Home > Alex Massie

Thursday 23 February 2012

Face it folks, Cameron Was Third in a Three Horse Race

Friday, 16th April 2010

How do you know that Cameron lost the debate last night? Well, normally sensible people such as Iain Dale start making excuses for his poor performance and arguing that losing was actually part of a cunning plot to win. Seriously:

There were several moments last night when David Cameron could have gone in for the kill on Gordon Brown. But he didn't. You could almost sense him wanting to pin the PM down an pummel him on the lack of equipment to the military. But he didn't. He wanted to eviscerate him on the deficit. But he didn't. Why?

It must have been a predetermined strategy based on the fact that people tend not to like it when Cameron becomes aggressive. The dial tests show it. So instead, he adopted a strategy of appearing Prime Ministerial and not sinking to the depths of debating point scoring. He left that the Brown, and a fat lot of good it did him. In that sense, the Conservative strategy could be said to have worked.

Right! Except, you know, actually not. Having watched parts of the debate again this morning (sad, i know, but there you have it), I'm more convinced than I was last night that Cameron came third. And that's on actual debating, not relative to pre-game expectations.Iain's suggestion that "Dave could have won but chose not to so he could seem Prime Ministerial" is preposterous and, actually, dangerous for Cameron. I don't expect this notion to gain wider currency but to the extent it does and if it were, you know, true, it would suggest a dangerous arrogance and degree of presumption on Cameron's part. With friends like these, eh?

Now it's just one debate, even if it was one watched by nearly ten million people, and it won't decide the election. But Cameron repeatedly confused anecdote with data, missed obvious point-scoring opportunities and, most bafflingly of all, didn't even try to sell the better, more interesting parts of the Tory agenda. Where were localism, decentralisation and "empowement" last night? Nowhere.

Talking about paper clip budgets and all that is fine but I suspect that many voters take this stuff with great dollops of salt: it's what everyone always says, isn't it? And so why should anyone believe them this time? It just doesn't sound terribly convincing.

And, of course, as one has always feared the Tory promise to protect the NHS budget - wrong when made and still wrong today - came back to bite Cameron. If you will protect the HNS budget, thundered Broon, that means you'll cut money fr schools and policing won't you? Eventually Dave kind of conceded that this was true. The stupidity of the NHS pledge is that is leaves the Tories open to attack on other fronts while simultaneously undermining their claims to fiscal seriousness.

Nevermind that Labour will have to make painful budget cuts too, the NHS pledge puts Cameron, not Brown, on the back-foot.

So what happens next? There's a strategic dilemma for Cameron: if polls suggest the Lib Dems are surging (an extraordinary concept I agree) then does he go after Clegg next week or does he concentrate on Brown? There'll be some temptation to opt for the former but I suspect that going after Gordon remains the better strategy. The real Lib Dem poll bounce will be smaller than the immediate post-debate insta-polls might suggest. Gordon remains alive and someone - that is, Dave - needs to set about him...

Filed under: Brown (179 more articles) , Cameron (212 more articles) , Debates (22 more articles) , Election 2010 (598 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 (12)

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

Post comment

Ben G

April 16th, 2010 2:01pm Report this comment

At last, a Coffee House writer who doesn't write I'm-afraid-of-upsetting-my-Tory-contacts rubbish.

The real story of the debate is not that Clegg won, but that Cameron failed to win. Open goal, missed.

So he's lost momentum. As Massie says, why didn't he push his Big Society theme? That's supposed to be his big idea, and this was, after all, the domestic debate.

Tiberius

April 16th, 2010 3:23pm Report this comment

I'm sorry, Alex, but it is Iain Dale who is right.

Cameron will blow it if he, er, blows it, and losing his rag with half-wit standing to his left would have been blowing it. It also would be wrong to drop down to Brown's level of arguing over immaterial minutae.

Cameron calmly putting his case in general terms is the correct strategy. If it doesn't win him a majority, it won't be much comfort to know that the alternative would have left him further behind.

The electorate are being given a genuine alternative to Mentalism (or Fantasia in the LibDem case). If they don't want it, then they really don't know what is good (and bad) for them and the country.

wizzer

April 16th, 2010 5:18pm Report this comment

Cameron was totally inept last night. He was clearly holding back. I have know problem with Cameron getting angry. If he'd been more aggressive I think we would have seen the cracks in Brown's performance.

Bill Rees

April 16th, 2010 5:41pm Report this comment

There were some obvious opportunities that Cameron didn't take. Brown can't keep his spending promises, and it would have been easy for Cameron to point out that he was fantasising by thinking he can.
So we are all a little puzzled by Cameron muzzling himself.
He is either stupid, which is unlikely, or he has a strategy to try to nail Brown in a later debate, which is risky but understandable, because most people would think that the last debate would have the biggest impact.

Cuffleyburgers

April 16th, 2010 5:53pm Report this comment

Mr Massie - Tiberius and Dale right (and me on a neighbouring thread) - you are wrong.

I agree he should have made points such as rubbishing the labour meme about the NIC reversal taking 6bn out of the economy, but there are two more debates yet, and I suspect he has a strategy to up the temperature each time culminating in a thorough nailing up in the final one.

With so much riding on the outcome of the election and these debates, for the first one I think he was right to play a cautious game and not risk coming over as yah boo sucks.

Beer Moth

April 16th, 2010 6:21pm Report this comment

A few here have done more than face that fact for the last couple of years.

Immaterial which of these three non-events wins.

teledu

April 16th, 2010 7:33pm Report this comment

Regardless of who "won" or "lost" last night, what is depressing is that none of the three leaders seem to have much nous, honesty or, most of all, integrity.

Beefeater

April 16th, 2010 8:16pm Report this comment

The British may never, ever, ever, again condescend to American politicians, American politics, American voters, or American culture. Sarah Palin blows your three little piggies away.
The Mother of democracies is ga-ga.

ndm

April 16th, 2010 9:57pm Report this comment

-- The Mother of democracies is ga-ga.

And there I thought Sarah Palin was lady Gaga.

carol42

April 17th, 2010 1:24am Report this comment

I listened to it on the radio instead and Cameron came over much better. Brown was his usual loathsome self and Clegg sounded phoney and hysterical at times. I am not a great fan of Cameron but the alternatives are too awful to contemplate. Eternal Lib/Lab governments thanks a proposed measure which is anything but proportional.

paulg

April 17th, 2010 4:30pm Report this comment

He goes after Clegg as Brown is a busted flush. The left are pinning all their hopes on Clegg especially the labour party, which just goes to show how demoralised they are.

You have to stop seeing the last devate as a negative, the conservatives can flip it around and tar the lib- dems with the same brush as labour.

There is no such thing as lost chances, just different opportunities.