Britain's First TV Election Debate

[Agelastus]

But I find the whole argument infuriating because the Tories and the right-wing press call the raise a 'stealth tax'.  It was announced two years ago, something that's been in budgets for 24 months is not stealth, it's just not been noticed.  It's no more a stealth tax than Whitsunday is a stealth holiday.

It's because of the easy ride they gave Brown as chancellor, in my opinion. Brown used the "announce a tax rise but put the implementation off a couple of years; no-one will complain when it is announced because of the delay, and no-one will complain when it is implemented because they have forgotten about it or it is old news" method a lot and was allowed to get away with it by the press and opposition.

I agree, its' not on the face of it a stealth tax; but did you not notice that all the news reports and briefings seemed to focus on the cost to the employee, not the employer? A lot of employees don't realise that the NI that comes out of their pay packet is matched by the employer.

[Sheilbh]

It's because of the easy ride they gave Brown as chancellor, in my opinion. Brown used the "announce a tax rise but put the implementation off a couple of years; no-one will complain when it is announced because of the delay, and no-one will complain when it is implemented because they have forgotten about it or it is old news" method a lot and was allowed to get away with it by the press and opposition.

Yeah.  He created the pre-budget report so he could announce spending twice and tax changes several years in advance.

[Agelastus]

But the answer's because we had ten good years - we shouldn't have had a deficit then - but we had strong growth, so the need to be strict with spending is less ever-present. 

We had more like 15 good years, thanks to the world economy and the healthy state the previous Tory administration left the country in (counting from about 1994 onwards.) Labour seemed to believe that the "bad old days" of boom and bust were gone forever, and let spending get out of control. Now whichever of the main parties that wins the next election will have to clear up the mess, and the Tories have a better record of cleaning up such messes...except, as you say, Cameron does not convince in the way previous generations of Tory leaders did.

I agree with you, its either cuts or the IMF. And it worries me that none of the major parties can convince me they understand this. For example, "ringfencing the NHS"? How on earth can you section off such a huge chunk of the budget from cuts and expect to be taken seriously.

[Agelastus]

It's because of the easy ride they gave Brown as chancellor, in my opinion. Brown used the "announce a tax rise but put the implementation off a couple of years; no-one will complain when it is announced because of the delay, and no-one will complain when it is implemented because they have forgotten about it or it is old news" method a lot and was allowed to get away with it by the press and opposition.

Yeah.  He created the pre-budget report so he could announce spending twice and tax changes several years in advance.

Assuming that is not sarcasm, that's exactly what he did. Having an accountant in the family is fun in these instances, as in most respects they'll analyse a budget more deeply than anyone. There were times in the early 2000s when his budgets included measures he'd already announced three times or more. He announced "good news items" even more often. And was rarely called on it.

[grumbler]

You probably don't remember Perot's run. When we got the vice presidential debates, we realized the second best guy he could call on was some completely senile old guy that started wandering around the stage.

James Stockdale was one of the finest and most interesting people I have ever met.  His problem was that he didn't give a shit about politics and didn't want to run.  Perot picked him because Stockdale was a friend of his, somebody he could trust  - and Perot was a weirdo that didn't trust many people. Stockdale ran out of loyalty to Perot, because of all the things Perot did for individual military members, without fanfare or fuss.* 

Stockdale made a laughingstock of himself in the debate, but that wasn't because he was senile (I heard him speak at a Capital Military History Society meeting maybe six months before that), but because he thought the whole thing (him running for VP) was silly, and because the electronics there were scrambling his hearing aids (necessary because the North Vietnamese had repeatedly punctured his eardrums as part of their torture scheme).  Anybody watching him would assume he was senile unless they had reason to think otherwise.

Very sad, really.  Admiral Stockdale won The Medal, 3 DSMs, 4 Silver Stars (all valor), 2 Purple Hearts, and at least one of pretty much every medal a non-chairborne officer could win.  His public image, though, will always be "that senile VP candidate." 




*For instance, Perot personally paid to have every Gulf War vet who lost a limb to be fitted with the most state of the art prosthetics, rather than what the US government would pay for, and created a trust fund to keep those updated as prosthetics got more advanced.  His condition was secrecy on the behalf of the recipients (but he couldn't impose secrecy on the doctors, some of whom were reservists with whom I served).

[Sheilbh]

We had more like 15 good years, thanks to the world economy and the healthy state the previous Tory administration left the country in (counting from about 1994 onwards.) Labour seemed to believe that the "bad old days" of boom and bust were gone forever, and let spending get out of control. Now whichever of the main parties that wins the next election will have to clear up the mess, and the Tories have a better record of cleaning up such messes...except, as you say, Cameron does not convince in the way previous generations of Tory leaders did.

I would just like to point out that historically the government that cut spending most was Labour, not Tory.  Callaghan and Healey were, in my opinion, a pretty decent PM-Chancellor combo....largely because of the IMF

Incidentally on the whole Cameron thing what do you think's caused the dip?  I've read some stuff on how he didn't do enough early on to shore up the true blues so they've sort-of sagged behind and now aren't really listening.  My own sense is slightly different.  I think with many voters there's a personality problem (with him and Osborne) that something just isn't gelling and I think with the activists he could have hugged as many huskies as he wanted if he hadn't set up the A-list.  We've got an A-lister in my constituency and she's not done very well (it doesn't help that her husband is one of Cameron's best friends from Eton), while a friend of mine says that Salisbury's not happy with their candidate because he's not 'local' enough etc.

I agree with you, its either cuts or the IMF. And it worries me that none of the major parties can convince me they understand this. For example, "ringfencing the NHS"? How on earth can you section off such a huge chunk of the budget from cuts and expect to be taken seriously.

I agree.  I find ring-fencing foreign aid less offensive because it's a piffling bit of the budget.  But 'ringfencing the NHS' or 'not cutting front-line services' is nonsense and they know it.

[Agelastus]

I would just like to point out that historically the government that cut spending most was Labour, not Tory.  Callaghan and Healey were, in my opinion, a pretty decent PM-Chancellor combo....largely because of the IMF

I think "largely because of the IMF" is the key point, there!

Incidentally on the whole Cameron thing what do you think's caused the dip?  I've read some stuff on how he didn't do enough early on to shore up the true blues so they've sort-of sagged behind and now aren't really listening.  My own sense is slightly different.  I think with many voters there's a personality problem (with him and Osborne) that something just isn't gelling and I think with the activists he could have hugged as many huskies as he wanted if he hadn't set up the A-list.  We've got an A-lister in my constituency and she's not done very well (it doesn't help that her husband is one of Cameron's best friends from Eton), while a friend of mine says that Salisbury's not happy with their candidate because he's not 'local' enough etc.

At its core? I think its' a backlash against the "Blair style" of populist politics. Cameron's a "friendly face" in the way Blair was; you can even here the echo of Blair in many of his pronouncements. It's trite to say that the public now prefer substance over style, whereas before they preferred the reverse, but Cameron does feel "lightweight" - he's just lucky he's fighting Brown, who comes out with things such as "I saved the world" that make Cameron look good.

It's no co-incidence that Clegg did the best in the debate; he's impressed me for a while as being by far the most capable of the three leaders. This does not mean, of course, that I do not fervently pray that the Lib-Dems lose 2/3 of their seats in this election - he may be the most capable leader, but I abhor his policies.

I haven't actually noticed much of a problem with the Cameron-Osborne combination. Labour are doing their best to make Osborne appear useless and inexperienced, but they're having trouble making it stick because of the inevitable comparison this brings up in people's minds with 1997.

[And a lot of people out there have probably noticed that the BBC's favorite economic correspondent, Robert Peston, is the most biased hack on television.]

And as you say, the "A-list" is a major problem. Not so much because candidates have not been parachuted in from central office before, since they have been for decades, but in the way it smacks of authoritarian, "Labour-style" practises that the Tories have spent years condemning.

I think this election will be most interesting for how Plaid Cymru and the SNP do. They've pretty clearly nailed their colours to the mast of "snouts in the trough", and I'm not convinced that will play very well outside of their really hard-core supporters.

[Palisadoes]

Clegg essentially won because Cameron and Brown were just bickering amongst themselves (Cameron should never have got drawn into it). Judging from the performance, it seemed as if it were a two horse race between Clegg and Cameron - Brown had nothing more to say than "I agree with Nick" or "Nick agrees with me"; at which point Nick was quick to dismiss Brown's claims.

Clegg will likely do worse in the next debates which are likely to concern foreign affairs. Scrapping trident, adopting the Euro as our currency, and taking a very pro-Europe stance will not play well with the British public. In fact, Cameron and the Tories *should* come out best in this debate.

Something which I hope the Liberal Democrats get more scrutiny for is their anti-business policies as well as their taxation policies which are frankly ridiculous (taxing wealth rather than income, hitting middle and top earners the hardest, etc...). The debate touched on crime and immigration (which are actually weak spots for the Lib Dems), but Clegg got away with these weaknesses by an otherwise excellent performance.

Current polling puts it as:

Conservative: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 30%
Labour: 28%

Despite this, Labour would actually remain in power (due to the flawed FPTP voting system). That's using an average swing, however, which is not very accurate, to say the least.

An issue which is annoying with the debates we've had (including the Chancellor's one, that is) is that the Liberal Democrats are trying to be wooed into coalition, so attacking them is discouraged by the other two parties. This means they are untouchable, and thus it seems inevitable they will come out on top in the debates. What we need is Brown and Cameron attacking Clegg more - the Lib Dems have said they'd go into coalition with the party with the largest electoral mandate, so you may as well try and get the largest mandate even if you put Clegg's nose out a bit!

[Barrister]

James Stockdale was one of the finest and most interesting people I have ever met.  His problem was that he didn't give a shit about politics and didn't want to run.  Perot picked him because Stockdale was a friend of his, somebody he could trust  - and Perot was a weirdo that didn't trust many people. Stockdale ran out of loyalty to Perot, because of all the things Perot did for individual military members, without fanfare or fuss.* 

Very interesting info grumbles.  Thanks for mentioning it.

[Legbiter]

Is it just me or does Cameron look and sound like he was cobbled together down in the basement of some ad agency.

[Josquius]

Is it just me or does Cameron look and sound like he was cobbled together down in the basement of some ad agency.

He sort of is.
In the wake of Blair's victories and the Tories seeming doomed to oblivion they began the secret Tory Blair project to fight fire with fire.
Why the British people are falling for this again though...

Clegg essentially won because Cameron and Brown were just bickering amongst themselves (Cameron should never have got drawn into it). Judging from the performance, it seemed as if it were a two horse race between Clegg and Cameron - Brown had nothing more to say than "I agree with Nick" or "Nick agrees with me"; at which point Nick was quick to dismiss Brown's claims.

LOL, yeah, I noticed that, he just got sick of it eventually.
But then the lib dems and labour do see eye to eye on many things.

Clegg will likely do worse in the next debates which are likely to concern foreign affairs. Scrapping trident, adopting the Euro as our currency, and taking a very pro-Europe stance will not play well with the British public. In fact, Cameron and the Tories *should* come out best in this debate.

I dunno, scrapping Trident is good. Especially since he's arguing for it on economic rather than silly old environmental or 'let there be love' terms.
But yeah...Pro Europe though I support it...I hope he has some good reasons to sway the ignorant masses.

Current polling puts it as:

Conservative: 33%
Liberal Democrats: 30%
Labour: 28%

Despite this, Labour would actually remain in power (due to the flawed FPTP voting system). That's using an average swing, however, which is not very accurate, to say the least.

That would be nice.
With lib dem support labour throw through their voting reforms and bye bye tories. Maybe a lib dem government a decade or so down the line. At the least a significantly more left wing one as loads of minor parties pop up.
I doubt though such lib dem support will come through on the day. Lots of people voting tactically and being more against labour/tories than they are for another party and voting for whoever has the best hope of beating them. e.g. me. I'd be fine with the lib dems or labour. I'd prefer the lib dems but I'll take labour if its them or the tories.
Also as I've said its a bit worrying that the lib dems will be stealing these votes mainly from the left...labour supporters. Could end up with constituancies where labour and the lib dems have 30% each and the tories sneak into power with 40% despite the other 60 hating their guts. We need alternate vote so much.

An issue which is annoying with the debates we've had (including the Chancellor's one, that is) is that the Liberal Democrats are trying to be wooed into coalition, so attacking them is discouraged by the other two parties. This means they are untouchable, and thus it seems inevitable they will come out on top in the debates. What we need is Brown and Cameron attacking Clegg more - the Lib Dems have said they'd go into coalition with the party with the largest electoral mandate, so you may as well try and get the largest mandate even if you put Clegg's nose out a bit!

hmm, perhaps.

Did the lib dems say this? When?
I remember Clegg saying they'd only do a coalition if he were PM and the lib dems had a lot of the power. Otherwise they're just going to pick and chose whatever bills seem decent.

[Palisadoes]

LOL, yeah, I noticed that, he just got sick of it eventually.
But then the lib dems and labour do see eye to eye on many things.

Nick disagrees!

I heard someone suggest that the Lib Dems run posters round with Brown's face – like the Tories did – except with the words "I agree with Nick" next to it! Would steal Labour votes nicely, I imagine.

I dunno, scrapping Trident is good. Especially since he's arguing for it on economic rather than silly old environmental or 'let there be love' terms.
But yeah...Pro Europe though I support it...I hope he has some good reasons to sway the ignorant masses.

True about Trident, though I think a lot of people just like the status which the UK gains by having them.

Regarding EU, well I wouldn't say they are "ignorant masses" for not being pro-EU. We're all entitled to our opinion, and if you think the deficit we run by our membership of the EU is not worth the benefits (which IMO comes purely from things like standardisation – if only it was done on a global scale! ), then that is completely subjective.

Something which always bothers me about the pro-EU crowd is that they assume the anti-EU crowd base their decision on some emotional understanding of sovereignty, when often that is not the case - there are reasons against membership too. Personally I have no problem with being part of Europe, though I do not want to be in a country called Europe.

That would be nice.
With lib dem support labour throw through their voting reforms and bye bye tories. Maybe a lib dem government a decade or so down the line. At the least a significantly more left wing one as loads of minor parties pop up.

Like the BNP? 

I doubt though such lib dem support will come through on the day. Lots of people voting tactically and being more against labour/tories than they are for another party and voting for whoever has the best hope of beating them. e.g. me. I'd be fine with the lib dems or labour. I'd prefer the lib dems but I'll take labour if its them or the tories.

Labour are completely incompetent. I'd rather see the back of them for a very long time. A Blue-Yellow coalition would be excellent for the country (I support PR voting, which the Tories would never adopt, though the Lib Dems have made it an explicit requirement).

Also as I've said its a bit worrying that the lib dems will be stealing these votes mainly from the left...labour supporters. Could end up with constituancies where labour and the lib dems have 30% each and the tories sneak into power with 40% despite the other 60 hating their guts. We need alternate vote so much.

AV is a disgraceful system of "proportionality" which will essentially make the country a left-wing state (and I hate socialists!). Labour only talk about it now because they know they are going out, and if they get back in then it will keep them in power for many years to come (Lib Dem voters will lean towards Labour more than the Tories). PR is the only voting reform I would support, since it is the fairest.

hmm, perhaps.

Did the lib dems say this? When?
I remember Clegg saying they'd only do a coalition if he were PM and the lib dems had a lot of the power. Otherwise they're just going to pick and chose whatever bills seem decent.

They've been on about it throughout their campaign. I've never heard of Clegg saying he'd have to be PM. In fact, they made only 4 points as a requirement – including adopting PR voting – but not one of them was making Clegg the PM, IIRC.

[Josquius]

AV is a disgraceful system of "proportionality" which will essentially make the country a left-wing state (and I hate socialists!). Labour only talk about it now because they know they are going out, and if they get back in then it will keep them in power for many years to come (Lib Dem voters will lean towards Labour more than the Tories). PR is the only voting reform I would support, since it is the fairest.

It'll make the country a left wing state because the people in the country are left wing.
And democracy hasn't been the exlusive domain of the left wing for well over 100 years. The shifting axis mean the right has long since regarded it as good so...there's no valid reason not to support it on that basis.
PR would only lead to even more of a tory leaning bias as the left wing vote is split and the one party that chunk of the population really don't want to win does.

True about Trident, though I think a lot of people just like the status which the UK gains by having them.

Regarding EU, well I wouldn't say they are "ignorant masses" for not being pro-EU. We're all entitled to our opinion, and if you think the deficit we run by our membership of the EU is not worth the benefits (which IMO comes purely from things like standardisation – if only it was done on a global scale! ), then that is completely subjective.

Something which always bothers me about the pro-EU crowd is that they assume the anti-EU crowd base their decision on some emotional understanding of sovereignty, when often that is not the case - there are reasons against membership too. Personally I have no problem with being part of Europe, though I do not want to be in a country called Europe.

There are valid euro-skeptics out there yes. Sadly so much of the euro-skeptic crap you see is ignorant stuff. Based on just British nationalism and misleading or outright untrue stories about evil Brussels regulations.
The default position of most people is ignorant euro-skeptism. They don't know much about it all they see is the paranoid rantings about evil Brussles regulations, Britain being destroyed, immigrants, etc... I really believe that you inform people then yes, some of them will then become informed euro-skeptics, but the ratio of euro skeptics to europhiles will become a lot more even than it tends to stand otherwise.

I heard someone suggest that the Lib Dems run posters round with Brown's face – like the Tories did – except with the words "I agree with Nick" next to it! Would steal Labour votes nicely, I imagine.

hmm...funny idea but it could easily backfire into people just thinking the lib dems are labour with yellow badges instead of red. Would need to be made clear 'Even he recognises our ideas are better than his' or somesuch.

[Palisadoes]

It'll make the country a left wing state because the people in the country are left wing.
And democracy hasn't been the exlusive domain of the left wing for well over 100 years. The shifting axis mean the right has long since regarded it as good so...there's no valid reason not to support it on that basis.
PR would only lead to even more of a tory leaning bias as the left wing vote is split and the one party that chunk of the population really don't want to win does.

Not at all. PR is much more "propotional", and the split left-leaning parties could still form a governing coalition.

Besides, it'd only take a few successive left-wing coalitions raising taxes to unbearable levels, and utterly destroying the private sector, before people switched to the right-wing (and then back to the left, back to the right, and so on...). Such is the nature of democracy.

There are valid euro-skeptics out there yes. Sadly so much of the euro-skeptic crap you see is ignorant stuff. Based on just British nationalism and misleading or outright untrue stories about evil Brussels regulations.
The default position of most people is ignorant euro-skeptism. They don't know much about it all they see is the paranoid rantings about evil Brussles regulations, Britain being destroyed, immigrants, etc... I really believe that you inform people then yes, some of them will then become informed euro-skeptics, but the ratio of euro skeptics to europhiles will become a lot more even than it tends to stand otherwise.

I agree; most Euro-skeptics do base it all on emotion, being against change, etc... Of course, many Europhiles have been subject to this too (particularly the socilaists, it seems - that dream of globalisation).

Personally I quite like the current Tory position of being anti-federal since it's where I am on the spectrum: pro-Europe/free market, anti-federalisation. Saying that, I do like to bitch and moan about Europe where I can!

[Sheilbh]

Two polls done before the debate also show interesting results for the Lib Dems:
ICM: Tories - 34%, Labour 29%, Lib Dems 27%
Comres: Tories - 31%, Lib Dems 29%, Labour 27%

Those two were done prior to the debate and show the manifesto boost.