UK General Elections 2010

Hasan Suroor

For years, British politicians derided televised election debates as a vulgar American “import” which the mother of parliamentary democracy could well do without. The whole idea, they said sniffily, smacked too much of presidential-style electioneering with its stress on razzmatazz rather than substance. Even Tony Blair, embarrassingly starry-eyed about anything American, was against it arguing that it made no sense in a system which already provided for direct contact between voters and their leaders.

The real reason, of course, was the fear of venturing into uncharted territory — a fear fuelled by scare stories from across the pond about how even the most sure-footed politician could blow his/her chances in an unguarded “moment of madness” in front of TV cameras. George W. Bush Sr.'s defeat in the 1992 elections is memorably attributed to just such a moment when he was caught looking at his watch during a debate with Bill Clinton, a gesture which was taken as a sign of his indifference to voters.

So, let's acknowledge, it was rather courageous of Gordon Brown, especially given his reputation for caution, and David Cameron, his Tory rival, to offer themselves as guinea-pigs in Britain's first television debates in the run-up to next week's general election. But, even so, one doubts, whether they really recognised the risk they were taking. Indeed, with hindsight, they must be kicking themselves for it.

For, the two debates held so far (the third and the last is due this week) have been a disaster for both leaders with Nick Clegg, the relatively inexperienced and unknown head of the Liberal Democrat party, running away with all the prizes. Relishing the role of the plucky outsider, he was able, on both occasions, to label Messrs Brown and Cameron (and by extension Labour and the Tories) as the two sides of the same “old” establishment with nothing new to offer while portraying himself and his party as the “change” that Britain needed.

Mr. Clegg's dramatic “victory” has turned him into a political star overnight. In the media, he is being hailed as the new pin-up boy of British politics. And his party (once derisively dismissed as consisting of a bunch of muesli-eating, sandal-wearing day-dreamers) is now seen as the only credible show in town while Labour and the Tories are struggling to make sense of the “Cleggmania” sweeping the country.

“Has the whole world turned yellow?” a Tory candidate asked, alluding to Lib Dems' party colour, as she looked at the post-debate polls.

Such has been the impact of the debates that all bets are now off and, for the first time in more than 30 years, the traditional two-horse race for power between Labour and the Tories has transformed into an electrifying three-way contest. Lib Dems are now neck-and-neck with the Tories and Labour in the third place.

It is a “historic” surge for Lib Dems, as The Economist noted, and even if they are not able to sustain the bounce until the polling day it is now looking increasingly unlikely that either Labour or the Tories — depending on who emerges as the single largest party — will be able to form a government without their support.

Because of the quirks of Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, Lib Dems will always trail behind the other two parties in terms of seats even if they dramatically increase their share of the national vote. But, on present showing, they can hope to win enough seats to be able not only to dictate the complexion of the next government but also to do it on their own terms. They have already made known their shopping list: it includes key Cabinet posts and radical electoral reforms that would pave the way for an end to the current system that they say works against smaller parties. And, in a sign of the times, both Labour and the Tories have indicated that they are willing to consider.

Coming back to the debates, it is not really surprising that Mr. Clegg should have done well (outsiders with no baggage and nothing to lose invariably do); nor was Mr. Brown's stuttering performance exactly unexpected given his lack of articulation and charisma. What was unexpected was Mr. Cameron's lack-lustre performance.

With his media-savvy image and reputation for supposedly possessing the best presentation skills in Westminster, the debates looked tailor-made for him. In the event, though, he simply crumbled under pressure and was particularly pathetic in the first debate, failing to impress either on style or substance.

Mr. Clegg, on the other hand, won on both — and in both debates. Even the much-ridiculed Mr. Brown was able to deliver a few soggy punches, mostly on economy. But, the man, tipped to be the hero, simply failed to get going. This has led to a whispering campaign within his own party putting him under huge pressure to raise his game in the next debate on Thursday.

Meanwhile, back in America, they are apparently not even aware that Britain is going to the polls — and couldn't care less judging from the following from New Statesman's Washington correspondent:

“I have yet to see a single piece of U.S. television news coverage of the British election, even when the three leaders adopted yet another piece of Americana by staging the first U.S.-style televised debate on 15 April.”

Famous American insularity? Or just sheer indifference towards the Brits?