Friday 6th March

At Prime Minister’s Question Time, or the Punch and Judy show as we might call it, on Wednesday the issue of the Leader’s Debate or lack of one was raised.  In 2010 we had three leaders debates and both Nick Clegg and David Cameron were eager to have them.  Whether Gordon Brown was so keen we do not know, but even though he was not at all a telegenic character he went along with them.  Despite the spike in popularity for Nick immediately after the first one I am not sure there was much of a lasting effect; the polls settled down quite quickly and the actual vote was about the same as the polls were indicating four weeks out.  The debates are all about presentation, and of course the candidates are rehearsed to the nth degree, so we never get really straight or honest answers.  But in their imperfect way they do let us see the potential Leaders and if nothing else they generated a lot of interest.  There is a danger that without them the election could pass people by.  In fact my only prediction for this election is that the turnout will be the lowest ever.  Which may of course suit a certain party.  It looks as if Cameron is running scared.

Mr. Cameron seems to be throwing stones in the road over every possible debate suggested by the broadcasters.  He says he now wants an early debate at least a month before the election, (so that any bad effects may be long forgotten one presumes) and it should include all seven parties (but not Sinn Fein) represented at Westminster.  He is resisting a single Leader’s debate between the only possible two potential leaders, which actually might be the only format which might tell us anything.   What we really need, a I wrote before is a series of in-depth probing and questioning of each party leader’s policies by a panel of leading commentators over a few nights leading up to the election.  Milliband and Cameron would be the last two, and they could be shown in reverse order of Poll ratings.  Even then I am not sure it would change that many minds.  The popular narrative is that the Tories are disliked but Cameron is quite popular, and the reverse that Milliband is the millstone around the neck of Labour.  I am not sure that is really true.  People feel that the two main parties are not really offering a reason to vote for them at all, simply trying to hang on to their core votes and to prevent the other side from gaining any advantage.  The Lib-Dems are also in fortress mode, desperatey trying to hang on to maybe half of their M.P.s.  The SNP and UKIP are snapping at the established parties heels and may well win a few seats, especially in Scotland, and the Greens may poll well too.    But the sad fact is that under our first past the post the election will be decided in maybe fifty seats.   A lot of commentators are saying anything could happen, but I suspect that despite what people tell the pollsters most people will stick with the party they usually vote for.  UKIP will poll about 10% and they may win four or five seats, the Lib-Dems will hang onto maybe 35 seats, the SNP will win about 25 seats from Labour in Scotland, but Labour will pick up a few seats from the Coalition parties.  There may even be a situation where the Tories win more votes but less seats than Labour.  It could be messy.