Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

A Brown vs Cameron Debate? Advantage Brown!

Wednesday, 29th July 2009

James is quite correct. Gordon Brown should certainly leap at the chance to have a live televised debate against David Cameron next year. I assume that the Tories think that Brown will, as he has so often before, see this as too great a risk and, consequently, "bottle it". Perhaps so. But that's also why the Prime Minister should welcome the opportunity to make a final stand in an election campaign that he otherwise seems destined to lose.

As Brother Forsyth argues, the expectations for Brown are now so low that it's hard to see how he could actually fail to "win" the debate - at least in the eyes of the media. But there are a couple of other considerations that I think Brown should keep in mind:

1. Tory smugness. Ordinarily, only the underdog wants to have a TV debate. This time, it's the favourite who wants it. That's not because it would be "good for democracy" or however else it will be dressed up. It's because the Tories think they can crush Brown in a debate and, effectively, rub his nose in it. It might not be hard to frame this as a kind of snobbish bullying. Unfair, perhaps, but not necessarily entirely so. Look, the argument might run, Cameron is so sure of victory that he thinks that, despite being favourite, he not only has nothing to lose by agreeing to a debate but that he believes he cannot lose. If I were a Labour spin-doctor I'd try and turn the debate into a Tory version of Labour's disastrous Sheffield rally in 1992.

2. Sympathy for the underdog. This might not encourage Brown much, but it could win him some friends and help get a greater percentage of the Labour core vote out on general election day. It won't win him the election, but Brown could learn from John Major's decision to, literally, get on his soap box, in 1992. I think that generated some goodwill for Major. It's not wholly impossible that braving a debate in clearly unpropitious circumstances would do something similar for Brown.

3. Take one for the team. Even if Cameron were to crush Brown in a debate the precedent of holding debates would have been set. That would make it very difficult for Cameron to avoid participating in more debates at the next general election. Since that election seems likely, as matters stand, to come at a time when the public finances remain in a state of disrepair and Tory reforms - such as they are - have had little time to be seen to work, it's not obvious that Cameron would want to have a debate in such circumstances. But he'd have to or face not unreasonable accusations that he was chicken.

Of course it might not work out like that. I merely hazard that it's not impossible that one or two or all of these points could have some bearing on the election. Perhaps that's what Lord Mandelson thinks too? I dunno, but I can't, off-hand, think of many, indeed any, good reasons for why Brown should back out of such a confrontation.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, I don't think a debate can save Brown. The question for Labour is, What can be salvaged? And since these things are more or less a zero sum game and Cameron now has more to lose than Brown, it stands to reason that Brown should accept the challenge.

Filed under: Brown (180 more articles) , Cameron (226 more articles) , Debating (10 more articles) , Elections (281 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

William Blakes Ghost

July 29th, 2009 9:11pm Report this comment

I do wonder why lobby journos and politico commentators are getting so excited?

The idea of Presidential style debates is ludicrous in a multi-party election such as our General Election. We have 6 national parties that have elected national representatives (MP's and MEP's) and 5 regional parties at least that could make a claim as well.

How could anyone contemplate having a Presidential style debate in all fairness when various poll figures and electoral results show that only the Conservatives (as well as being the only party that is representated across the whole country) have consistently out polled the other parties in recent times and they are not in the top two in all regions?

If anything whilst it might make a spectacle for journos, chances are it will only entrench further the resentment towards our electoral system for any party (that has national elected representatives) which is excluded from such a debate.

Of course we could have them all included and I'm sure that the nation will welcome the 4 hour plus marathon that would be needed. No doubt for the few that stayed awake the ensuing chaos would further enamour them of our political system.

We do not have a Presidential system as much as some might want it. Any solution would be either inherently unfair and therefore improper or would likely become a complete circus.

Oscar

July 29th, 2009 9:11pm Report this comment

91. Why is the Spectator churning out this stuff? Is it something to do with being owned by the Barclay brothers? Labour are desperately fantasising that Cameron is going to do a Kinnock at Sheffield (and desperately fantasising that 2010 is 1992). It just isn’t so. Cameron is not at all smug or cocky (as Maguire puts it). He’s sober, down to earth, with a pleasant sense of humour. Mandelson said the public will see through Cameron’s smile as if Cameron was Blair. But actually Cameron really doesn’t smile that much. He more often has a little furrowed frown. Labour is obviously trying to set out a narrative of Tories over-reaching themselves with smug triumphalism, while they are the poor underdogs the public will rally round. It’s rubbish, but this week the Telegraph, the Mail and even the Spectator seem to be dancing to Mandelson’s tune. Why?

john

July 29th, 2009 10:33pm Report this comment

Well, I suppose you have to try to say something original.

TrevorsDen

July 29th, 2009 11:18pm Report this comment

You put too much store in the 'benefits' of a debate. They are usually inconsequential.
Thats why oppositions call for them - it cuts back on the free air time govts can take advantage of.

It may be that Brown is so weak that he is in the position of the opposition but I think the 'debates' will not affect voters.

What might have an effect on voters is first saying you want a debate then saying you do not.

PauL

July 29th, 2009 11:26pm Report this comment

To all at the Spectator: Keep talking up this debate thing. Brown is stupid enough to be persuaded into doing it.

But here is news for you - the voter won't see smug Tory bullying vs poor old Gordon "he's not very good at debate." They will want to see why Brown thinks he has been entitled all these years. And woe betide him and Labour if he doesn't explain himself.

LondonStatto

July 30th, 2009 1:48am Report this comment

Laughable.

Chas

July 30th, 2009 3:44pm Report this comment

You completely miss the point and Cameron completely gets it. Brown has been in government for twelve years and prime minister for the last two, yet you still have no understanding of his character. His principle characteristic is that he is a bully and a coward; these are two sides of the same coin. Although not all cowards are bullies, all bullies are cowards. (Think back to the playground). It is incidental that Brown would heavily lose the debate (because his policies have wrecked the country and its economy; his answers for fixing the problems will clearly make matters worse; he lies through his teeth every time he speaks, and the electorate - and the press - have cottoned on to the fact; he is an atrocious communicator; and lastly, he clearly comes across as the very unpleasant person he is) because Brown will NOT agree to a debate with Cameron and Cameron knows this. That is why he threw down the gauntlet. Cameron has understood Brown for a long time. That is why he challenged Brown to call an election in 2007 at the worst possible time for the Tories. Cameron understood that Brown was a coward and would not dare to have an election, although is was the only possible time Brown could have won one.

Cameron is creating and milking this episode to make Brown look stupid, weak, and not in charge of his cabinet, let alone the electoral debate or, perish the thought, the country.

Post comment