.
Nick Clegg was clearly the master of last night’s televised debate in which the three party leaders discussed questions posed by the audience.
Of course, as he himself pointed out, his party was not one of those who have been mucking up Britain for the last forty years. So he was able to cast himself in the role of honest broker whose frustration at the politics of the other two men was palpable.
David Cameron, as was to have been expected, gave a polished performance in contrast to Gordon Brown’s aggressive stance which probably earned him few friends. Nor did Brown’s stubborn refusal to answer some of the questions, the planned increase in national insurance contributions for example, a reminder of his tactics in parliament.
Did we learn much from last night? Not much in my view, except that Clegg gave the clearest account of what he would do were he to be our next prime minister. He also made the point that all three parties needed to get together to deal with some of the big issues, the country’s deficit for instance, a suggestion not markedly taken up by the other two leaders.
Two things I found irritating. The first was Gordon’s enthusiastic agreement that just about everything under discussion needed improvement. Why then, were they not improved during his thirteen year tenure of office? The second thing was Alastair Stewart’s abrupt interruptions to some answers just when it would have been interesting to have heard them.
It will be interesting to see how the three men adapt their performances for next week’s debate. By then the party PR consultants will have been at work.
But whether they or the leaders themselves can part the veil of obfuscation, counteraccusation and pure politicking that we witnessed last night is quite another thing.
.
Nick Clegg was clearly the master of last night’s televised debate in which the three party leaders discussed questions posed by the audience.
Of course, as he himself pointed out, his party was not one of those who have been mucking up Britain for the last forty years. So he was able to cast himself in the role of honest broker whose frustration at the politics of the other two men was palpable.
David Cameron, as was to have been expected, gave a polished performance in contrast to Gordon Brown’s aggressive stance which probably earned him few friends. Nor did Brown’s stubborn refusal to answer some of the questions, the planned increase in national insurance contributions for example, a reminder of his tactics in parliament.
Did we learn much from last night? Not much in my view, except that Clegg gave the clearest account of what he would do were he to be our next prime minister. He also made the point that all three parties needed to get together to deal with some of the big issues, the country’s deficit for instance, a suggestion not markedly taken up by the other two leaders.
Two things I found irritating. The first was Gordon’s enthusiastic agreement that just about everything under discussion needed improvement. Why then, were they not improved during his thirteen year tenure of office? The second thing was Alastair Stewart’s abrupt interruptions to some answers just when it would have been interesting to have heard them.
It will be interesting to see how the three men adapt their performances for next week’s debate. By then the party PR consultants will have been at work.
But whether they or the leaders themselves can part the veil of obfuscation, counteraccusation and pure politicking that we witnessed last night is quite another thing.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment