The third general election leaders’ debate ended in anti-climax tonight with a BBC format which — after the economy was out of the way — never strayed from domestic issues that are right-wing talking points.
Presumably because of the BBC’s obsession with not being seen as left-wing, there was the usual right-wing orgy on immigration after a question from the right by a token black person. There was a question on housing and house prices from a wealthy accountant. And there was a question from the right on welfare. Foreign affairs did not get a look-in.
Nick Clegg had the best and most inspiring opening statement. Gordon Brown — to the surprise of some — made only the briefest reference to yesterday’s events. David Cameron was OK, though he improved — on style if not substance — as the economy debate kicked off.
Clegg did well to portray the “two old parties” repeatedly as less honest about the Budget deficit, which he claims he has costed better. But Brown, to be fair, emerged much stronger as the debate went on, finally going hard on inheritance-tax cuts. Five times he hammered Cameron on the “unfair” policy of cutting tax for the richest 3,000 estates.
Clegg’s was the best of the final statements. After again dismissing “these old parties”, he made a powerful direct appeal: “Trust your instincts . . . This is your election. This is your country.”
Intriguingly, Cameron made it clear that the family is the issue with which he can most clearly define himself, listing it at the top of his “values”. His final appeal, as ever, was more stylish than substantial.
Brown, if we are honest, was solid, especially given the circumstances, but not electrifying. He appeared to do his best. Yet it may not have been the performance he needed. Surprisingly to some, Brown almost exclusively “went negative” in his final statement, adding to the (perhaps unfair) impression that he has a more desperate message to convey.
It is a shame, some Labour activists must believe, that Brown didn’t have more to say about his vision for an exciting, progressive fourth term.
The problem all along with these televised debates has been the difference between how the candidates do on style and how they perform on substance. Brown certainly didn’t win on the former; he may have won on the latter. Yet it may be too little, too late.
It could have been worse. But it certainly could have been better.
Content from our partners
Related
