Nick Clegg seizes his chance to turn the election into a three-horse race - The Times (Wantage and Didcot Liberal Democrats)

Wantage and Didcot Liberal Democrats <info@wantagelibdems.org.uk>

Nick Clegg seizes his chance to turn the election into a three-horse race - The Times

April 16, 2010 10:12 AM

The Liberal Democrats' Nick Clegg is widely held to have won the first Leaders' Debate by some margin

As reported today in its editorial column, The Times thinks: "The first television leaders' debate mattered and not just because it made history, as predicted, but because, in a quite unpredictable way, it changed the course of the coming weeks. Nick Clegg took his chance and changed a two-man competition into something that looks more like a three-horse race."

The newspaper continues: "The nature of television is that the screen is bigger than the speakers, and most people will have been more struck by what they saw than what they heard. The Liberal Democrat leader won on style, with a pitch for honesty, engaging anecdotes and a direct, sincere appeal to the camera. But he did not win on substance. The arguments he marshalled for the removal of Trident and unworkable innovations in the tax code are no more compelling because they are made on primetime television. His wildly exaggerated figures for the cost of Trident and ID cards made him look less than honest (as did Gordon Brown's claim that British Forces were the best equipped in British history).

"Television, of course, is a two-dimensional medium (even in high definition). But the debate was not as drained of drama as so many people had feared. Notwithstanding the set, which was an ugly multicoloured distraction apparently designed to offset the supposedly grey men standing on it, the argument was mainly substantial, and the politicians were animated, human and modern.

"This is a tight election and the character of the person who wishes to lead the country is a serious issue. As the three candidates gathered in Manchester, it seemed that it might be too much to expect philosophy of a high standard. But the different instincts and intentions of the three men contending for power should now be clearer and that is itself a small triumph for democracy.

"Personality matters, because a great deal of the job of prime minister is not in the brochure on Day 1. The unexpected and the unwanted crowd in almost every day, upsetting the best-laid plans. The character of the person in charge is a crucial political question. Personality should not be counterposed to the issues. Personality is an issue.

"This debate could matter a great deal. The opinion polls are moving. The debate is a good format for clarifying the competing visions of the men who wish to run the country. The sense that each candidate communicates about his instincts and dispositions will be as important as the fine print of his policy pitch.

"All three men came across as intelligent, as behoves the figures at the top of British politics. But Mr Brown's argument was essentially a narrow one of fear, that this is a crucial year for economic recovery and that Conservative plans could put that recovery at risk. He hammered home that message, but gave no sense of any bigger vision. Rather, he looked like a tired man, mouthing the same old lines.

"David Cameron gave a broader and more persuasive account of the need to cut waste, "cut the cost of politics" and to seize the opportunity presented by the deficit to put society on a new footing. He was heartfelt about the NHS and sent home the message that Labour's "jobs tax", the raising of national insurance, was a tax too far. He made a strong start, offered a powerful conclusion, but drifted in the middle. He was at his best when he made clear his determination to cut waste and stop the counterproductive tax on jobs.

"Mr Clegg took his chance. He used the biggest opportunity ever given to the third party in British politics to give a virtuoso performance. It was his night.

"But no man really touched on the big argument in this election, between a larger and smaller State. That fundamental difference in philosophies could and should have electrified this debate. It should be electrifying the country. It is not clear why it was not centre stage. It should be: it is the national debate."