College Public Policy

Posted by Warwick Smith on 20 April 2010

This is the third or fourth time I’ve started to write this. I’ve not finished previous attempts because we are in uncharted waters following the LibDem surge on the back of Nick Clegg’s performance in the first party leaders’ televised debate.

We’re off the edge of the political map: where, centuries ago, explorers found written on their maps “Here be dragons”. So, like those early explorers, let’s distinguish what we know and what we don’t know before we sail off the edge of the political world.

We know that Nick Clegg won the TV debate, and we know he won big. We know that the big loser was David Cameron. Gordon Brown performed to expectation: rather like the famous 1960 Kennedy – Nixon debate, some who listened on radio thought that Brown had won. But the Tories had seen the televised debates as their big opportunity to see off Brown: they thought that Cameron would sparkle; that he would be fresh, young, deft—the epitome of change.

On the night they saw Clegg move apparently effortlessly to take these positions. Brown fell back on statistics and “substance”; Cameron crossed the line to a more cautious, programmed yet occasionally strident style, telling people what was good for them and what he wanted. He may have said the following day that he would accentuate the positive, but there was too much negativity on the night and too much caution to allow him to sparkle.

We know that Clegg stole Cameron’s clothes in large part through managing the performance. He not only spoke to the camera—to the voters in their living rooms—far more frequently and effectively than his opponents, but he spoke to the live audience too.

He not only addressed them by name as has been commented on frequently since, but he addressed them directly in answering their questions before turning to the camera and the audience at home during the discussion. He looked at his opponents when they spoke—they peered at their feet when he did—but he did so with body language perfected to shout boredom and disdain.

But perhaps most importantly of all, Clegg answered the questions more directly and more candidly than Brown or Cameron. And that’s part of the answer to those who say that Clegg managed to be so effective simply by distancing himself from “the old parties”.

Sure, he did do that; and didn’t he do it well? But, in doing so, and in answering the questions more openly—even to the extent of saying that no-one had the answer on long term care—he positioned himself as more open, more honest, more real than either of his opponents.

And maybe that’s the key. Just maybe the expenses issue has had a greater impact on the electorate than certainly I thought. And maybe the more open approach that Clegg took, emphasising that there were key policy issues on which the other parties were silent, struck a chord—even if it allowed the Labour and Conservative parties to attack the LibDems then and now.

Maybe this is more about character than policies. And just maybe the electorate saw Clegg’s character for the first time, and liked what they saw, amplified through the prism of the expenses story.

We’ll know soon enough. After last Thursday’s debate, I expected the LibDem’s polling numbers to increase by three or four percent, and then probably settle back by perhaps half that. If all the “maybes” above are true, it is possible that the LibDems’ numbers will hold up. Their policies won’t matter as much, and the prospect of something new and different will be enough to maintain their growth in popularity and increase their seats in the House of Commons.

But if it’s all due purely to Clegg’s presentation skills, then expect the LibDem polling numbers to fall as their opponents attack their policies. As others have commented, a number of those policies—immigration, law & order, Europe and the Euro—are very different from the broadly held views of the electorate. Those policies will come under attack and greater scrutiny, but it remains to be seen whether the Conservatives can properly attack them without taking a negative position that would look like the “old politics” and risk rebounding against them.

So far, criticism—albeit not from the leadership—that the LibDems would set prisoners free, let in more immigrants, give away sovereignty to Brussels and join the Euro, run that risk. And noises off that Clegg’s a bit of a toff himself hardly seem likely to promote Cameron.

So what’s all this mean for the election? Cameron lost big last Thursday not only because of the disappointment of the result but because, to form a majority government, the Conservatives need to take Liberal Democrat seats, and the current Clegg surge makes that much less likely.

As we stand, the usual Conservative increase in share of the vote on polling day compared with the opinion polls is not enough to give them a majority in the House of Commons, or even the largest number of seats.

As we’ve commented elsewhere, a hung parliament does not necessarily mean a coalition government: a minority government is in many ways a preferable outcome for all of the parties.

But it was interesting to hear Gordon Brown on Andrew Marr on Sunday saying that he could in time envisage a wholly elected House of Lords by single transferable vote. LibDem seduction anyone or real Damascene conversion?

It’s all to play for.

Comments