Election debate number three is over and done with then, and David Cameron "won" this debate, supposedly. Well so say the polls. I don't think we have cared this much about the polls since 1939.
I doubt you can take polls seriously, I really don't. I say polls. I mean Sky News. The polls that Sky News used on Thursday night were The Sun/YouGov poll and The Times poll, both of which had the same percentage increases for Cameron and decreases for Brown. The Times and The Sun are owned by News International. News International is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Sky News. Now, Murdoch is a very influential man, and is also a supporter of the Conservatives, and there just seems to be far too many coincidences.
Now, I know I said last week I don't mind bias, and I will stay by that judgement. As I said last week, if Murdoch was backing similar views to me, then I would be lapping it up. To be honest, Brown is walking into so many catastrophes that Murdoch doesn't need to do much to sabotage the Labour campaign.
Brown hasn't had a good week. Firstly, "Bigotgate". Not ideal to be calling your supporters things like that. In some regards though, he was merely just blowing off steam and partly just calling a spade a spade. She did ask the question, "where are all these Eastern European flocking from?". Erm, the clue is in the name, surely? A very, very, very, very basic knowledge of geography is required to answer that one. She was also concerned about university funding for her grandchildren. Fair enough you may say. But her grandchildren are ten and twelve years old. Even if they were going to University, they will be literally going after the next election. Perhaps "bigoted" was the wrong thing to say. But ignorant? Possibly.
Then, the debate itself. What did we learn? For a start, all three leaders believe in work. Gives you self-esteem and self-respect apparently. Good to know. I'd be surprised if Clegg burst out saying "work is prostitution of the soul, man!".
Secondly, and here is where the polls and I disagree, I think Gordon Brown won the debate on Thursday. His plans on the economy were astute and positive, he had genuine statistical evidence to support his claims (as oppose to Clegg's "600, 000" amnesty thing, not quite sure what that was about). Nick Clegg was not the voice of change, rather the voice of a tired little protester. He looked rather ill, in my opinion and his catchphrase, something about "the two parties" is sooo two weeks ago. Also ironic that the Liberals are older than the Labour Party, technically. I found Cameron, the "winner" in the proceedings, rather good at avoiding awkward questions. Every time a question regarding the inheritance tax (pay-offs for the richest 3000 people) and the corporate tax (leniency towards bankers) was raised he responded with "Thirteen years of a Labour Government" followed by some gibberish about his kids going to state school or how he met somebody who was working class and from the North. This avoidance won him the debate, I worry it will win him the election.
And then, the car crash at the Labour gathering yesterday. A metaphor, perhaps. Yet what was interesting was seeing all of Labour's "big guns" on the campaign trail. "MILIBAND! BALLS! DARLING! MANDELSON! AND BLAIR! YES BLAIR!"
Now, some will see this as a sign of desperation, and it could well be, because offending a member of the public didn't boost the ratings, surprisingly. But what is interesting is that nearly all of the Conservative electioneering is Cameron-based. This could be because Cameron is the only one who is properly trained at answering/avoiding awkward questions. How much have we seen of George Osbourne, potentially the next Chancellor? Next to none, because he is a blunder waiting to happen. It's as if they spent all of their PR budget on Cameron alone, like a naive player of Football Manager spending his four year transfer budget on Ronaldinho. Guilty of that one. Then again, I was 12. David Cameron is, err, not 12 I think?
DC
x
No comments:
Post a Comment