@T: ALWAYS THE TWAIN

I was completely wrong. I did end up watching the TV debate and they were interesting (even if not on a par with President Obama’s master classes in communication and none of the leaders are Obama / Groucho Marx / Shakespeare). Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, did make several jokes targeted at David Cameron, the leader of the Conservatives, but they weren’t of the wit caliber of Oscar Wilde nor Monty Python.

For non-UK readers, here’s a flavor of how the UK did its first ever US Presidential-style debate:

What became apparent during the debate is that this is an election where UK voters DO HAVE A CHOICE and CAN MAKE A CHANGE. They can choose between:

• their hearts => Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats because he seems like the type of regular, likeable, no airs-no graces type of guy people could have a drink with.

• their heads => David Cameron of the Conservatives because he is the more articulate, considered and pragmatic of the candidates (but not the type of guy people would have a drink with).

Unfortunately for them, no single candidate showed in the TV debate that they have the qualities yet to win hearts AND minds in the way that truly great orators, philosophers and politicians can.

Of the three prospects, Gordon Brown appears to have performed the worst in the polls on the leaders’ performances during the debate. He didn’t win people’s hearts because his style was perceived as overly aggressive and bullying with his constant interruptions and talking over the other candidates. He also didn’t win people’s minds because it was too easy to say, “Labor has had 13 years to make this government work, run the country efficiently and effectively and not now be in GBP178 billion of debts. It looks like Labor has run out of ideas and your implementation to-date has resulted in serious issues ranging from various wars to public service wastage to falling educational performance in comparison with other developed economies to anti-social behavior.”

TWAIN PERSPECTIVE

A hung Parliament would do this country no good at a time when it needs strong leadership and direction to get itself out of a GBP178 billion government deficit and has to address its falling educational performance, business impasses which affect employment prospects, NHS efficiency and social issues. Yes, consensus government has its validity and applicability; such as a post-war scenario and the primary objective of a country is reconstruction and so pooling together resources makes sense. However, the UK is not in need of reconstruction of this nature. It is in need of a Renaissance: intellectual, social, financial, imaginative.

It is in need of a potentially EXCEPTIONAL PRIME MINISTER.

Nick Clegg closed with a statement about how the Liberal Democrats offer “something new, something different.” This would appeal to those in the electorate who are sick and tired of MPs’ expenses and the ‘Punch and Judy’ show between the Conservatives and Labor. His “one of the people” personability and phrasing peppered with ‘street speak” puts him at a distinctive advantage to David Cameron who is perhaps too well-spoken to be perceived as “on our level”.

However, personally, I want “something smarter, something of substance, something more socially responsible and inclusive.” I don’t want pleasing platitudes; I want imaginative pragmatism. I want a Prime Minister who’s adaptable enough to relate to regular people’s lives and needs AND is also articulate and intellectually nuanced enough to be an international statesmen involved in complex, detailed global negotiations that benefit the country. I don’t want a Prime Minster who can use pally language to make him seem more like “one of us” but then doesn’t have the smarts, the eloquence or the pragmatism to collaborate with other international leaders of caliber or get the country out of this trough it’s in.

I noticed during the debate that Nick Clegg came across as eager to please and someone who could relate to the audience (inclusive). Yet a number of his answers were generalistic and didn’t directly answer the questions posed; he didn’t pay sufficient attention to get the name of one questioner right (he initially addressed the student as “John” instead of “Joel”); and he was ungracious when he failed to thank an NHS nurse for her service but instead used it as an opportunity to attack David Cameron’s thanks towards her as “It’s all too easy to thank someone for their service to the NHS…”

The former Liberal Democrat leader, Paddy Ashdown, said that there was “something of Obama” about Nick Clegg following last night’s debate. He must have been watching a different TV debate from me because I watched most of Obama’s election campaign rallies on ‘C-Span’ and Nick Clegg does not have Obama’s intellect, charisma or strength of character. Certainly, he seems likeable and has a “common touch” but his party’s economic policies are out-of-touch with reality.

Meanwhile, David Cameron was let down by his opening and closing remarks and those are the ones where people tend to pay more attention. The audience attention tends to dip in the middle and yet he made his most effective points against Gordon Brown here. If you were to ask me which of the leaders made the most memorable touchés I’d have to say David Cameron:

• Cut the waste, stop the jobs tax (directed at Gordon Brown).

• What Gordon isn’t telling you………(an appeal to the audience).

Interestingly, if focused attention is paid to the real comparison between Nick Clegg and David Cameron, the latter LED the direction of most of the answers whilst the former either copied or conformed with his pattern. For example, after David Cameron addressed a lady from Burnley, who asked about burglary, by her name and provided a specific example of another voter whose home had been burgled 5 times and then set on fire (killing his son who inhaled the fumes), Nick Clegg started doing the same. After David Cameron specified the need for a comprehensive strategic review of Ministry of Defence budgets, Nick Clegg followed suit. After David Cameron re-emphasized his points about cutting wastage Nick Clegg changed his position to talking about the Labor government’s waste.

So it was David Cameron rather than Nick Clegg who took the initiative and set the tone and agenda in the debate answers rather than vice versa. If we think of the country being the equivalent of UK PLC and the candidates standing for election as CEOs of UK PLC, this difference in negotiation style does set apart those who end up winning more board seats, rights, financial revenues, rewards and concessions for their company than those who follow and agree with what’s already been proposed and initiated.

However, the body language experts seem to think that Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown showed more confidence than David Cameron because they “owned the space” around their lecterns and were more expansive in their gestures whilst David Cameron seemed “stilted, nervous and aloof”. Personally, I thought he was composed and centered — albeit came across as being sidelined because he was the only leader who stuck to his allocated time to speak and did not try to talk over his opponents’ allocated time (which both Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg did, quite rudely). There were moments when he appeared “in a flap” because he couldn’t believe that they were infringing on his time space and so he looked somewhat unsure about how to react to this rudeness on their part. To me, this completely put him off this pacing and flow order; this became apparent because he’d start to respond to a point with his open hand gestures and instead it was directed to one of his opponents so he lost the momentum of whatever point he was going to make.

If he’s to win the next round of the TV debates, David Cameron will need to be less of a gentleman and more of a Muhhamad Ali: a heavyweight who packs a punch, can nimbly adapt his position and rapier his opponents at the same time. (“Float like a butterfly and sting like a bee” to borrow the great man’s own words, :*)).

In any case, I hope the election is decided on 3 core elements rather than their accompanying superficial paraphernalia (e.g. PR, body language, horse trading):

(1.) POLICIES.

(2.) PRAGMATISM.

(3.) PRINCIPLES AND VALUES.

It will be interesting to compare how the leaders adapt and learn from their mistakes from this round for the next TV debate……….