Another debate; another analysis

The first Prime Ministerial debate was a historic occasion in British electoral politics, a pioneer of its kind, attracting a staggering 9.4 million viewers. It was noteworthy not only as an event which many now believe will be a regular part of electioneering, much as it is across the Atlantic – but also as the platform upon which Nick Clegg may well have built his and his party’s long term political future.

Unlike last week, the second debate, which focused primarily (at least for the first half) on foreign affairs, saw no clear winner, the general consensus being that all three performed and polled relatively equally.

Perhaps the most notable development that occurred since the first debate was the difference in the way Brown and Cameron dealt with Nick Clegg. Last week one might have been forgiven for wondering if either had even bothered to read the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto. This was certainly not the case on this occasion as Clegg was attacked by both his rivals.

Indeed, the line that many believed summed up the first debate was Gordon Brown’s repeated utterance of “I agree with Nick”. However, after being put under great scrutiny by both Labour and the Conservatives all week, it was always going to be a different story this time around. In fact, the BBC’s Nick Robinson suggested the theme of the second debate was in fact – “I disagree with Nick”.

This was especially evident on the subject of the replacement of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, Trident. While both the Conservatives and Labour support a review and like for like replacement, the Lib Dems have rejected an immediate decision on this and have cited scrapping Trident’s like for like replacement as a key way of saving money.

While Clegg contended that Trident was built for a different age, Brown asserted that he had to “get real” in the face of threats by nations such as Iran and North Korea. This was an example of an almost Neo-Conservative approach taken by Brown in his attacks on Clegg as he tried to suggest the Lib Dem leader would in fact endanger national security. Cameron underlined Labour and the Conservatives common ground here, quipping, “I never thought I would utter these words, I agree with Gordon” as he insisted that it was impossible to “put off the decision” on Trident’s future.

Even when discussing issues where the Lib Dems and Labour share common ground, namely Europe and the EU; Brown was clearly keen not to agree with Nick as heartily as he did last week. While accusing Cameron of being “anti-Europe” he was keen to label Clegg as “anti-American” on more than one occasion.

However the most heated exchange of the evening was arguably between Brown and Cameron on the subject of pensions. Cameron responded furiously to suggestions by Brown that there was “no mention of free prescriptions or eye tests” in his manifesto. He lambasted Brown for what he described as “lies” – with particular anger aimed at what he deemed to be slanderous Labour leaflets, leaflets that Brown denied authorising.

It was exchanges like this that led to the BBC reporting that “the gloves came off” and that at times it was a feisty affair. However, despite several jabs from all sides, in truth no knockout blows were landed.

More sparks may have flown this time around, but the debate is unlikely to have had anywhere near as big an impact as its predecessor. The relative equality of all three men’s performances, in addition to the significantly reduced viewing figures (this time around 4 million) – any substantial alterations to polls are unlikely.

Last week’s debate was undoubtedly a game changer, one that launched Nick Clegg to the forefront of the election and caused a veritable surge in Liberal polling. While this debate was not so much a game changer, it is evidence that in the wake of last week’s debate; the game may have already been changed.

Add Comment

You must log in to submit a comment.