Pre-polls verdict on second leaders’ debate: Brown least stylish but most substantial

Meanwhile: Iraq amazingly left out of Sky News debate.

By James Macintyre Published 22 April 2010 22:35

All three leaders in tonight's second 2010 general election debate on Sky News peformed strongly. That's the boring truth.

But to be fair, if you take a step back, Gordon Brown was the most substantial. Despite looking sharper with a new haircut, the Prime Minister said right from the start, in his surprisingly powerful opening statement, that if this election is to be about style then "count me out".

And he certainly lived up to the point, being the one leader, through no fault of his own, who thanks to blindness in one eye could not look directly into the camera, while some of his clearly preprepared lines simply didn't work.

One example was when he tried to emulate Nick Clegg's disassociation from the other two party leaders last week by saying that the Tory and Lib Dem leaders reminded him of "my two boys squabbling at bathtime" as they called for referendums on Europe.

Europe, indeed, started the show. Though Clegg and David Cameron played populist cards calling for referendums, albeit for very different reasons, Brown -- for once in his life -- sounded the most unashamedly and constructively pro-European politician in town, pointing out that jobs would be under threat with the kind of isolation that would be ushered in by Cameron's withdrawal from mainstream EU politics, about which, to the surprise of some, the Tory leader was not asked.

Likewise, on Afghanistan, the two opposition leaders tried to gang up on the Prime Minister over resources -- Clegg attempting to steal some of Cameron's clothes -- but Brown came across as the man of experience in the job and having to take the tough decisions. Brown appeared to score a perceived hit when he told Clegg to "get real". Even Cameron agreed.

There was then an interesting exchange about the Pope's impending visit, about which -- to be fair -- David Cameron was clearest and most impressive. He said that he welcomes the visit but disagrees with a number of elements of the Pope's agenda.

Overall, Brown tried to present Cameron as "anti-European" and Clegg as "anti-American". That didn't quite work, either, but voters may appreciate his pragmatic, apparently non-ideological approach.

*** Amazingly, Iraq did not come up. Why? See below.

When the debate moved on to domestic policy, Cameron was more aminated and deployed mock-anger, but Brown again came across as more substantial if more rugged and less slick. Cameron and Brown both tried to deliver knockout blows, but they failed.

Yet again immigration was brought up, and yet again Clegg disappointingly failed to make a positive case for it. Brown sought to trump Clegg by attacking his proposed amnesty on immigration, making out that one day all skills will come from within Britain. Unusually, Cameron was the only leader who was able to articulate something positive on the subject. Alas, his policy is the harshest: a cap. Brown came back in to boast about ID cards, ending another orgy of right-wingery.

On the final statements: Brown seemed strong, again, if not stylish, as he said that "the buck stops here" on Afghanistan and elsewhere. He was pretty strong in portraying Cameron as a "risk". Both Cameron and Clegg claimed that their opponents were spreading "fear", making out they were the "change" candidates. We'll see.

Conclusion:

Cameron and Clegg have clearly decided that Brown is a toxic brand, as they refused to address him on first-name terms, unlike the Prime Minister with the others. But there is a chance they were wrong.

Brown came across as strongest on detail, most energetically concerned about the country's fortunes and most engaged on the substance. Clegg survived intact as a good performer -- he is very much in the game. Cameron was very considerably better than last week, but did he produce a sensational, game-changing performance? No.

*** Staggeringly, given that this was, primarily, the foreign affairs debate, Iraq was not raised. I am still reeling from this, because I have great respect for Sky News, which I regard as sharper than its rivals, mature and mercifully free of influence from its iniquitous owner, Rupert Murdoch. Tonight, however, I wonder -- against my instincts -- whether the big man did in fact make a call.

Tags: Election 2010 TV Debates Election 2010

More from James Macintyre

34 comments

Fri, 2010-04-23 13:17 — beak

I thought you referring to my last post not the first. Get with it lad. Would be nice if he took the pink tinted glasses off though. Brown did better but was still third in anyone's book, bar people on here.

Fri, 2010-04-23 14:17 — SAHA (not verified)

I've watched both debates so far. Last week it was clear but last night I didn't come away any the wiser as to who was better. Albeit the first debate was disasterous for Brown, he did have facts, and again last night, he made up what he lacked in charisma through facts. In the first debate I felt Cameron looked petrified, yesterday he just looked scared - but he did take the fight to Brown well over the leaflets. At that point he seemed to rid himself of his inhibitions and showed some passion, unfortunately he returned to where he was previously as soon as that point was dealt with. Last week's clear winner was Clegg, mainly in my opinion because no one knew what to expect from him and thought he would be timid and quiet, where as he took advantage of the other two's nervousness and punched well above his weight. Yesterday he went out for a fight and was pretty aggressive, but I feel he'd have caned this debate if he'd had some policy, I consistently got the feeling that he was taking on the others on their policies without elaborating on what he was going to do. Just add a little bit more into this debate, in my opinion, (not that I'm a fan of the guy) but had Tony Blair been on the stage instead of Gordon Brown, I think Labour would have had all these debates sown up by now.

Mon, 2010-04-26 23:35 — Keith Mansfield (not verified)

Couldn't agree more. The most important, controversial foreign policy (mis)adventure for decades and total silence. Must have been Murdoch. However, Clegg should have steered the debate that way anyway and could have discussed it in his closing statement. An open goal missed, having been put off by the commentator?

Sat, 2010-04-24 07:42 — Reginald-Fah-fah

Bloody marvellous! the Great English Gentleman David Cameron won Thursday's leader's debate, it was like bring back fox hunting with a group of dogs.

Hong Kong!, the desperate Gordon Brown was trying to frighten the 'yellow belly voters' to vote for Labour. Yellow bellies get voting! Gordon Brown's little joke: "Them two remind me of my two children fighting over bathtime." He also knew the different between a woman and a man.!

Bang on! Nick Clegg done the leg work again but no one really understands what he stands for. One has to question himself whether he understands what he stands for?

Thu, 2010-04-22 22:39 — beak

"But to be fair, if you take a step back Gordon Brown was the most substantial."

Hahahaha! Please try being impartial for once.

He was the worst once again by a country mile.

Thu, 2010-04-22 22:56 — Alex (not verified)

Shut up beak, it's obvious that Gordon Brown is clearly the most experienced and informed politician. Clegg owns the two of the them though. Cameron's a grade A tosspot.

Thu, 2010-04-22 22:58 — Bruadair (not verified)

'Beak' you must have been watching a diiferent show. It doesn't matter he your allegiances lay with before the debate - Brown came out as the experinced man with more clear, though-out statements of intent. I, for the record, however, am still undecided about my vote...

Thu, 2010-04-22 22:58 — Adam Hill (not verified)

Cameron was the most expressive and clear?
He sounded like a frightened little boy about to be asked about missing biscuits in his fear that he'd have to confront his terrible stance on gay rights.

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:03 — Nick9

There is no getting away from it, like him or not, Gordon Brown is the voice of experience and spoke of substance. We're not after a performer, we want to keep on track and steer out of recession. The Tories just don't do their sums on where they are going to find the money to provide all they promise. The liberals are okay on many things but a lot of it is just idealistic, I'm going with Labour and keeping my job!

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:18 — beak

Alex, are you trying to convince yourself?

Keep trying!

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:19 — maczar

I like Gordon Brown. He is the obvious choice to be Prime Minister (again).

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:20 — beak

When will Brown stop talking about taking money out of the economy. Taxes take it out of the real economy!

Brown was last. Get over it.

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:25 — Dylan Wilby (not verified)

Cameron was once again, for me, left as the candidate who had no substance, and again simply espoused party-aproved slogans as opposed to actual policies. Nick Clegg did a good job to rectify this, but Gordon Brown was the clearn winner. He spoke with the authority and assurance of a man with experience, and managed to effectively refute the other two in key policy areas.

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:41 — davidk1

beak - you're trying too hard. Cameron flopped again. Your boy worked in PR?

Oh dear.

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:55 — beak

I don't have to try, he was last. Dress it up all you like but he lost. Again.

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:57 — Silent Hunter

It's frankly laughable to suggest that Gordon Brown was anything other than the same old, Tractor Production figures spouting Gordon Brown that we have all come to know & loathe.

Cameron did a lot better this time round especially when he wrong footed Brown on pensioners bus travel - that took the wind out of Gordons sails alright.

But I still think Nick Clegg showed himself to be more than capable, as a potential leader of this country - I think the MSM and the 'ruling classes' are rather concerned that Nick Clegg, far too clearly represents the views of those pesky people - the electorate - and threatens to give them their democracy back.

That would never do now would it? To get rid of "Safe Seats for MP's" and actually make ALL the votes count.

Where would the bankers and their friends be then?

Thu, 2010-04-22 23:59 — David (not verified)

Gordon Brown has a firmer grasp of the realities of the issues facing our country than either of the other leaders. All Cameron promises is 'change'and that can mean anything including 'worse'. We are heading for difficult economic times and to have a leader with a sound understanding of the economy is vital. That man, like him or not, is Gordon Brown.

Fri, 2010-04-23 00:09 — Clare (not verified)

Brown made a strong point in the opening of the debate by highlighting the need for substance over style. His experience, knowledge and realistic plans for the economy and the country in general were evident.

Fri, 2010-04-23 00:15 — beak

Knowlede of the economy? Yeah he has ruined it. Experience is no good if you never learn from your mistakes.

Fri, 2010-04-23 00:47 — dbrennan (not verified)

beak - you've made your point - let other people make theirs

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:00 — Muyis (not verified)

Not yet decided which party to vote for, but I think Gordon Brown sounded more like he knew what he was talking about than the other two.

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:28 — Raoul Duke

I didn't appreciate Brown's petty and misleading repetition that Clegg is 'anti-America' - what's that about?

Disappointing debate overall. Too little time to Foreign Policy, which is what we were told the debate was to be about. Thus no talk on Iraq as you say, and almost nothing on diplomacy - I can't believe Cameron seems to have got away with essentially threatening China with nuclear attack last week.

Why MORE questions on immigration? Cameron, to his credit, said he looks forward to a time when it's no longer a political issue. The only reason it ever has been is down to the right-wing media, and I suppose it's no real surprise that Sky managed to make room for the question yet again at expense of more pressing issues.

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:30 — Raoul Duke

Not a word mentioned about Israel/Palestine either.

Fri, 2010-04-23 01:31 — Redmeat (not verified)

'Staggeringly, given that this was, primarily, the foreign affairs debate, Iraq was not raised. I am still reeling from this, because I have great respect from Sky News, which I regard as sharper than its rivals, mature and mercifully free of influence from its iniquitous owner, Rupert Murdoch. Tonight however, I wonder -- against my instincts -- whether the big man did in fact make a call'

Are you seriopus Macintyre!? Et tu Mehdi? Are you both on old Roopsies payroll? Do yourself a favour and watch this.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6737097743434902428&ei=uNvQS6A...
Murdoch is a political extremist and a control freak. Otherwise how do you explain how his journalistic outlets in the US/Aus/UK sing from (almost) exactly the same song sheet? It's only toned down in the Times and Sky news because Middle England won't tollerate neo-conservative, racist, homophobic warmongering in such a blatant format.

Fri, 2010-04-23 02:05 — G (not verified)

Brown = finished ... too little too late & lots of empty promises. Brain drain is increasing & having been abroad for 9 years & had to return I see many changes for the worse. The recovery is happening now, no thanks to B as he as Chancellor has blown the surplus he inherited & given us the worst deficit ever.
Cameron looking credible, but I think the new boy looks better for now ... bring on round 3 ... hopefully with a few more fireworks as all 3 have their final say ...
WHY NO IRAQ Qs

Fri, 2010-04-23 03:54 — Daniel Farraday (not verified)

I think Brown put in an understated performance. Clegg is a better performer but his policies seem very wishy washy. As for the tories, they are scrambling at the moment. Changing a part of your manifesto live on air? Moreover the 'frightening the British people' accusation from Cameron is hypocritical to say the least.

Fri, 2010-04-23 08:21 — beak

Well thanks dbrennan i will take note!

Medhi - have you stopped and thought why there was concensus on immigration? Finally each leader has realised that this is a major issue for voters on both the left and right. For too long they have listened to commentators like you shouting they are lurching to the right.

Surely it is right that people's views are heard and the leaders respond to them. The last 13 years has seen utter chaos and it needs resolving by who ever wins the election.

By sweeping it under the carpet, like you and james like to, you only encourage the people into the arms of the BNP.

It is not about race, it is about numbers and poll after poll shows people want limits.

Fri, 2010-04-23 11:27 — beak

Who said he should be impartial you clown?

The point i was making is that immigration is an issue for many people and he is very out of touch if he thinks the status quo is fine.

He can so what he wants but I am afraid it is a minority view. At last we can have an open honest discussion about it without some idiot crying racism.