We mustn't allow Brown to gain from the debates
Election debates don't matter. This is a received wisdom from the experience of the United States. It can be applied to yesterday evening's events - and to the next two Thursdays to come. Many people, it can be argued, didn't watch the debate at all. Most of those who did will have forgotten it by election day. Viewing may have peaked - especially since next week's debate is on Sky, which not everyone's hooked up to, and is to focus on foreign affairs. By polling day, the final encounter will be a week old. Like that cloud of volcanic ash from Iceland, the debates may threaten more than they deliver - and soon be dissolved to only a memory.
Perhaps. But let's stick with what we know - which is that the snap polls say that Clegg was the victor. And if he was the winner, then someone else was the loser. The question, then, is: who? Brown or Cameron?
The only rational answer is Brown. As Tim wrote yesterday, Labour are behind us in the polls. Brown therefore needed a win to get back into the election. Cameron needed only a draw to stay in it. This he duly got. Brown was bottom of all the post-debate polls but one. This may be a verdict on his characteristically negative, robotic and charmless performance. Or it may be a sign that the voters have simply stopped listening to him. Against a Liberal leader who met expectations by doing well, and a Labour leader who met them by doing badly, Cameron accomplished his mission - to remain calm, likeable, and get his draw. He didn't exceed expectations, but this may not matter.
Then again, it may. On balance, I suspect that the debates won't be decisive. But it may just be that last night was a breakthrough gig for Clegg - pushing his Party into the polling mid-20s for the next few days. In which case the question of whether Brown or Cameron lost takes on a new importance.
Labour's spin machine attempted yesterday evening to turn reality on its head. On the net and to the lobby, Campbell, Prescott, Alexander and Whelan tore into Cameron during the debate in a blizzard of tweets - mechanically repeating the Campbell lie that Clegg had style, Brown substance and Cameron was simply shallow. As I blogged last night, CCHQ was relatively tame, tweeting attacks on Brown's policy failures over ten long years but not on his performance as the cameras rolled. In short, Labour had a narrative during the debate - substantial Brown, shallow Cameron. I wasn't the only journalist to notice that we didn't seem to. They also toured the "spin room" aggressively before and after the event.
Some of my friends at CCHQ say that our tactics were deliberate. The lobby, they claim, wised up long ago to Mandelson and Campbell. It won't simply be sold a line any more. In any event, my friends go on, it's the viewer polls, not spin doctors, which will shape perceptions of who won the debates. This may be right, but I'm sceptical. The lobby and the sketchwriters still play a large part in shaping voter perceptions. If they're sold a stronger line by Labour than by us, should we be surprised if they swallow it? And if they then start writing the opposite of the truth - namely, that Brown was the second winner of the first debate, and that Labour's campaign is back on track.
In sum, what's needed from CCHQ for the aftermath of yesterday's event - and for the next two debates - isn't so much energetic spinning or belligerent tweets (though neither would do any harm). Rather, it's the formation of a narrative that frames the debates, is accepted by the lobby, and passed on to the voters. Fortunately, one is to hand. Brown really does need a clear, convincing win to get back into the election. He really didn't get one last night. And he surely won't in the next two debates, either. This is the high bar he must be made to attempt. It's well within the competence of CCHQ to help put it in place. Much could depend upon the outcome.
Paul Goodman
Comments