All politicians rely on advisors to develop their electoral strategy. So David Cameron must have been listening to his when he decided to minimise his involvement in the election debates.
All politicians rely on advisors to develop their electoral strategy. So David Cameron must have been listening to his when he decided to minimise his involvement in the election debates.
Rather than agree a head to head with Ed Miliband, he chose a format where both party leaders were interviewed on Sky by Jeremy Paxman and a studio audience. On 2 April 2015, the Prime Minister did take part in the seven-way debate on ITV. However he declined last night’s BBC debate (16April 2015) in favour of recorded interviews. It therefore went ahead without him.
The strategy may be cynical, however, it is not without merit. Ed Miliband is known to be a strong debate opponent, and the reasoning must have been that Prime Minister could only lose if such a debate happened on prime time TV. The calculation must have been that an interview with Jeremy Paxman would be much easier for David Cameron to control. Unfortunately for the strategists this was a major error. I
n recent years Jeremy Paxman has seemed a spent force. But on 26 March 2015 ,we saw the Paxman of old, piercing, combative, direct. He had the Prime Minister rattled from the start, eventually forcing the admission we’d all been waiting for – no, David Cameron could not live on a zero hours contract. Though the audience was easier on him (and more hostile to his opponent), the Prime Minister was far from his usual confident self.
Ed Miliband, had less to lose and more to gain from the evening. He responded well to a challenging audience and although he too was struggling at times under Paxman’s fire, he gradually began to fight back. He managed to get a laugh when he suggested that though the veteran interviewer was important, it was voters who decided the election, whilst he dismissed as irrelevant, personal attacks such as his geeky image.
The majority of the pundits and polls gave the night to Miliband, and the Conservative approach appeared to have backfired.
In the seven way debate, the thinking seemed to be that it would be easier to hide from difficult questions and to deflect issues amongst so many. Cameron’s team also ensured he was the final person to speak, so he got the last word. And this worked better for him. Although the women, in particular Nicola Sturgeon, all impressed and many felt they had won the evening, the Prime Minister did reasonably well. But he didn’t destroy Ed Miliband and after five years of austerity being seen as inevitable, we finally got to see alternatives being proposed. The second debate didn’t make things much worse for David Cameron, but it certainly didn’t improve things.
Cameron’s non-attendance last night was a big gamble. His advisors must have been banking on the anti-austerity progressives pounding his opponent from the left, with Nigel Farage’s populist rhetoric defeating him from the right. The hope was that this would allow the Prime Minister to rise above the fray. The fact it didn’t turn out that way is both refreshing for British politics and a disaster for David Cameron.
Before the programme was even aired, Ed Miliband’s suggestion that if you want to be Prime Minister you really should show up for the job interview was receiving a lot of approval. Once the debate got under way, all the participants were united in condemning David Cameron’s non-appearance, which did nothing for his image. It didn’t help that earlier in the day, Cameron had visited an O2 factory where he was again under pressure from workers who pushed him on zero hours contracts and his record on disability, with 30 of them leaving before the Q and A finished. All of which has left him looking weak.
Nor did it help that the debate that followed was, for the main part, grown up and intelligent. We had an important discussion about housing, a welcome dismissal of fear-mongering on immigration and a lively conversation about whether Trident is necessary. Though Ed Miliband was challenged to be “better” by Nicola Sturgeon, Leanne Woods and Natalie Bennett, he often put his points across well. I’m not his biggest fan but I’ve always felt people underestimated him, and by the end of the evening the idea of Ed Miliband being Prime Minister felt far from impossible.
Furthermore, when Nigel Farage, the insider who has pretended for so long to be anti-establishment, was debating with the real outsiders, his nasty anti-immigration populism was completely exposed. Both Nicola Sturgeon and Ed Miliband had strong and convincing arguments against him, and Farage’s unwise decision to turn on the audience left him looking foolish and small.
However, the Conservatives tried to spin it afterwards, the night was disastrous for their boss. It made him look like a coward, gave his main opponent the chance to look like a possible leader and allowed for alternatives to austerity to be brought to people’s attention. The strategy designed to ensure victory may have done the opposite.
But David Cameron isn’t the only one whose advisors have got it wrong. Last night also showed a major weakness in Labour’s campaign, which is contributing to their weaknesses in polling. And that’s their take on Scotland. In my view, it was a mistake for Labour to lead the ‘No’ campaign, as it undermined their relationship with their core voters who now feel the party is little different from the rest of the Westminster elite.
They’ve compounded this by conducting a negative election message, which is continuing to alienate people. So on a night when the progressive leaders, in particular, Nicola Sturgeon, asked Ed Miliband to work with them for a more cooperative approach to politics, his flat ‘No’, was not the most sensible response. Labour can win an election without Scotland, but they’d have a more decisive victory with Scottish support. Dismissing the SNP so publicly will not go down well with the very voters Ed Miliband needs to woo, and is also foolish when you consider he is likely to need the SNP’s help if he wants to govern.
With an election this close, it is impossible to know who will be Prime Minister in May. But one thing is certain, with their strategists failing them so badly, now might be time for both men to seek out different advice.
—-
* More on the issues in the 2015 General Election from Ekklesia: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/generalelection2015
—–
© Virginia Moffatt is chief operating officer of Ekklesia. Before working for Ekklesia, she spent 30 years working in services for people with learning disabilities, most recently for Oxfordshire County Council.