Sky TV Debate

I've just watched Sky News' leadership debate.  It came alive during an encounter on 24 hour drinking but was otherwise a fairly tame affair.  The candidates are now incredibly familar with their messages and both were able to repeat their familar campaign themes.  David Davis emphasised his opposition to everything Tony Blair stood for, his belief in lower taxation and his determination to champion the victims of state failure.  David Cameron spotlighted the extent of his parliamentary support and repeated his themes of change and hope.

Sky had arranged for a number of experts to put pointed questions to the candidates but none were given enough time to really put the contenders on the spot.  An expert from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Robert Chote, pressed David Cameron, for example, on his 'sharing the proceeds of growth' soundbite.  Mr Chote outlined a precise economic scenario and asked Mr Cameron to say how much of the economy's proceeds would go to tax cuts and how much to public spending.  Mr Cameron declined to answer - falling back on restating his soundbite.  He chose, instead, to go on the attack - accusing David Davis of failing to heed the message of the last election defeats.  Mr Davis' tax promise amounted to double ham and eggs when the electorate had twice rejected a single portion of ham and eggs.  Mr Davis said that Tories had to make the case for their deepest beliefs - including the case for economy-boosting tax relief.  Speaking about a Sky/YouGov opinion poll that put both contenders behind Gordon Brown, Mr Davis said that what mattered was what the opinion polls said in four years - not now.

Seventeen undecided Tory voters were in the studio to watch the debate.  Five became DD supporters.  Six declared that they would back DC.   

This was the last TV debate and one of Sky's experts, James Brown - formerly of Loaded magazine - noted that the reputation of the whole party had been helped by the civilised nature of the exchanges.  Adam Boulton, Sky's Political Editor, certainly agrees.  This is what he wrote for last Sunday's Telegraph:

"This is the first time any party has forced its candidates to run the gauntlet of hustings in front of activists live on television at the annual party conference. As a follow-up, no aspirant prime ministers in Britain have ever then gone on to confront each other in a series of live television debates, in the way of the two Davids.

Whoever wins, Cameron and Davis have already written themselves into the political history books. By the end of this campaign, the two men will have taken part in three full scale television debates, on BBC1, ITV1 (today at lunchtime), and Sky News (next Thursday), as well as sitting side by side on Radio 4's Woman's Hour and numerous breakfast TV sofas. The campaign will be remembered for these joint appearances. Traditional one-on-one interviews have had less impact, even those conducted by Jeremy Paxman.

The debates have been fresh: the first proper televised events in this country in which the contestants have complied with the requirements of the broadcasting professionals over such vital questions as format and timing. In 1994, the three Labour leadership candidates, Margaret Beckett, John Prescott and Tony Blair did allow television cameras into some of their joint appearances at party meetings. But Labour's sensitivity to media presentation was already well developed and the media were kept at arm's length. Not surprisingly, these dreary events did not attract the public's interest."

See The Telegraph's report on the Sky debate.

Comments

[Oberon Houston]

The value to the Party of this contest is hard to quantify, but one would need lots of dosh to get the equivalent through advertising. Typical Tory, thinking of money - but you know what I mean.

[loyal_tory]

"An expert from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Robert Chote, pressed David Cameron, for example, on his 'sharing the proceeds of growth' soundbite. Mr Chote outlined a precise economic scenario and asked Mr Cameron to say how much of the economy's proceeds would go to tax cuts and how much to public spending. Mr Cameron declined to answer."

Great. Obviously important that this remains a big secret from party members.

[James Maskell]

Its private to Cameron, thus no answer...

[Barbara Villiers]

Isn't James Brown just the biggest prat? All that cocaine must have really done his brain in.

He is just SO 90's!

[Boring accountant]

DC's inability to answer Chote's question was actually far more damning than the Editor's account suggests. Chote asked DC how he would share the proceeds of growth if growth were to follow trend and inflation were in line with target, ie base case: no windfalls, no disasters. If he hasn't worked out that one (or can't remember the answer) it makes you wonder what substance there is behind "growth sharing". Does it mean anything more than trying to buy off special interest groups of public sector workers?

[Jaz]

Interesting..I would have thought he would attempted to answer it...But I'm not too concerned..I have full confidence on DC's ability to form a shadow carbinet/team based on his "sharing the proceeds of growth" idea.

[BW]

You do not reveal your budget early or tie the hands of your future Chancellor.

If DC gave specific detail on proportions for sharing growth he would be doing just that.

He was right and sensible not to answer it or he could get tied up in knots just as DD has done. It is utterly ridiculous to go into such detail so early on as DD has.

DC has said he would return to the first among equals mode of Government, building a strong team to determine policy, while himself setting direction as leader. He has done that, it makes sense and those who fail to grasp it are making fools of themselves.

DD no doubt will be among that team should DC win the leadership.

[Boring accountant]

BW - you're missing the point. If DC can't answer what he would prefer to do in a case of trend growth and on-target inflation (ie the machine running as it's supposed to without a hitch) then it means he hasn't got a direction to set. It's all pork barrell. Even Heath had some idea of what he wanted to do if he won power.

[Rick]

first among equals mode of Government, building a strong team to determine policy, while himself setting direction as leader.

John Major was good at that and both Heath and Thatcher were terrible in this respect.

[Richard Carey]

"The value to the Party of this contest is hard to quantify, but one would need lots of dosh to get the equivalent through advertising."

I had just this conversation with a fellow member at the weekend! The continued coverage of this contest has without a doubt been good for the Party, and it falls to us to ensure that it continues in that vein.

As someone who has had to work hard to get significant good coverage for the Party in their local media, this is a gift horse whose teeth we certainly shouldn't examine!

[hayek's grandad]

Boring Accountant -
Well I've tried desperately to refrain from making comments about either candidate’s policies since I want the party to win (not a candidate) but I must say one thing. It is by any account folly to try and decide fiscal policy weeks in advance never mind decades! As someone who works in the markets every day of my life I know you simply cannot do it. DC is proposing a principle and that is the correct thing to do (I'm not saying the principle he has is correct but putting forward a principle and not detailed policies is the right thing). DD is putting forward a detailed policy this is the wrong thing to do. I firmly believe in the principles behind DD's policies and those principles are what he should be putting forward. His detailed policies will without doubt be beaten by the markets (remember a very wise person once said 'you can't buck the markets' and she was right) and the inevitable change in the global market conditions will be used to discredit not only his detailed policies but also, incorrectly, the principles behind them. It's a strategic error but in my opinion a massive one which will mean another lost election and five more years of central planning comrade!

“It’s the economy stupid”.

[Wat Tyler]

Grandad- I dare say quite a few of us have worked in those markets at some time or another, and nobody would suggest trying to buck 'em.

But that's not what DD's Growth Rule is about. It's actually a fiscal strategy to force those backsliding politicos to get their own spending back under control, so as actually to deliver the tax cuts that will stimulate faster long-term growth.

He's not trying anything daft like trying to fix the exchange rate so I don't really see how the markets come into it.

Surely, as a very wise person once said, this is about good housekeeping.

[Ed R]

Cameron's poorest performance of the entire campaign, I felt. He ducked a number of questions and I think he would have swayed a greater proportion of the voters if he hadn't put in such a tepid performance. Davis was on fair but not spectacular form, although the gay adoption comment made me clench my teeth. Davis gets it almost by default. After Paxman and J. Dimbleby, Cameron is well ahead on points for me though.

[John Hustings]

I think the editor is right to highlight the 24 hour drinking segment to be the main highlight of the debate. David Cameron thought he had scored a point against Davis when Davis said that decent people were afraid to go into inner cities because of drunks and binge-drinkers. Cameron seemed to object that this implies that the binge-drinkers are therefore not "decent".

Now, I think this segment said more about David Cameron than it did about Davis. In a bid not to appear "preachy" (which I personally believe the Tories are far too hung up about), Cameron seems willing to sanction and condone even the most disruptive behaviour (indeed, there is the danger that Labour will appear tougher on law and order than him).

It sounded like pure moral relativism to me.

Also, I think it was a bit of a below-the-belt swipe at his opponent. Davis was not saying that all people who drink are "scum", but this is what Cameron *tried* to make it look like, by twisting an ordinary politician phrase (even Blair always goes on about being on the side of "decent, law-abiding" people) and making it sound insidious.

Personally, I do not believe that speaking up for people (often elderly) who are afraid to enter city centres is intolerant. If it involves disapproving of rowdy, drunken behaviour then so be it. It is not puritanism, and it is not "extreme right-wing". It is just common sense; and dare I say it, "decent".

Cameron seems so eager to appear "moderate" (and modern) that he is willing to abandon support for the "ordinary decent little man". A support that I would've thought would be at the centre of Tory philosophy.

[Barbara Villiers]

I agree with John and I was appalled at Cmeron's shiftiness. Her is afraid of alienating the youg is he? Well I am not afraid of alienating any drunken pig, screaming, urinating, fighting and puking in the street. If this is what he thinks he has to do to get the young vote and have disgusting creeps like James Brown (who is just oh so 90's and a huge cretin) on his bandwagon then I really do fear for where he would take us.

As for pretending he didn't remember how he voted on gay adoption, well that is just an outrage. Especially as anyone can pick up a Hansard to see what he did. Please tell me that I am not alone in thinking what a shoddy piece of merchandise he looked. Nodoubt the Cameroonies will have some excuse but really, that was political opportunism at its worst.

[John Hustings]

"As for pretending he didn't remember how he voted on gay adoption, well that is just an outrage"

Absolutely. And it demonstrates what life will be like under a Cameron leadership: we shall have to abandon, and/or apologise for, anything that even *slightly* approximates a socially conservative position (like disapproving of binge-drinking).

[James Hellyer]

"It is by any account folly to try and decide fiscal policy weeks in advance never mind decades!"

But he's not talking about "fiscal policy". That's largely the domain of the Bank of England.

[hayek's grandad]

Watty -
"But that's not what DD's Growth Rule is about."

I think you are a touch confused. DD doesn't have a growth rule that's DC. DD has a rule that is in his opinion independent of growth. Further DD has a precise to the penny policy that is independent of any market conditions but as every good ‘housekeeper’ knows you can’t budget ten years in advance without getting it at least slightly wrong.

The detail will be used to discredit the principles and although I know it is wrong we must accept that the world is the way it is and we cannot turn the clock back. So I truly believe that if we wish to implement the principles upon which we so obviously all agree the best way to achieve this is to avoid setting out the fine detail beforehand.

After eight years of ‘New Labour ’ people don’t believe in policies but for the sake of this country I sincerely hope people still believe in principles. That’s not our fault but it is our problem.

P.S.

Hellyer –
The term fiscal refers to government debt, expenditures and revenues. I don’t see how you feel we can blame all of that on the poor old BoE, although I’m certain if you can manage it you’ll be Gordon Brown’s bestest friend in the whole wide world.

[Ed R]

John Hustings:

"we shall have to abandon, and/or apologise for, anything that even *slightly* approximates a socially conservative position (like disapproving of binge-drinking)."

First off, on a personal note, I'm strongly pro-gay adoption, and gay marriage, and I think there are some 'socially conservative' positions that I would be happy to see the party bury and soon. Daniel's comments earlier about 'pandering' to the gay rights lobby just makes me despair.

But I don't think Cameron is against social conservative positions. He's for strengthening the family, tightening the abortion laws, supporting marriage through the tax system. The idea that he's pro-binge drinking is patently silly. There's not yet any evidence that so-called "24 hour" drinking *will* increase binge-drinking. By its very nature, binge drinking means drinking a lot in quick succession -- if the pub isn't closing any time soon, there's actually less need to binge. There's a lot of arguments on both sides of this debate, and Cameron's view has been entirely consistent, and perfectly conservative.

"David Cameron thought he had scored a point against Davis when Davis said that decent people were afraid to go into inner cities because of drunks and binge-drinkers."

John, I spoke to another undecided person in the studio afterwards and the main factor in him being swayed to Cameron was this tiff about 24hr drinking.

Unfortunately, the drinking debate went on a bit long and I saw the autocue scroll past the next section which was Social Justice - where I was due to ask a question. Thats TV for ya - argument over alcohol versus serious points about social justice!

I was getting a bit annoyed at Platell banging on about gays and the old drugs row, even started making the yawn action on camera :D

All in all, it was just another hustings but for the public at large. Nothing new for us anoraks :)

[Barbara Villiers]

John,

Funny isn't it that there isn't any of the usual Cameroonie crowing after today's shabby little spectacle. Surely even the most brazen has to be embarrassed by it. If this is what his leadership is going to be like - selling out principles to obtain the votes of little gobshites like Brown then maybe the Cameroonies are right and I should start looking for a different Party.

I really am outraged. And even more so because Davis put in a great performance and the media has the utter gall to gloss over Cameron's perfidy. Not to mention the Evening Standard saying Cameron 'won' the London hustings and even going as far as attributing Davis quotes to Cameron.

[Samuel Coates]

Which quotes? Most of their jokes and phrases are shared between them now anyway, if you look back at the hustings reports.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Daniel's comments earlier about 'pandering' to the gay rights lobby just makes me despair."

My point was that Cameron's claim to have always supported adoption rights for gay couples could look like an opportunistic attempt to gain the support of the gay rights lobby in light of the fact that he actually voted against granting adoption rights to gay couples. Surely you'd prefer people to be consistent in their approach to gay rights rather than trying to exploit the issue in such an opportunistic manner?

[Barbara Villiers]

As for gay rights,

David Davis practices what he preaches - when a gay MP was outed in some 'sex scandal' several years ago and it looked like curtains for him - Davis took him under his wing, stood by him and gave him moral support. A couple of members on his campaign team are openly and proudly, may I add, gay and this is not an issue in any way shape or form for him. So much for bigoted and old fashioned, eh?

[Samuel Coates]

Why 5min was spent 'pandering to the gay lobby' whilst the social justice part was skipped is beyond me.

Someone told me that the feed died halfway through the show, did anyone else experience that?