Yes I watched it, more or less. It was a bit like watching the weather forecast, you want to know what it says for you but somehow your attention wanders while theyre talking about all the rest. I found discussion programs about the debate more watchable than the debate. I think the reason is because politicians talking platitudes is not informative. The debate might have been more than an hour of them talking but it was still only headlines of what their policies might be. So lots of ' I believe in greater wealth and a better country', but not a lot of detail of how this is going to happen.
I think Brown comes across as dour. He has the difficult position because he has to defend 13 years worth of mistakes. Also it is very hard for someone who has already had 13 years to improve the country to explain what new they might wish to do, and if they now have new policies why they didnt do them before. Both the others can say 'look at the mess he made', and say 'I will do better'.
Clegg has the easiest position because he could also say, 'but when you were last in power, you did just as bad', and neither lab or con can show anything the liberals did wrong in government in the last 50 years. But apart from that a couple of times he noted something or other which the other parties were now proposing, but which when his party had proposed it in the house of commons the others had rejected it.
Clegg benefitted firstly because people got to see him in action which they probably had not before. He looked and performed at least as good as the others, but the simple fact of people now knowing he could do just as well instantly enhanced his credibility. When the three are judged together he seemed just as seneible as the others. If this was a job interview for picking just one you might find him the most likeable of the three. Someone you could work with.
People have said Brown did worst of the three. Im not convinced, I think it was Cameron. Browns job was to defend a far from perfect record as best he could. Cameron had to show he was much better. He failed to show he was better than Clegg. Cameron's problem is that he has been around for 5 years too. Once he came across as the new hero. Now he is getting a bit frayed at the edges, and Clegg has the advantage of being new.
The difficulty the liberals face is not their policies but their credibility. People may like them but wont vote for them because they dont believe they can win. Thus if they dont like the current government they choose the alternative which they think can win. The conservatives problem now is to persuade people they are a better alternative than labour. I don't believe Cameron managed to do this, which leaves voters only one other option, which is Clegg and his liberals.
Actually, this might be quite a dangerous situation for Cameron, and indeed the labour party. My perception would be that disenchantment with the two main parties has never been higher. 13 years ago the conservatives were hated a good deal more than labour is now. They still have not recovered from their own record of failures. Labours record is mixed: it has popularly increased spending on health and education, did a reasonable job of balancing the budget and managing the economy (particulalry through a world financial disaster), but suffered the near fatal decision to invade Iraq. Then they have carried through a lot of minor policies which might please one lot, but annoy others. For example, policies on drugs, imprisonment without trial, and lots of others over the years which I now forget. But the conservatives have just as many annoyances in their own position. The trend over 30 years has been a slow growth in support for the third party because of disenchantment with the other two. By now there may be a majority of the population who would like a fundamental change.
