The verdict
So, what to make of that one? Well, if it wasn't a three-horse race before, it probably is now. Brown did a lot better, and so did Cameron, but neither of them completely battered Clegg in my mind: which will probably please Brown more than it will Cameron, because in terms of seats, he has the headstart.
In terms of who won: Brown 34%, Clegg 33%, Cameron 32%. That really is how tight it's getting. The sad thing for Cameron is: if we'd had an election in 2009, he'd have won comfortably. Now, his policies are similar, his team are the same, but the public seem to want a hung parliament, even though no-one was talking about it a year ago.
Which begs the question: will it be back to the 80's, back to the 70's, or into the unknown?
Hell hath no fury like a small party scorned
I watched the debate on BBC2, well after all the hype had died down: this media frenzy threatens to overwhelm me, as I'm sure it does for a lot of people. Having all sorts of media effectively screaming at you on a day-to-day basis for a month gets very tiring very quickly.
Thankfully, such headaches can be avoided with the local press: but not with Laura Kuenssberg, who unfortunately had a very bad time of it when getting a reaction from across the board: savaged by Angus Roberston (SNP) and Helen Mary Jones (Plaid Cymru), who argued that the BBC is "no longer the national broadcaster for Wales". Ouch!
The SNP and Plaid Cymru are fuming about not being allowed to take part in the leaders' debates, by the way. It's a controversial issue, but it seems to me that devolution has set us on the road to a break-up of the United Kingdom. Which might be a good thing: who knows until it's tried?
Some people will say no-one really wants it, but I think people living in England, myself included, underestimate the discontent with the establishment in other parts of the UK: either we include Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in all our debates, or we let them have their own country back properly, rather than this half-way devolution that is starting to annoy people on all sides. Having it both ways works temporarily, but it will only buy you so much time.
Heading back to the TV coverage, and poor old Laura then went on to interview George Osborne and Alastair Campbell, spindoctor extraordinaire, but contrived to call the latter "Alastair Darling". Oh dear. How you mistake anyone else for a man whose eyebrows do not match his hair I do not know. So not a good night for the BBC.
A Victory for Cleggmania?
What last night's debate in Bristol did was, I thought, extremely important: it showed that Clegg is not to be treated like an idol. He's good, but he's not great.
I am sorry to all those who say, "But Chris, you're a Liberal conservative: surely you like Nick Clegg! Don't you think the Lib Dems can win?" Well, it would certainly shake things up a bit, yes: Labour and the Conservatives know that too, that's why they're worried. But I have never been fully convinced by the man: he's had three years in which to persuade me, and so far, he hasn't quite done it, though it's not for lack of trying.
You see, it's Vince Cable who I relate to, not Clegg: in the same way that I'm open to anything that involves vampires, but Dracula reads better than Twilight for me. And yes, I've read Twilight: "So like, my name's Bella, and that means that this town's really boring, and everyone's the same, but this Cullen guy's different. He's mysterious. He's... a friggin' vampire. However, he is hot, he ignores me at first, and no-one else wants to date him. Shotgun undead boyfriend!" (Are you sure that's how it goes? - Ed)
Anyhoo, Cable has the measure of his opponents, knows who his allies are, and has the advantage of making the call on the banks long before anyone else did. If I do vote Lib Dem, it won't be because of Cleggmania, it'll be because I think Cable is a damn sight straighter than Osborne.
Why Brown is down: but not quite out
Clegg's got some good ideas in places - I want to see proportional representation become a reality in Britain - but as I watched the debate last night, I thought Brown had him on how to handle America. This is because Brown is a better statesman than many would like to admit. Domestically, I'll grant you, he's messed up a lot. Far too quick to take credit, far too slow to admit fault.
But the world as a whole, including America, respects him at the moment, and he's earned that respect without being like Blair was with Bush: which is just as well, as Brown does not make a very good poodle, looking much more like a bulldog. But to be serious, being able to work with both Europe and America is a very, very difficult task that at the moment, Brown is just about handling. And to say that Brown is completely useless is unfair: no politician should be underestimated.
At the risk of making this blog sounds like a running commentary on Life on Mars, the man from Fife is very much like former PM Harold Wilson was in the 70's: in theory, a spent force, but somehow still retaining the ability to stay in the mix. He is shrewder than he appears, and it would be dangerous to underestimate him: I underestimated him myself! I thought he would be gone before now. But he's not, and that is impressive for a man who hasn't got a mandate.
Call me Heath?
But let's move on to the man who could be our next Prime Minister: David Cameron, because I've decided once and for all that he is not Thatcherite. Instead, the more I listen to him, the more he becomes a latter-day Edward Heath (above): and that's not necessarily an insult.
As most level-headed Conservatives will tell you, Cameron has policies that can be compared to Thatcherism: so will any Conservative leader that fails to win three elections in a row. But he's more willing to compromise; he tries to use PR, but it doesn't always work; and he'd try to work with people in a Hung Parliament, but he'd prefer not to. Very much like Heath.
What's more, David Cameron, like Heath, will get cut to pieces if he loses, despite having huge potential. Why? Because he doesn't sell himself well. If you try and brand yourself as different, and people say you're the same thing, then something's being lost in translation: mainly because of his party's ad campaign. As one of my friends who supports Cameron said to me on Tuesday, "My word, whoever designed those posters should be shot!" He might have a point, on this evidence.
Of course, when Heath was PM in the 1970's, the world was quite different. You didn't have the internet or mobile phones then, and you most certainly didn't have Twitter or Facebook. If Heath was PM today, he would probably treat such sites with the utmost suspicion, as indeed does Cameron.
If Heath was suspicious about new technology, the public were equally suspicious about his chances as PM. Heath had five years in Opposition - from 1965 to 1970 - but didn't really make much ground against Wilson, despite a massive devaluation in the value of the pound. When he did win in the 1970 election, it was a surprise. But sadly, even with a decent majority, Heath struggled. Elements of his own party didn't like his tendency to "U-turn", and thought he should be tougher. His opponents thought he was being too tough on the unions. Like Cameron, Heath found himself damned if he did, and damned if he didn't: perhaps unfairly.
So, in February 1974, with the miners wreaking considerable havoc, and a three-day week making Britain look weak and divided, Heath snapped, and called an election. He won the most votes, but had four fewer seats than Labour: proof, if proof were needed, that our first-past-the-post system can create chaos just as much as it can prevent it.
Heath did not have the benefits of modern technology, nor of security: Downing Street was not closed to the public in those days. He tried desperately to arrange a deal, but the public would not have it. An angry mob outside No. 10 repeatedly yelled "HEATH OUT", believing that no PM could be more right-wing than he was. In 1979, of course, they were proved wrong.
Good Ideas, Difficult Times
And so it may be the same in 2010. Like Heath, Cameron has some good ideas: Britain does need more efficiency, and the idea of a big society could be good for Britain. But time controls events in a way we cannot, and Cameron is now in danger of missing the boat. He would have got the result he wanted in 2009: but the people did not clamour for Brown to go then, and Cameron, unlike Thatcher, has not quite captured the mood of his country.
One is inclined to sympathise with him slightly: he very nearly had it. He might still have it yet. But like Heath in '74, the result he dreads looks likely, and he will not have an easy time of it even if he does get his priceless majority.
I believe the public want a positive result, and that the public wants our MPs to be more open with us. If that's the case, then they need to be more open to the idea of working together, and working with smaller parties, like Plaid Cymru and the SNP, as well as parties in Northern Ireland.
Because otherwise, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will do what some of us are saying to Europe: Stop trying to tell us what to do.
This United Kingdom just got a whole lot more divided. Whoever gets in, they've got one hell of a fight on their hands.
Make that two fights.
Chris
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment