Election Fever #6

The opinion polls are saying that David Cameron won the final leadership debate. Who the hell have they been polling? My thoughts below:

DIMBLEBY: At last, a proper host for these debates. The difference in production quality between this debate and the previous debates was immense. Good old BBC, let's hope the Tories don't damage you too much. However, Dimbleby's opening question ("who do you want to be prime minister?") is a misnomer. Most of us don't get to choose the prime minister, we only get to choose our local MP. These debates show just how far we've drifted towards a presidential style of government.

CAMERON: My god, what a fuckwit. He starts out by saying he would NEVER consider joining the Euro, which is somewhat short-sighted, since we don't know what will happen to the British and EU economies in ten years time. Once again, he dwelled on the National Insurance rise whilst simultaneously admitting he would be making cuts left, right and centre (and not just "waste"). When Brown said that nobody paid under £20,000 a year would be affected, Cameron responded that people who earn over £20,000 a year shouldn't be considered "rich." They are in my book. Cameron completely failed to justify his plans to cut inheritance tax (which only applies to those getting over £260,000) and continually evaded Brown's questions. His attempts to attack the prospective Liberal Democrat amnesty for illegal immigrants were pathetic and cynical and his attempts to demonise the unemployed, teenagers and all civil servants were ridiculous.

CLEGG: Continued to be strong in the final debate. He was a bit uncomfortable when Cameron brought up the manifesto proposal for the amnesty for illegal immigrants, but eventually owned up to it and acquitted himself well in justifying it. His attempts to endear himself by putting Cameron and Brown in the same boat were embarassing, but that sort of thing tends to impress voters unfortunately. I have to admit, I would probably benefit greatly from the proposed rise in the tax allowance, but where is it coming from? Strong on housing, education and banker bonuses. Not so strong on unemployment - it's not just about giving people incentives to work, you also have to give them jobs that are worth doing. My main issue with Clegg is still the fact that he can't win and he's trying to deceive people into believing otherwise.

BROWN: Still has more substance than the other two, but these debates didn't do him any favours. He was forced onto the defensive, having to continually attack Cameron and Clegg's proposals rather than big up his own ideas. He did point out his own successes, but his biggest disadvantage is the fact that he's had 13 years in government (although it seems reasonable to point out that he has only been PM for the last couple). Problems - won't put global levy on banks until there is international agreements, didn't seem as hard on banker bonuses as Clegg and Cameron, failure to take a stand on immigration. Still made some great points about the Conservative policies though.

All in all, Clegg is the biggest winner from these debates. It may be that he can ride this momentum to force us into a hung parliament, but there is still no chance of him winning the election. People underestimate the difficulty of the Lib Dems winning even a few more seats under the current voting system, which is part of why we need electoral reform. The first past the post system rewards parties that have solid geographic centres of support, rather than a high level of support spread around the country.

The downside of these debates is that we are now more likely to find ourselves voting on issues such as personality and who is best at playing the game. Whereas the man who has the best chance of sorting out this mess comes across as defensive, elitist and tired.