I watched the Great Debate, along with a large number of political junkies. What did I think?
It was a good exercise in democracy, giving viewers a better insight into their leaders than they get from seeing them together at Question Time in the House of Commons. Indeed, one reason why Clegg did better than expected is that his performances in the House are not that great - and appearing in a more neutral environment undoubtedly helped him. And he was perceived as the Outsider.
The price that Nick Clegg will now have to pay is greater scrutiny of his party's policies - of which more anon. He was able to refer to the "two old Parties" without anyone pointing out that the Liberals are in fact the oldest party of all of them. The notion that the election of a LibDem administration would transform the nations's prospects and performance is undermined by their performance in local government, where this transformation is still awaited. Paradoxically, by portraying himself as an "anti-politician" and gaining political popularity thereby, he has now become a politician - and will have to face the consequences.
I thought we could have had more questions, as some of the sessions became repetitive - like the one on the economy in the middle. We didn't get round to the environment, civil liberties, voter apathy or transport, for example.
Alastair Stewart, the compere, reminded me of the umpire in the Boat Race. When the crews get too close, the Umpire repeatedly shouts the name of the offending crew until there is clear water. During some of the clashes, we heard Alastair shouting the time of one of the contestants until the race moved into calmer waters.
I thought David Cameron was the more robust on expenses - where all the parties are vulnerable. But I was surprised to hear from Nick Clegg that Conservative MP's had abstained on a vote on recalling MP's, as this is a subject I have been doing some work on.
He claimed that the Liberal Democrats “put forward a law which would have given all of you and everyone watching now the right to sack their MP if their MP was corrupt."
Not so. I have found no trace of such a vote in the Commons.
In fact, all the LibDems proposed was a “review” of recall. The Lib Dem amendment to the Political Parties and Elections Bill, tabled by Lord Tyler, proposed that: “The Secretary of State shall, within 6 months of this Act being passed, in exercise of his powers under section 6(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41) (reviews of electoral and political matters), request the Electoral Commission to review and report on the procedures for local referenda on the recall by constituents of a Member of Parliament found guilty of misconduct” (Lords Hansard, 15 June 2009, col. 867). This would of itself have given no rights to sack anyone.
We didn’t vote against this – but we didn’t support it because the amendment was too vague. As our spokesman Lord Hodgson said: “I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in thinking that much of this amendment seems previous in its make-up. The amendment talks of being “guilty of misconduct”, but we do not quite know by whom, about whom or how that procedure will work. It is important to have that issue clear in any Bill before we move further down that road” (Lords Hansard, 15 June 2009, col. 872).
In contrast, the Conservative Party is the only party that has come forward with detailed proposals on giving constituents the opportunity to sack their MP that are ready to be implemented immediately.
It may well be that, in the aftermath of the Great Debate, the analysts will go through the transcripts and examine its entrails.
If that had been the only debate, and it had taken place just before polling day, then I think it would have helped the LibDems. But with three weeks to go, I believe any advantage may well erode.
|
Promoted by Tracey Kirk on behalf of Sir George Young both at 2 Church Close, Andover,
Hants SP10 1DP
