Note – If you have not watched the debate, there are spoilers in this blog post, if you do not wish to have this spoiled for you, please watch the debate first and then read my blog post on it.
I had just got around to watching the first televised debate between Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats), David Cameron (Conservatives) and Gordon Brown (Labour) this morning, and I found it interesting how each candidate came around to discuss different subjects. I will only briefly summarise them here. If you haven’t seen the debate already, if you are reading this from www.gpeoples.net you will notice that I have provided the Youtube video above.
Before starting off into what I thought of the different candidates as they dealt with different points, perhaps it would be best to deal with the question of whether or not such a debate should have been held as it was a UK first. I personally think it is a victory of democracy and of freedom to be able to have each side presented in a clear fashion where the electorate can see exactly what is happening, and see what exactly each candidate and party are putting forward for the election. It is also particularly positive that the debate was put up on youtube as well as on television, so that bloggers and youtubers could easily have their comment on each leader. It also means that each party can have a fair exposure coming up to an election allowing for voters to have a more informed choice. Overall, a great idea, and perhaps taking a good leaf from the US process of presidential elections.
Following the debate numerous polls have made clear that Nick Clegg (Liberal Democrats) was the clear winner of the debate. I personally have to agree. The main reason for this, not only was that he had clear backed up examples of how things operate, and work in other countries, and how these could be viable solutions for Britain to work with in the future, but that most of the contention actually remained between Cameron and Brown allowing for Clegg to often get his opinion across relatively unchallenged. So easily in fact that Brown was trying to claim that Clegg an he had agreements on electoral reform to boost his own opinion. Let me deal with a few issues that came up:
Immigration - This was perhaps the strongest point for Gordon Brown over David Cameron. David Cameron claimed that immigration was a huge problem for the UK, and that it was essentially out of control. Brown refuted this claim, showing clearly from the figures that immigration has actually declined in Britain over the past three years, and that Labour’s proposals on security were actually working. He also said that Labour had brought in a points system to ensure that all immigrants from outside the European Union now had to fulfil a points system before they would be allowed to live and work in Britain, and this was the reason why the decline had taken place. Cameron insisted that there had to be a blanket limit on immigration from outside of Europe, and that new members of the European Union should agree to a throttled immigration arrangement to entering Britain. To this both Brown and Clegg disagreed. Nick Clegg argued that a blanket ban on immigration is unreasonable, and perhaps that Britain should learn from how Canada, and Australia have dealt with immigration, taking in workers as there is need as opposed to taking in people for the sake of taking them in. There should be assurances that people from outside of the EU have a job, and have a sponsor before they can enter the country to work. This is favourable as it allows a reasonable and fair immigration platform, but it doesn’t allow for excess migration.
Crime - A question in the audience raised the point that burglary was a huge problem in a number of towns in the UK, and asked how each respective party would deal with it. David Cameron said harsher sentencing was needed, and that this was a key failure of the Labour government. Nick Clegg then went to argue that we have to do more than just sentencing, and that it isn’t a solution. The young offenders of today, in his opinion become the hardened criminals tomorrow, and it is our responsibility as a society. Brown attacks the Conservatives on their funding of police officers, and that if Labour continue in government they will maintain the funding to police officers, and that this won’t be at risk. Nick Clegg attacks Labour on wasting money on ID cards to limit crime. He argues that if the Liberal Democrats are in power that this money will be used to bring 3,000 more police officers to the streets of Britain, this being a much more effective solution to the crime situation on Britain’s streets.
Defence – David Cameron criticised Gordon Brown on his failure to provide correct equipment and helicopters to the people on the ground in Afghanistan, and this actually had cost lives on the ground. He also mentioned that Labour had attempted to cut the cost of funding training the Territorial Army, this Cameron deemed to be unacceptable to not fund the most crucial defence forces during a conflict in Afghanistan. To this Gordon Brown responded that this was a reaction to increased tension on the ground and that all the NATO allied nations who were on the ground had to readjust their strategies on the ground. To this Cameron accuses Brown of being disingenuous with the facts. It was in the defence section where Nick Clegg perhaps came off the weakest, particularly to a British public which supports Britain being and remaining a key player in world diplomacy. Clegg argued that the £100bn nuclear weapons deterrent was too much for Britain to feasibly maintain in an economic crisis. Both Cameron and Brown argued that this was unrealistic due to real threats posed to Britain in the event that terrorists acquire nuclear weapons, and from rogue states such as Iran, and North Korea. To leave Britain unequipped would be a terrible mistake.
Education – Education was another point which Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg drove home, that the Government curriculum involved too much bureaucracy and that this needed to change. Drawing on the example of Sweden, he noted that the British curriculum didn’t allow for a lot of freedom for teachers to actually do their job more independently and to encourage their students to work to the best of their ability. He noted that the UK curriculum was 600 pages long, and that via e-mail teachers were given 4,000 pages of extra instruction. Such bureaucracy makes it difficult for teachers to actually do their jobs he argued. The Swedish curriculum is 16 pages long. Class sizes under the Labour Government according to Clegg were simply far too big and that realistically these could be brought down to 20 for primary school, and 16 for secondary school. Much of the other discussion involved Gordon Brown criticising Cameron for the Conservative cuts in education that they were considering. Likewise, the Conservatives argued that Labour in Government have spent £300mn on educational quangos that would be better used elsewhere.
Electoral Reform – The question of electoral reform was brought up eventually. Cameron accused Labour of trying to pass electoral reform legislation too soon before a General Election to improve Labour’s chances, and that the number of MP’s should be cut by 10% to save taxpayers money. Gordon Brown argues that this isn’t necessary if the amount of peers in the House of Lords was halved, and if it was made a democratic chamber. Brown also argued that the UK should change to a Proportional Representation List system. In this section he tried to suggest that Nick Clegg agreed with him, to which he responded that he did, but that it was coming far too late. He questioned why Labour hadn’t considered to do this in the last 13 years that they were in power.
To me it seemed as if Brown and Cameron were more interested on arguing between each other that Nick Clegg got a real opportunity to show that the Liberal Democrats offered something different. Indeed, he also clearly proved that he had done his homework, and had a real plan to show that this was financially possible, and that it was really possible. This debate, perhaps made it easier for the Liberal Democrats, effectively a third wheel party in a First Past the Post electoral system to get their position across. In a polar political system, such as that which is generated by a First Past the Post system, it was simply deemed more crucial for much of the criticism to be shared between the Conservatives and Labour, which in a sense allowed for Clegg to gain an advantage, but in other respects was simply disappointing to watch. The win was well deserved by the Liberal Democrats, as their case was simply better presented, and stronger. The idea was communicated, that the Conservatives, and Labour will be arguing forever, but there is a real alternative that shouldn’t be ignored by the British public.
I’m looking forward to watching the Northern Ireland debate, and the successive UK leaders debates prior to the May 6th election.
