Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Spotlight
  2. Elections
15 April 2010

TV debates: the Tories have most to lose

Public will expect Cameron to thrive, and Brown to falter.

By James Macintyre

The more you think about David Cameron’s surprising intervention over the format of tonight’s televised debate, the more you wonder whether there are real nerves in the Tory camp.

Cameron has probably enjoyed the most positive media of any senior British politician in modern times. The public, such as it knows about him at all, must see a slick, smooth, articulate leader who can speak without notes.

Brown, meanwhile, is portrayed as a “bully”, as a “gruff”, “dour” Scot, as “tired”, “boring” and so on.

So how could anyone think that Brown has more to lose than Cameron in the hour-and-a-half-long spectacle this evening?

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A weekly dig into the New Statesman’s archive of over 100 years of stellar and influential journalism, sent each Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.
I consent to New Statesman Media Group collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with the Privacy Policy

Well, among others, Polly Toynbee, as it happens. Personally, I have the utmost respect for Polly. She is unusually substantial in her writing and principled in her values. But I have to differ with her on the warning she has just posted about Brown’s supposedly impending “car crash moment”.

She begins by wondering — given that even Tony Blair didn’t face William Hague or Michael Howard in an equivalent event — why on earth Brown agreed to the debates at all. She nods to the fact that it is assumed that underdogs have more to gain, but then rebuts this by saying that several bookies have said they have not had a single bet on Brown coming out on top [note to self: get to a bookmaker’s before 20.30].

Polly goes on:

Labour is doing unexpectedly [not unexpectedly to all of us] better in this election because they are concentrating on the policy differences — and it’s working quite well. People do doubt whose side the same old Tories are on. “We’re all in this together” only reminds us that they are not. So why on earth did Gordon Brown agree to turn this into a presidential duel? We in the media love it. Labour may live to regret it.

So there we have it: expectations are very low indeed for Brown. Even those in the Prime Minister’s camp admit private worries, as Mehdi and I reported this week.

But given that Brown has so much less to lose than both other men (I won’t make the universally made point about this being the stuff of dreams for Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats, except to point you to Andrew Grice’s excellent piece in the Independent today about how the debates usher in three party politics), is it possible that the Tory nerves are more justified than those on the Labour side?

After all, there is a chance, if he breaks up the format and turns, literally, to face Cameron and the supposed changes in the Tory party, and if Cameron falters as he very occasionally does during live TV, that Brown might come out of it intact.

Whisper it softly.

Follow the NS and friends during tonight’s debate here.