The British Leaders Debate April 15, 2010
Posted by Garibaldy in UK General Election 2010.trackback
And so the much-hyped first ever British political leaders election debate. I thought Alastair Stewart was going to have a heart attack he looked so excited. Nick Clegg kicked off with some rhetoric about a fair society and moving beyond the tired old parties. Brown went for the economy, making the argument that this was the defining year; Labour believed in fairness, and so would protect public services. Cameron started with the need to reconnect with the public after the expenses scandal, for which he apologised, and then went on about the economy, and said that he would keep the good things Labour had done, but it was time for change. I half expected him to say “Yes we can!”. From there it was into the questions from the (supposedly representative) audience.
Depressingly, the first question asked was immigration, and how to get a “fair and workable” system. All three parties basically said that immigration needed to be controllled. Brown spoke of his points system to prevent migration of unskilled labour from the outside the EU, and mentioned chefs and care-workers. One wonders where the care workers are going to come from then. Cameron said immigration was too high, he would put a limit on it, and stagger people’s arrival. Clegg said that the governments of the other two parties had talked tough but produced chaos. He wanted to restore exit controls, and ensure that immigrants would be allowed only in the regions where they were needed. The free-for-all amongst the three of them then began. Brown rejected the idea of a cap, spoke about controlling student numbers (whereas the universities are going to want to increase the numbers to cover the funding cuts). Brown linked immigration to skills training for the young people, whereas Cameron linked it to people sitting on benefits, and the need for benefit reform. So much for caring Conservatism. Cameron, in what I think was him going off-message somewhat, spoke about meeting a black man in Plymouth who had come at the age of six and spent years in the Royal Navy who was unhappy with the system. The mention of the man’s colour was needless, and I suspect says something about how often Cameron and his ilk spend time in the company of minorities, and the way they see people who have been in Britain for decades as still not really British. Clegg at least had the decency to mention that there was good immigration, but the tone of the whole debate was less than savoury. When this is the mainstream, it’s no wonder that the BNP is getting its message heard more.
Following immigration, came law and order. I suspect whoever set the question list may have been a traditional conservative. More of the usual stuff there (more cops, holding parents to account, drug addicts etc), although Clegg spoke about working with people positively at an early age, and about restorative justice and alternative punishment. Clegg was easily the most progressive. No mention of jobs in the whole debate. Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime eh? This part also saw a common theme of the evening – facts, figures, detailed spending plans and the lack of them – coming to the fore.
MPs expenses came up, and Brown moved it on to the need for electoral reform, partly as a means to set himself up as close to Clegg, with both of them differing from Cameron. Clegg spoke about getting rid of big money from politics. Again, Brown sought to separate himself and Clegg from Cameron by attacking Cameron’s reform plan being cutting the number of MPs. Interestingly, all three parties are talking about the right of recall of MPs in certain circumstances. Brown linked Cameron to heredity peers – aspects of the rhetoric of class politics that will feature in the campaign from Labour. When education was discussed, the Etonian Cameron was extremely quick to point out that his child was at a state school, suggesting he feels that he might be vulnerable to the class rhetoric.
Dealing with the deficit without damaging the economy came next, a lot further down the list than I’d have thought. Cameron charged with his support from business people against Labour’s planned rise in National Insurance, and harped on about waste in the public sector. Brown went with the argument that Tory cuts would damage the economy by taking £6bn, the equivalent of thousands of jobs out, and made the vital point that it was the state and not the private sector that had kept British unemployment from hitting American and European levels. Brown was very strong on the centrality of the state in keeping economic growth happening – recovery was happening, and Tory plans would risk it. He even nearly sounded like an old-fashioned social democrat, rather than a free-marketeer forced to embrace kenysianism. Still, he’s still better than Cameron, and there was clear blue (red?) water between the two. Clegg, again, sounded a progressive note with his remark that greedy bankers pay less tax on their capital gains than their cleaners do on their wages. Brown dodged that one. Having said that, Clegg also spoke of the need to look at public sector pensions.
The war came up – but in terms of resources for troops rather than the British presence in Afghanistan. After much discussion of funding, equipment etc, it was Brown who raised the issue of why the British are there. You couldn’t make it up, especially when the LibDems had been so openly against the Iraq war.
Given the immigration debate, the fact that the question on health came from a health care worker clearly from outside the European Union was somewhat entertaining. Not that any of the leaders noticed of course. All three pledged to protect and develop the NHS. The most interesting thing here was Cameron saying that he would increase the NHS budget in real terms every year. Hard to believe, but a change from his rhetoric about cuts for the rest of the public sector. Labour has warned of cuts worse than Thatcher’s, but there was no sign of it from Brown in this debate.
The final question was about people having to sell their homes to pay for their care in old age. There wasn’t much difference between the parties to be honest. It was a bit like everyone saying that they would vote for Christmas.
In conclusion, Clegg argued it represented something a serious alternative to the big two parties, and went back to his theme about fairness. Brown said it was necessary to avoid the mistakes of the 1930s and 1980s by keeping money in the economy for this year to avoid the double dip, and attacked the Tories for not giving the type of guarantees Labour offered. Cameron asked the audience to not listen to scare stories, and he spoke about the importance of values rather than policies, promising to support all sectors of British society. It’s a great country after all.
So overall then, Clegg’s strategy was to represent himself as a real change, and the choice for a fairer society. Cameron protrayed himself as the candidate for uniting together and building a better Britain. Brown offered the most detail, and stuck to his script about the necessity of keeping money in the economy, and the need to avoid risks. He was about offering detail more than the other two, who went for vision. There was no clear winner. Brown was effective in separating the Tories out on electoral reform, and hit Cameron with remarks about not guaranteeing public services the way he was, but looked vulnerable on the national insurance thing. Clegg was assured, and in one sense had the easiest job of saying he was different than the other two. He did well though in responding to attempts to get at him, especially by Cameron. Cameron did a fine job, although he probably made the least impact. Not earth-shaking or game-changing, but a good opener for what will probably be a fixture of British elections from now on. The questions themselves though were a reminder of how right wing British society remains in many of its assumptions.
The most interesting thing here was Cameron saying that he would increase the NHS budget in real terms every year. Hard to believe [...]
Not so much. The Bushies (for example) routinely brag of their ‘aid’ to Africa, but the truth was that it was all funneled to Christian missionaries and right-wing religious causes such as abstinence-only AIDS education (which doesn’t work, as it by design keeps people ignorant of sexual health issues).
Of course, Bush was only following Reagan in running up record deficits – they’re not against massive public spending at all, just that they want to transfer it to the already well-off rather than to the poorer section of society (kind of like NAMA).
WbS, thanks for that detailed summary. I started watching it but despite my best intentions found it somewhat boring and flicked channels. I had planned to catch the summary on BBC2 Newsnight but “The Good Wife” was on elsewhere and at that time of night Julianna Margulies is easier on the eye…
Sorry for lowering the tone.
Nice to be mistaken for the main man LATC, and you’re welcome. It wasn’t the most exciting programme I’ve ever seen myself. Certainly Juliana is easier on the eye than those three.
Garibaldy, many apologies there.
On a serious note, your comment about the conservative nature of British society rings true. Probably times have moved on but when I was living there in the mid/late 80s I was struck with the huge gap between the cosmopolitan nature of parts of London and the polar opposite elsewhere, it was far more divided in that sense than Dublin appeared to me as a young lad of 20-something. More class conscious, but not in a progressive way. I know it’s a trivial thing but I’m always struck with the boring white shirts that MPs of all persuasions wear under their ill-fitting suits, it seems symbolic of a lack of imagination, conservatism with a small c at the personal level.
That’s a fair point about the shirts LATC. Although during the day yesterday both Cameron and Clegg were going without ties, while Brown was dressed pretty much the way he was last night. Smart casual seems to be the way to communicate you are down with the kids. Interesting last night was little mention of tax hikes, either as a plan or as an accusation against opponents. I think that in many senses the main legacy of Thatcherism has been a pathological hatred of paying any taxes allied to a diminishing commitment to the welfare state among the British electorate, or at least those middle class people in the south-east of England who really matter to the parties.
I didn’t see much of the debate so I can’t really comment on that, but there’s a few things in your original post and in the comments that might need a health warning.
Given the immigration debate, the fact that the question on health came from a health care worker clearly from outside the European Union was somewhat entertaining.
This bit I actually saw, and my impression – though I can’t remember her name – was that the woman who asked the question was Indian. Now the thing is, there is a tendency when we here white English people giving out about immigration to assume a racist sub-text. Certainly, English racists are against immigration, but everyone who opposes unlimited immigration is not necessarily a UKIP or BNP voter. The complicating factor is that Britain had an empire, and in a lot of ways, the bond with the sub-continent and the Caribbean is stronger than with Europe – so for many Brits, strange as it may seem, Indians are much less ‘foreign’ than Poles. I’m not saying any of this is rational, necessarily, but we need to be careful not to fire the accusation of racism indiscriminately – England, for all its many faults, is probably the most advanced, predominantly white nation in the Western world when it comes to race relations and positive, legal safeguards against unequal treatment (Maybe only Canada is more advanced).
More class conscious, but not in a progressive way.
I would say ‘more class conscious but also in a progressive way’ In the North, at any rate, I have always been struck by the pride people will take in being working class, something much rarer here.
I think that in many senses the main legacy of Thatcherism has been a pathological hatred of paying any taxes allied to a diminishing commitment to the welfare state among the British electorate,
Again, I was struck by Cameron’s gushing tribute to the NHS – you’d swear they’d invented it! not disputing the legacy of Thatcher, but there remains, in Britain the bones of a complete Welfare state and not the half- a – one our masters granted us here in the Republic. And no politician dare touch the basic principle of equality of access for all to the NHS: something it would be hard to say here.
I think the anti-Muslim thing has had a very adverse effect on many people’s vision of the sub-continent, although I’d agree that there is something in what you were saying. But the point I was trying to make was that the health service depends upon people from outside the EU, whether they are from former colonies or not. Whether racist or not, the thinking outlined by all parties was ignoring that fact.
SoS, excellent observation.
One can be anti-immigration and actually quite pro-immigrant.
“I would say ‘more class conscious but also in a progressive way’ In the North, at any rate, I have always been struck by the pride people will take in being working class, something much rarer here.”
SoS,
My experience was in London and surrounding area. There was that older generation pride in the part of Kent I lived in, the Medway area, and in Harlow which is a post-war new town in Essex. But my comment was more reflective of the people I was mixing with in work, in their 20s, products of the Thatcher era, concerned with personal material advancement, getting on the housing ladder etc. Maybe it was just a generational thing. Same as the younger Celtic Tiger generation here.
Yeah, it’s probably impossible to generalise one way or the other. I lived in Essex for a bit too, early this decade, and the thing that came home to me there, much more than in London, was how much people really hate the EU…. it’s much stronger than just xenophobia. And so different from Ireland: where the ruling class here really want to impress the Germans and the French with how strict we can be: no British chancellor will ever again get away with kow-towing to Frankfurt a la Lamont.
The anti-EU sentiment, yes. They fought 2 wars against the Germans, ok, but it’s the anti-French thing that is astonishing, I’ve never heard a reason articulated for that.
The dying gasp of empire perhaps, resentment that the world has moved on and their day in the sun is gone forever?
Well they spent a lot of time fighting the French, too, although I’m also surprised they’re still antagonistic. Some prejudices never change, but it is true to say the Brits have always seen the Continent as the root of their problems.
The Norman Conquest, Joan d’Arc, the Protestant Reformation, Louis XIV, the French Revolution, Napoleon, De Gaulle, Delors etc have all made a collective imprint. In the Georgian and Victorian eras, there was also an inferiority complex felt by the British elite towards French culture, architecture, cuisine and fashion.
Yes, they all add to the picture, though I’ve never heard an English person articulate the historical context as such.
The one I heard a few times was that the French didn’t put up enough of a fight in WWII…
What about that line from Dumb and Dumber (the funniest film ever made btw)?
“I’m talking about going to Aspen”
“Aspen? Naw, Lloyd. The French are assholes.”
Joe
I’d respectfully disagree. I think the best line is asked when they are driving through a flat desert – they’d taken a wrong turn from a road which was taking them to the Rocky Mountains
“So, these are the Rocky Mountains? …That John Denver was full of shit”
I appreciate this has nothing to do with the matter in hand…
Actually on the French thing, English people have told me that they view the French as being ingrates. Along the lines of “we bail them out of two world wars and they tried to stop us joining the EU”.
A comment certainly relevant to De Gaulle
Remember also there were Vichy French forces who fought the Brits a lot harder than they fought the Germans (especially around Syria/Lebanon way)
Also remember that it a mutual animosity thing… and da brits find it hard to fathom why the French hate them – I mean, they havent invaded them for centuries…..
Actually on the French thing, English people have told me that they view the French as being ingrates. Along the lines of “we bail them out of two world wars and they tried to stop us joining the EU”.
That’s the latest permutation, sure, but you can see the same thing going back through Napoleonic times and as far back as even Shakespeare.
I think the clue lies in the Germans. Pre-WW1, the Jerries were seen in a favourable light (i.e. the Hannoverian connection). I think that it just comes down to the centuries-old refinement of British state propaganda techniques in rapidly re-branding former allies as the wicked foreign enemies of the day (not to mention of spinning abject military failures like Dunkirk into ‘victories’).
Let’s not forget that the Normans in England eventually found themselves warring with the Normans in France; appealing to “English” patriotism was a natural step in bolstering their own control, no matter the many contradictions.
From my own experiences living here in Britain I’d have to say history has very little to do with it apart from disliking the French is almost seen as a British institution, like bangers and mash or cricket.
I think it has more to do with the fact that some English people’s perception of ‘Frenchness’ offends their sensibilities.
So what really winds them up about ‘the Frenchies’ is that they are, supposedly; intellectual, sensual and effete.
Now you can imagine an English bloke (and it does seem to be mostly blokes who dislike the French, English women often have a different perception of them… I can’t imagine why
) who prides himself on being practical, upstanding and well, blokeish might view all that with disdain.
That said you’ll often notice a sneaking admiration for the fact the French are, so they believe, bolshie militants who go on strike or dump 1000 sheep on the road when ever anyone messes with them.
yeah i agree with most of what you say, especially the last paragraph, although I live in Britain too and would respectfully suggest you’re downplaying the history angle… although that could be just a justification.
Neilcaff I think i might know you – does your mothers family come from Limerick? (excuse me asking, your handle is similar to a good friend of mine’s real name)
Afraid no Ramzi Nohra, my mother is from Mayo. Although she did work as a civil servant in Limerick in the 80′s, no doubt conspirig with the rest of her evil ilk to destroy the country even then!(Sorry, channeling Eilis O’Hanlon there for a moment)
Moving back on topic, Gilmore has just announced “will be seeking a similar three way leaders’ debate for our own general election”.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0416/breaking81.html
During the 1998 World Cup a likely looking English lad (Stone-Island jacket, snarly head) was informed at Calais that his presence in France was not desired: to the BBC TV interviewer he offered the immortal line “they were happy enough to see us in 1944″.
Check out this really cool vote matcher from the Telegraph…it asks your opinions on selected policies and determines which party most reflects your views..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7541285/How-should-I-vote-in-the-General-Election-2010.html
….please choose England for comparison’s sake….
Here is what it gave me…(really bizarre)
Party:
UK Independence Party: 55%
Liberal Democrats: 55%
Green Party: 52%
British National Party: 50%
Labour Party: 35%
Conservative Party: 35%
I was with you until the last sentence, Garibaldy. I guess it depends what you mean by “society.” I do strongly believe that racism and xenophobia have seeped into political discourse in Britain from the top down.
At least half the population is to the left of Labour, IMO. That’s why Clegg was received so well in the debate; because, objectively, the Lib Dems are also to the left of Labour in almost every policy sphere.
I’m sceptical as to some of the figures that are coming out showing a massive, double-figures bounce for the Lib Dems after the debate. One thing’s for sure, though, it that holds up it will be the end of these events. There’s no other mode of campaigning in which a third party can compete with Labour and the Tories on a level playing field.
At least half the population is to the left of Labour, IMO.
True I think.
The most egregious distortion of ‘the will of the people’ produced by a first past the post system is that policy is formulated in response to polling in the 20% of constituencies that are liable to change hands, and that are, therefore, unrepresentative.
Most Labour voters in the North, in Scotland and Wales, are further to the left than the party, and, as you say, so are most Lib Dem voters: and yet what happens in Government is dictated by the whims of swing voters in the SE.
DD,
I would agree with you that there is a large segment of the population that is to the left of Labour. I think what I was trying to say was that the whole political culture of the place has moved significantly to the right of the last 30 years. I think there are now fairly significant differences in attitudes between British social democracy, and that of much of the continent. Which is what I meant by saying that the society is in many aspects right wing I suppose.
[...] on the debate as a whole. This isn’t a detailed description of the debate like we had for the British one last week, just some random [...]