Lib Dem ‘victory’ after TV debate
Friday 16th April 2010, 11:29AM BST.
Can’t see video? Update Adobe Flash Player
Video may take a moment to load.
Westminster Correspondent John Hipwood gives his verdict on the first ever television debate between the party leaders
No blood on the studio floor, no one dead, but a young man came alive. Nick Clegg introduced himself to the nation, and he probably surprised a few people in the nation’s living rooms last night.
If a photograph of the Liberal Democrat leader had been shown to people in the street before the first ever televised debate of its kind in this country, it’s doubtful whether too many would have correctly named Mr Clegg.
Vince Cable has been the best known face of the Lib Dems, but not any more. Cleggie has arrived.
It was, perhaps, easier for the new kid on the block. He had less to lose, and he was able to look across at David Cameron and Gordon Brown and talk about “You
Two”, emphasising that it’s his aim to crack the 65-year-old duopoly between the two big parties.
When Brown and Cameron started squabbling at one point, he remarked: “The more they attack each other, the more they sound the same.”
Mr Cameron had the most to lose. His party is the one that’s ahead in the opinion polls so any serious gaffe on his part could have resulted in a wobble in his lead.
Bracketing Iran and China together as potential nuclear threats during the discussion about Trident was a slip, but it won’t bury him.
Gordon Brown was Gordon Brown. He doesn’t communicate well. Unlike the other two, he didn’t address the questioners directly or by name, and he spent too much time attacking his Tory opponent, who chose to ignore the jibes.
The Prime Minister delivered the most obviously rehearsed “joke” when he told Mr Cameron: “You cannot airbrush your policies even if you airbrush your posters.”
This was a reference to that shiny picture of the Conservative leader which, judging by the ultra-shiny complexion we saw last night, wasn’t airbrushed at all.
While the Labour leader repeatedly confronted the man most likely to take his job, he went out of his way to say how much he agreed with Mr Clegg.
He might, after all, need to cosy up to the Lib Dems to stay in Downing Street if there is an inconclusive result on May 6. This clearly irritated Cleggie at times, who laughed ironically at one point when he had accused both the big parties of blocking political reform, and the PM’s response was: “I agree with Nick.”
When the trio were discussing immigration, one of the people Mr Brown had been talking to was a chef. Was anybody watching worried about the number of Raymond Blancs entering the country?
So it was Round One to Cleggie. But he will do well to maintain the high standard he has set. Dave was trying to be prime ministerial, but must loosen up a bit in Round Two. Gordon has work to do and might already be regretting being the first PM to agree to such debates.
And finally, a word about the fourth man under the spotlight, Alastair Stewart, who looked as nervous as the other three at the start. He was firm and did his best to let the debate break free from the stifling rules imposed by the party negotiators.
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
really? i thought brown won, he was dominant, almost bullying the other pair
Report abuse
Mr Clegg had some interesting things to say.
However it’s hardly surprising that he came across so well. There are two reasons for this:
Firstly, the general level of antagonism towards the two main parties.
Secondly, and mostly, because it’s always the case that Lib Dems can say what people want to hear without ever having to worry about a) ever being put in a position to deliver what they say, or b) being held accountable when they can’t.
Report abuse
Very interesting debate, thought all did well, especially Nick Clegg, still not sure who i trust though?
Report abuse
i think both brown and clegg did well but dc looked ‘shifty’ and suprisingly he didnt seem to connect with the camera
Report abuse
Mr Brown said ” you want to cut £6bn out of the budget” Mr Cameron said ” now you are just picking figures out of thin air and thats not true”
next question on the nhs… Mr Cameron said ” we will cut £6bn out of the economy”
Sorry but David Cameron totally contradicted himself and made a silly mistake. Mr Cameron i thought looked false and definately came across as the man you can’t trust and would want to run this country.
I was going to vote Labour again, bu the Lib Dems have changed my mind.
Report abuse
An interesting comment on Newsnight that followed ‘the debate’ was made by critic AA Gill who said something along the lines of:
If you were stupid enough to be persuaded by such a TV debate then you should have your vote taken away.
It’s come to something when the future of the country may now come down to how well someone can present themselves on TV. It somehow reminds me of the 1970′s satirical Peter Cook film ‘The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer’.
Report abuse
Hardly a debate!
The only thing it did for me was to focus what an awful mess we are in.
So much tax and waste.
No more Nu Labour please.
Report abuse
This is yet another article today that seems to be a little biased to say the least.
Shouldn’t there be a glimmer of neutrality in reporting ?
In my humble opinion Mr Clegg can’t be considered a winner, there are to many unclear points in most of his comments. he also repeated the same thing several times.
As for Mr. Brown his clunking fist and ignorant interrupting the statements of his opponents was only to be expected from this calibre of person.
Mr. Cameron was as most expect, not forceful enough in his dialogue.
Report abuse
Peter, for once I can totally agree with every word that you have to say on this issue. I regarded this whole exercise as a farce from beginning to end (in fact I turned over before the end).
Apart from his hang-dog expression, Brown came across as a Prime Minister, a bit crusty but dignified and authorative. Cameron was a disappointment in no small order and Clegg came across as a smooth, eager youngster, mixing with the big boys for the first time and who tried to score by slating the other two, knowing that his policies (the few that he mentioned) would not have to be challenged or put into practice. To date, the media and opposition politicians have treated Clegg and the Lib Dems rightly as a joke, but Clegg showed that he really wished to be taken seriously albeit his policies are laughable.
Clegg now has to explain his parties manifesto to the letter which he patently won’t be able to do. Now it get’s serious and the political reporters/interviewers etc are going to want answers from Clegg just as they put Brown and Cameron under the spotlight. The only thing that I will agree with with Nigel Farage (UKIP)is his statement on Questiontime that the Lib Dems are the new “Ban the Bomb” brigade weirdos and will now have to explain their “way-out” policies in detail. Another one being an amnesty and British citizenship for illegal immigrants who have escaped detection for 10 years and another, his wish for a “United States of Europe” and to take up the Euro. See how many sensible people like these things.
There are a number of interesting points on this stream and they restore my faith to some extent in the political process, we are not all daft and taken in by such a ridiculous charade. Do we base our vote on what we were presented with last night (and two more to come which I won’t watch). There seems only one here who would alter their voting intentions because of what they saw.
Darren, I can understand anyone voting for Labour but for anyone to switch from them to Lib Dem on the strength of what we saw and heard from Clegg last night, goodness me. I suggest that you look closer at the Lib Dem manifesto – it’s like something written by the Bowery Boys.
Report abuse
Well last night was a bit of a surprise, the Tabloids were amusing at best today the sun had people in fits of laughter more than usual .Clegg did come out good but lets face it his party is not a threat. Brown had all the answers like it or not, Brown even had all the Tory policies and had improved on most of them . David I think let us down a little , not forceful enough, complained he hadn’t finished yet?, it was all a little bit of a disaster really.
However people do not vote for a party on if they like its leader or on a show like this I credit people with more sense.
What people will vote for is policies and labour have lots of them and most of the Tories policies too. The issue is will labour get in with a majority yes they will like it or not do people trust Brown on the economy yes they do . The big thing is have old Tory become new Tory ?? anyone over 40 will be wondering this and that will make them put a cross in the labour box . All leaders spoke about home carers but not one said they would reward them with more money for doing the job because that is what it is and it saves the country millions .
Was it not M Thatcher who said OAP can work on as it will help those on state pensions etc , was it not the Tories who use to give £10 winter fuel payment, was it not Tories who said 4 million on the dole was a price worth paying??, wasn’t it M thatcher who said nurses shouldn’t strike as their job was a vocation. If the Tories are new conservative they would have my vote as they are not so PC if they are old conservative no thanks, have they changed enough? it seems not . It all depends on if we wish to risk that they have as who ever wins their are going to be job losses over the next 12 months more with one party than the other and one party will care about that more than the other
Report abuse
I too watched the big debate and quite agree with Peter and Stuart. Spin spin and more spin. They are all after your vote so of course they are going to say what you want to hear, When elected however they will come up with a bagful of reasons why they cannot keep their pre-election promises. Remember Thatcher saying “the health service is safe in our hands”, yeah, right. Whoever is elected will, as usual, look after their own, poor old Joe Bloggs will be pushed to one side AGAIN. Bring on the clowns.
Report abuse
andrew finch (#10) I agree with what you said here: ‘However people do not vote for a party on if they like its leader or on a show like this I credit people with more sense.
What people will vote for is policies…’
Have you seen the website: VoteForPolicies ?
You can take a survey there to find out which party’s policies are most suited to you.
Report abuse
Stuart, you said (#9) ‘The only thing that I will agree with with Nigel Farage (UKIP)is his statement on Questiontime that the Lib Dems are the new “Ban the Bomb” brigade weirdos and will now have to explain their “way-out” policies in detail.’
As someone who is also against the renewal of Trident, I would like to explain this policy and suggest that is not as “way-out” or ‘laughable’ as you say it is, Stuart.
All sides in the General election debate recognise that the public finances are tight at the moment.
This is why I think we should NOT be spending in excess of £76bn on the Trident over the next 30 years.
Do you think public money should be spent on weapons of mass destruction, Stuart, when there are so many more socially useful things to do like tackling poverty and providing decent pensions to senior citizens?
The Trident system is not protecting us against any particular state, is it?
And having Trident is not going to help us tackle the 2 biggest threats to the UK’s security in the 21st century: terrorism and climate change.
I think money spent on weapons of mass destruction could instead be spent on health, education and jobs.
Could you explain why this aspiration is “way-out” or ‘laughable’?
Report abuse
dont know what they were watching, i thought gordon brown won the debate hands down, he was aggresive but clegg freaked me out staring into the camera, it made him look a bit scripted. also he banged on about scrapping the nukes, like thats a key policy, i cant see that winning votes this is not the 60′s man, peace out etc, we like being the dominant aggressive military power that we are, why surrender being top dog ?
Report abuse
im so pleased to see the big two’s monopoly (is that a contradiction?) ok duopoloy) being broken… they are both awful, i loath the slimy blairness of used car salesman cameroon, but also that Brown is old and tired, i mean he’s going grey now so surely he should retire he doesnt have the energy to run the UK but clegg seems fresh, i’d give him a go. And he’s handsome too!!!
Report abuse
Drew,
You, who to the best of my knowledge have never contibuted a single fact nor a single cogent argument to any of the debates within these pages, instead resorting to nothing but silly name-calling, now have the gall to criticise the level of debate in this exercise!
I find your lack of understanding of the irony in your comment astonishing.
Report abuse
hardly
he’s just a slightly less slimy version of cameron, they are both toffs from public school who know nothing about real life of real people
Report abuse
Did anyone else just see three backsides all in a row ?
Hang on, that was just the Reebok advert, here comes the main picture….
Did anyone else just see three backsides all in a row ?
Report abuse
I watched about 20 mins and it reinforced my decision – they’re all as bad and ineffectual as each other.
Report abuse
Dave Egerton (#14), who are we going to use the nukes against?
Terrorists?
Who exactly should we be aiming our weapons of mass destruction at?
Why should taxpayers pay £76 billion over the next 30 years on weapons of mass destruction when there are other more urgent policies that this money could be spent on?
Report abuse
The TV debate will not influence voting no more than putting ridiculous placards on every lampost and telepraph pole in the county, what it has done is given a bit of coverage to a party that otherwise gets very little.
Report abuse
agree cameron lost it, especially on the £6billion point, he’s in the minority on this just as he was on his crazy ideas on letting the banks go bust and not doing the stimulus, i say not just on his own here domestically in terms of politics but also in terms of the whole of the world, all governments socialist and freemarketers alike all intervened, only cameron stuck to his laissez faire ideology. He puts thatcher idealism about pragmatism.
Also its a ludicrous claim as budgets are set in advance of the financial year, so you cant freeze programmes mid year, if you do you’d have wasted the money, imagine leaving a building half built, a report half written a project undelivered. That would be real waste!
Report abuse
£76 billion over the next 30 years on weapons of mass destruction.
Could anyone in favour of Trident please tell me why I am a ‘way-out’ ‘weirdo’ ‘from the 60s’ to ask the simple question why taxpayers should be paying for these weapons which are not going to help us against the 21st century’s biggest security threats.
Report abuse
nick clegg who i foolishly thought was a lightweight stole the show last week and has moved the libs into second place in the bbc poll of polls. if he does as well this thursday then i firmly believe there will be a new refreshing breeze of politics blowing through britain, assuming the tories come nowhere given their leaders continued poor performances, it will be difficult to judge who will be the senior partner in a lib lab pact in a hung parliament. come on cleggy show them how it is done again!
Report abuse
Let’s face it Labour are not going to win many seats in Shropshire, so all Labour supporters should now vote Lib Dem to kick the Tories out of Shropshire.
Report abuse
Huw Peach, as a pensioner, I would like to know that I was secure, that my country was capable of withstanding attack and that other “terrorist” countries attacked us at their peril. I don’t want an increased pension at the expense of my countries security.
The doctrine of mutually assured destruction has stood the west in good stead ever since the dawn of atomic/ nuclear weapons, yes, weapons of mass destruction.
I utterly reject the philosophy of yours and similar that we can give up our “WMDs”. The possession of these weapons makes us the equal of the big players in the world. When you ask the silly question “who would they be aimed at”, the answer quite plainly, is nobody at the moment, the question is just as stupid and just as basic as asking why take out house “house insurance”. I presume you have that!.
We live in a world that has come through the cold war where on two occasions we came within a hairsbreadth of nuclear war, we were one of three nations at that time who possessed atomic/nuclear weapons. The fact that we/the west had them, stopped these all out wars being fought ie, the Russians lobbed one at us, we lobbed one at them, nobody wanted to cop one back in return so nobody lobbed one to start with. That is “mutually assured destruction” which presumably you don’t believe in. The obvious conclusion one can draw from that is that you would allow some renegade country (and there are a number)to lob one at us and we should not do anything about it – but not knowing who you represent, Green’s or Lib Dems presumably you would wish to “negotiate” when our country was crippled and lying in ruins.
Let us go through a few countries possessing nuclear weapons or on the threshold of doing so. Pakistan (riddled with Al Quaeda and Taliban) with a very unstable Government and with many of it’s people having a hatred of this country. India – not much better and who had one her top nuclear scientists sneakily exporting “nuclear know how” to many tin-pot countries until found out. Israel who threatened to use them against Egypt when she thought that she was in danger of being overun during the Sinai war, North Korea, a dangerously unstable and purveyor of terrorism whenever and wherever the opportunity arises. Iran, the most likely of all to start a nuclear holocaust against Israel, escalating to any sympathetic western countries. And there are others also, ie Libya has only just given up designs on WMD. Then we have anti west Venezuela champing at the bit, Brazil who also has designs on them and China who has them and must be regarded with the utmost caution.
We would be naked in a threatening world and the Lib Dems and the Greens would have us reduced to “begging for mercy” from others who would have few qualms about releasing WMD. Sorry, to unilaterally give up our “bargaining chip” and our insurance is a traitorous step that those who believe in this are unworthy of any credence and are deserving of the utmost contempt. You forget my pension, I am able to look after myself just as long as our government protects me from those who would do us harm. Thank god the crazy idiots who think that we live in a world that can solve all it’s problems by the velvet glove and smooth talk and appeasement will never be in a position of power in this country. No, we won’t be using “nukes” against terrorists, we should continue to possess them so that we won’t have to use them against the terrorist states who would use them against us if we didn’t possess them. Follow the drift, no, I know you don’t, that is why it is pointless discussing this issue with those who live in cloud cuckoo land.
Report abuse
The Tory turn around is laughable.
Maggie said ‘time is money!’
Now we are being told we must give this ‘time’ away for free. Running our schools, volunteering for our communities
Then again Labour have got around their own policies one of which was the minimum wage that Maggie stubbornly refused to bring in. They call it apprenticeships and pay young people half the minimum wage on the expectation they eat half as much perhaps?
I only watched the debate for a few minutes but in that short time it was obvious that Nick Clegg was really saying very little compared to Cameron and Brown and the whole thing reminded me of a three dogs eying each other up in the park.
Report abuse
I think we should keep the nuclear trident program. We will need it one day.
So all the people who say we don’t need nuclear weapons, what will you say when Iran uses one?
Report abuse
Stuart, thanks for writing such a detailed response to my challenge on Trident.
I really appreciate you taking the time to outline your arguments, which I will attempt to deal with one by one.
Firstly, I strongly reject your assertion that people campaigning for a sane use of scarce public funds are ‘in cloud-cuckoo land’.
I would argue instead that those people, Clegg included but also Caroline Lucas, leader of the Green Party, have a firm grasp and refreshing take on geo-politics.
They would like to see scarce resources spent on HUMAN NEEDS rather than prohibitively expensive WMD, which international treaties oblige us to remove.
If nuclear-armed states are more interested in spending money on nukes than in dealing with very real human needs and popular public services, then it is refreshing to hear politicians challenging that out-of-date Cold War mentality.
You said that ‘“terrorist” countries [would] attack us at their peril’ if we possess weapons of mass destruction.
Could you name the “terrorist” countries or ‘renegade’ countries that, you think, are likely to attack the UK?
And would you say whether our possession of weapons of mass destruction DETERS these countries from pursuing their own programmes or VINDICATES them?
david egerton (#14) says ‘we like being the dominant aggressive military power that we are, why surrender being top dog’. And you said, ‘The possession of these weapons makes us the equal of the big players in the world.’
If you look at the UK in isolation, there is perhaps some logic in what you both say.
He hasn’t done this luckily, but what would happen if President Ahmadinejad said he wanted to be ‘top dog’ and ‘the equal of the big players in the world’.
What if he said that enriching uranium was nothing more sinister than an encircled Iran’s ‘home insurance’?
People rightly would be alarmed by this sort or argument, because increasingly people are thinking GLOBALLY.
And to think globally means challenging this rationale and making the vast expense and waste of nuclear weapons transparent for all the public to see.
£76 billion over 30 years is a huge amount.
People recognise that the UK’s double-standard on WMDs (‘we are allowed to have WMDs because they are ‘home insurance’; you are not allowed to have WMDs because they are weapons of mass destruction’) is making the world less safe.
After all, if every state adopts the same rationale as the UK, then the alarming proliferation of nukes (see Pakistan) will be impossible to prevent.
In an age of climate change and ecological collapse, which does not respect national boundaries, we need to be devoting our scarce resources to human needs and making the world a safer, more just place, where international law and international treaties (on nuclear disarmament, for example) are respected.
Report abuse
I have been pretty disgusted by the dismissive press coverage about the libdems, on the BBC site for example. I hope everyone realises a vote for them is a vote for REAL democracy, whatever their political orientation.
Report abuse
i was not aware the lib dems are advocating scrapping trident. they want to keep it but not pay for its replacement. so we will have an ageing but effective nuclear deterrent until we come to use it. money must be saved, anyway we can. indirect taxes must go up no matter who is in charge. i would advocate a hike in vat to 20%, a caravan tax of £100, tobacco up 70p a pack of 20, white cider, the strong stuff up 60p a bottle, draught beers down 4p, prescriptions lowering each year by 50p until a maximum prescription of £3 is reached.
any products that involve the health service in unnecessary expense should be heavily taxed, but as a non payer of prescription charges i would like to see them dramatically reduced to say £3 before being abolished entirely when the country can afford it
Report abuse
Darren (#28) Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
Report abuse
Huw Peach (#29) I did’nt say they did but they could do sooner than we think. Plus you have morons like the North Koreans playing silly buggers, so really it could come from anywhere couldn’t it.
People are stupid if they think that we will give up all our nuclear capability, the yanks are not going to and neither are the russians.
Face it, nuclear weapons are real and here to stay so put up with it and get on with it.
Report abuse
Darren, you said that ‘the yanks are not going to [give up their nuclear capability] and neither are the russians.’
You are right to highlight the fact that the US and Russia have 90% of the world’s nukes.
However, your argument doesn’t hold water.
Today, just one year after Obama’s ‘nuclear-free world’ speech in Prague, Obama and Medvedev agreed to shrink their stockpiles radically.
Could you comment on this, Darren?
Report abuse
Huw Peach, I said in mine at 26, “Thank god the crazy idiots who think that we live in a world that can solve all it’s problems by the velvet glove and smooth talk and appeasement will never be in a position of power in this country.”
I also said, “Follow the drift, no, I know you don’t, that is why it is pointless discussing this issue with those who live in cloud cuckoo land”.
I don’t debate or argue for the sake of it, I stand by every single word that I have said and if you really wanted more on the subject which I am not prepared to put down it would take more than this paper has got pages.
I would also say this as my last word on the subject, if you are using Clegg and that awful woman Caroline Lucas as being some sort of authority on the subject, thank god they will never get a chance to put into practice their idiotic policies. Incidentally, I give the Green’s as much regard and credence as I do the BNP. One is on the extreme right and according to Lucas on TV the other night, the other is far to the left of Labour and “socialist” to the core. I won’t play your silly games on the subject of Trident or any other of our defence issues.
Report abuse
With respect, Stuart, I do not consider this a ‘game’, and I am not arguing ‘for the sake of it’.
I just thought that the essence of real democracy is to discuss precisely these sorts of issues in forums like these, and to put forward and rebut arguments in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
You think spending £76 billion over 30 years on a Cold War defence system is a sensible use of scarce government funds, and that I am ‘idiotic’ to dispute this.
However, I am interested in what happens when other countries in the world adopt your argument.
Most of the world’s biggest and most intractable problems (climate change, nuclear proliferation, restoring fish stocks, dealing effectively with pollution) are only going to be solved by thinking GLOBALLY and obeying international law.
We need to do that here, and it is surely a sign of a pluralist democracy that there are some parties making this argument, even if their opponents feel the points they raise do not deserve to be dealt with.
The UK is bound by international treaties to reduce its nuclear weaponry.
If we want other countries to comply with international law and get rid of their ‘weapons of mass destruction’, then surely -for the sake of the future- we need to set a good example, engage in good faith in international negotiations and stop calling our own WMD ‘home insurance’.
Report abuse
You will probably be reassured by what emerged from the Trident debate last week, Stuart.
The Lib Dems are opposed to Trident but want to replace it with something possibly cheaper but definitely still nuclear.
Greens are opposed to Trident and all weapons of mass destruction.
We want to comply with our commitments and obligations in international law.
Report abuse