive in both statuses.
Other than Croatian Accession (carrying all that Lisbon baggage and Accords) there's going to have to be a treaty on setting up something like a European Monetary Fund (to deal with sovereign default risk in the European Union, or at least the eurozone) and further institutional arrangements for the euro. Then there's all the problem with the former Yugoslavia states other than Croatia.....
No new treaties? Hmmmm. They are precisely why the Conservatives have made the commitment. Brown denies their very existence.
Perhaps he just couldn't get over this cringeworthy gaffe...
http://spennypost.blogspot.com/2010/04/its-little-things-that-make-me-smile.html
iain, cameron must be on super serial tactical manouevoures and if not he needs to do 100% better than that
I was rather surprised by this about Cameron in the Telegraph:
"...However, the thoroughness of his preparations may be questioned after he admitted that he had not read the Liberal Democrat manifesto."
Clegg did so well I keep having to remind myself that a LibDem government would mean:
1. Joining the Euro;
2. Cancellation of Trident;
3. An amnesty for illegal immigrants.
If Dave would only give us a vote on the EU I might just forgive him and let him have my (currently undecided) vote. As it is I am trying (and failing) to convince myself that UKIP really arn't a bunch of complete tossers. Also, with regard to 2 above, given that Cleggy has got a Spanish wife I wouldn't want to be a Falkland Islander if the Argies come a knocking again.
Post a Comment