Yes, it was original, yes, it was interesting, but did it tell me anything new? Absolutely not. The UK’s very first leaders’ TV debate was, for me at least, something of a flop and I cannot understand the great enthusiasm it seems to have generated, particularly in favour of Nick Clegg. If the debate served to generate greater interest in politics, then I’m all for it, but if people actually base their voting intentions on it, then I am seriously concerned.

It all came across rather predictably. Nick Clegg had most to gain, being the unknown quantity, and he did gain, quite considerably if today’s polls are anything to go by. David Cameron had the most to lose, being the clear frontrunner in the election campaign so far, and he fell well short of what might have been expected of him. And Gordon Brown is already damned in most people eyes and did little to enhance or worsen his reputation. Brown going for Cameron at every opportunity with cheap jibes about Lord Ashcroft, Cameron backing off answering simple questions on the economy, Clegg distancing himself from both the Tories and Labour whilst saying very little about what he could offer in return - nothing was a surprise.

What worries me most is that the 10 million or so viewers of the debate have spent last night and this morning arguing over who “won” - was it Clegg? was it Cameron? was it Brown? The answer is none of them - the debate wasn’t there to be won; it was there to inform. It should be of serious concern to anyone in this country that 90 minutes of opportunism and partisan rhetoric have been enough to propel Nick Clegg into the hearts of the electorate. If you agree with his policies, then fair enough, but I would seriously question how many of Nick Clegg’s new fans are actually aware of what he stands for, other than that he’s not David Cameron or Gordon Brown - a line that Clegg pushed very well throughout the debate.

At this point, I offer something of a political reality check for all three parties and their supporters, along with some potential solutions.

1. We do not have an American style system of directly electing the leader of our country, who picks his ministerial team and largely directs policy. Whatever Brown, Cameron and Clegg’s individual positives and negatives, we elect their parties and our local representatives, not them. Less focus on the leader and the leader’s wife, and more on the polices of their respective parties would be much appreciated.

2. Nick Clegg is a politician, just like Brown and Cameron. Last night, Clegg had the easiest job in the world as no one really knew much about him, and he was able to distance himself from the Cameron vs. Brown squabbling match. You or I could have stood up there and achieved largely the same result. The Lib Dems have policies just like Labour and the Tories and cannot purport to represent “new politics” itself, even if they have new policies. Under scrutiny, many of them collapse under lack of proper costing or just being out of touch with political reality - something which Cameron and Brown are far more able to grasp.

3. A hung parliament would not be a good thing for this country. I am sick of hearing people saying that they want an election result that gives no party overall control. They seem not to realise exactly what a hung parliament is. Whatever the other merits or drawbacks of our electoral system, its big positive is that it tends to elect strong governments and thus we have fortunately managed to avoid too many cases in which one party had no overall majority. In a hung parliament, virtually nothing gets done, anything that is passed is a weak compromise, and we end up with another election within the year. I’d take government by one party (even if it were one I don’t support) over what is effectively no real government at all.

4. There will have to be large-scale public spending cuts. It may be electoral suicide to admit it, but Brown, Cameron and Clegg all know what a dire state our public finances are in. Brown is trying to convince people that we can carry on spending for years to come but won’t say where any cuts will fall, Cameron has gone further and highlighted what won’t be cut but must leave it to mere implication as to what will be, and Clegg has outlined a number of specific projects (e.g. Trident) that he would cut by has shied away from admitting to the cuts that will be needed across government budgets. We’re in for a rough ride, whoever wins, so they should all start admitting it now.

So, next week as the trio line up for TV debate number two, please don’t fall for the way that Nick Clegg gazes lovingly down the camera, or the way that David Cameron recalls all the exciting people he’s met on the campaign trail, or the way that Gordon Brown blurts out an overly rehearsed dig at the Tories. Look at it in an intensely political way - hear their policies, make your judgement - it’s that simple. If you come out of next week’s debate remembering Brown’s smile, Cameron’s forehead and Clegg’s opportunism then you haven’t listened hard enough.

Filed under: davidcameron, democracy, gordonbrown, nickclegg, ukpolitics on April 16th, 2010