“And Congdon’s looking at the bloody camera whenever he answers the question.,” said Osborne, looking miserable. “Do you think that’ll be enough for him?”
“It’ll help,” said Mandelson, considering. “I think what will mess the rest of us up will be the fact that Gordon, David and Chris seem to be closing ranks and almost trying to bully him. It might have worked with a more animated target, but he’s more…”
“More a sort of bank manager-type person,” suggested Osborne.
“Indeed. And that’s quite possibly what the general public are looking for at the moment.” Mandelson shook his head. “The worst thing is that he’s taking all of us on at our strongest points.”
“How so?”
“Against you, he’s the right-wing candidate. Against us, he’s the credible economics expert with a safe pair of hands. Against the Lib Dems, he’s the anti-establishment candidate. I had thought he’d really only threaten you, but…”
“But he could really screw all of us up.”
“Indeed,” said Mandelson. “Ah. Summing up at last. And… yes, Congdon’s come alive again. Just when it would hurt us all the most, of course.”
***
Reuters, 15th April 2010.
“(Reuters) – Tim Congdon, a rank outsider to become Britain’s next prime minister, upstaged the three main candidates in an unprecedented televised debate on Thursday, according to snap polls of viewers.
With a national election due on May 6, millions of voters are still undecided and the 90-minute live broadcast was a crucial opportunity for the candidates to make their mark in a campaign that has struggled to generate excitement.
Congdon, 58, was judged the clear winner of the clash with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, of the center-left Labour Party, David Cameron, of the center-right Conservatives and Chris Huhne, of the centrist Liberal Democrat Party.
FOUR MEN IN THE SPOTLIGHT
The TV debate was a rare chance for Huhne, 55, to stand on an equal footing with Brown, 59, and Cameron, 43, and it had been expected that the Liberal Democrat leader would make some ground, but that Cameron would triumph. Surprisingly, Cameron seemed “flat” and Huhne was unable to capitalise. Initially nervous, Congdon grew more fluent as he spoke and was the only one of the four to address the camera rather than the audience.
Opinion polls before the debate suggested the Conservatives are ahead, with Labour in second and the Liberal Democrats in third. But the Conservative lead is not big enough for them to be sure of an overall majority in parliament.
Sterling hit a one-week high against the euro on Thursday, helped by an opinion poll suggesting the Conservatives might win an overall majority, but the currency has been laboring under investors’ fears of a hung parliament, and that poll now looks like a rogue.
Congdon, a former member of the Treasury Panel of Independent Forecasters (the so-called “wise men”) between 1992 and 1997 during the recovery from the last recession, had the economic credibility to argue with Brown, who was finance minister for 10 years before taking over from Tony Blair as prime minister in 2007, when the latter tried to portray himself as the best steward of the economy.”
The Times, 16th April 2010
“Dr Congdon performed admirably in the debate last night but has to do more to convince The Times that UKIP is more than a one-trick pony. His comment that more than £20 of an average basket of groceries was due to the Common Agricultural Policy will have hit home with cash-strapped voters, many of whom will not take the time to check whether or not this statement is true. Mr Brown’s attempt to derail the debate onto economic matters was a blunder and made the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Leaders look irrelevant. Mr Congdon and Mr Brown took chunks out of each other, but Mr Congdon’s damning indictment of the Labour Government’s strategy of running a deficit during “an unsustainable boom fuelled by deliberate debt and financial pyramid schemes made possible by your [Mr Brown’s] dereliction of duty” will have struck home. It will probably have more of an immediate impact than the estimate that simply by withdrawing from the EU, we could achieve an immediate greater reduction in public spending than the Conservative’s in-year proposals without any cuts at all. The latter, however, will have more of a slow-burner effect.”
***
30 Millbank, Monday, 19th April
Coulson put another piece of paper onto the pile. “Well, with the ICM, that’s three polls today.”
“Another three days to go to the next debate,” murmured Hilton. “I still don’t understand why David was so flat in the last one. He was great in the practices.”
Osborne read the latest piece of paper. “The ICM looks a bit better for us,” he suggested. “We’re in a dead heat with Labour with us on 31 each, UKIP only just into the teens.”
“I’m not so sure,” said Coulson. “ICM’s method always smooths out things a little. YouGov have us second to Labour, with UKIP only six behind.”
“Let’s have a look,” said Osborne.
Coulson passed the other sheets of A4 across. Osborne arranged them in front of himself.
“Maybe if we use a square theme rather than a triangle theme,” mused Hilton. “Three opponents rather than two. That has to help.”
“Okay – we’re on 31 with ICM, 29 with Mori, and 26 with YouGov. Labour’s on 31 with ICM as well, 27 with Mori, and beating us in YouGov with 29. UKIP on 13 with ICM, and 20 with both Mori and YouGov,” said Osborne.
“How about the Lib Dems?” asked Hilton, stirring out of his contemplation.
“Oh, they’re on 18 with ICM and YouGov and 16 with Mori.”
“They’re calling it the ‘Congasm’ online. I think the term started on that political betting site,” said Coulson. “I’d hoped the surge might fade away over the weekend, but no such luck. The Telegraph are wavering in their support for us, and the Express have jumped right behind UKIP.”
“Why in hell did UKIP do so well in the domestic debate?” Coulson ran his hand through his hair in exasperation. “I’d worried about them in the second debate – the foreign policy one. Or maybe in the last one, the economics-focussed one, ‘cause Congdon’s an economist, but I thought we’d had a stroke of luck with the subject matter of the first debate. No-one really cares what UKIP want on domestic policies, do they?”
***
From The British General Election of 2010, by Kavanagh and Cowley
“Why did UKIP succeed in the first debate? Many thought that domestic policies would be the weak link for the party and they would fall flat on their faces out of the starting blocks. The initial analysts’ conclusions on Congdon’s success was that he had succeeded simply as an outsider, in spite of the subject of the debate. That the “establishment” parties, uniting against him, had given him the legitimacy of an iconoclast banned for preaching truth.
However, had this been the case, the UKIP surge could yet have fallen stillborn as the cold light of day played over their proposals as showcased on ITV. The actual reality is that the questions could hardly have been better chosen to emphasise the most populist of UKIP’s domestic proposals. Of the ninety minutes of the debate, a stopwatch shows that the subjects covered were:
- Introduction and opening statements by Party Leaders – 5 minutes
- Immigration - 13 minutes
- Burglary/Crime/Policing - 14 minutes
- Politicians’ Expenses – 18 minutes
- Education – 10 minutes
- Economy/Deficit – 15 minutes
- Defence – 10 minutes
- Wrap up/final statements – 5 minutes
The introductions provided the ideal launch pad for UKIP, as all three of the major Party leaders failed to resist the urge to take pot-shots at the minor Party, whilst Dr
Congdon cheerfully returned fire in all directions. His style of addressing the audience at home underlined his strategy. Immigration proved the perfect opening line for the right-wing party, highlighting the implausibility of major reductions being achieved whilst the UK remained in the EU. UKIP’s policing proposals then appeared similar to the Conservatives, and Mr Cameron’s vehement disagreement with Dr Congdon badly damaged the Conservative Leader.
The question on politicians’ expenses that followed could have been a live grenade for UKIP, as their MEPs have hardly shone in this domain, but the attempts by the major party leaders to steer the debate in the direction of European Parliament expenses came across as clumsy and transparent. Congdon’s repeated insistence that Westminster was where politics needed to be cleared up was inarguable and he undoubtedly benefited due to the anti-politician buzz.
The on-screen “worm” showed that during the debate section on Education, Congdon fell back into the pack and even lagged at times, but the shift to the Economy and the deficit revitalised him. After his tour-de-force demolition of the Prime Minister, the final question on Defence provided the perfect finale – UKIP’s proposals for large increases in Defence spending ringing the populist bell. With a credible economic spokesman insisting on their affordability, audience applause could not be denied, despite the rules of the debate.
In a later interview, Alistair Stewart insisted that the questions and their order was strictly audience-provided and that if time had not run out, the next questions were on healthcare and social care, which would arguably have proved a more difficult area for Congdon to sell UKIP’s policies. The inescapable conclusion is simply that the perfect storm occurred for Tim Congdon between 8:30 and 10:00pm on Thursday 15th April 2010.
The question on the lips of most political commentators, of course, was how well he’d do in the second debate, as the lecterns were set up in Bristol. Received opinion was that this would be a strong area for the Eurosceptic party.”
CHAPTER THREE
Arnolfini, Bristol, 22nd April
“He’s talking to the camera this time.” Osborne glanced across and was unsurprised to see Mandelson again.
“Uh-huh. So’s Brown”
Mandelson nodded. “Poor Gordon did actually remember last time, but he couldn’t make out the little light over the active camera. So rather than try to randomly cast around and look shifty, he decided to just answer the questioner.”
“Sensible choice,” said Osborne.
“This time we’ve got the producers to put a piece of card around the active camera,” said Mandelson. He listened to Cameron’s statement for a moment. “The Big Society again? No offence, George, but you’re flogging a dead horse with that one.”
They listened in silence for a while. “Congdon started well again, but I think all four are doing pretty well,” suggested Mandelson.
“You could be right. David’s back to his best and Huhne’s improved a lot as well – and I haven’t heard Gordon vehemently agreeing with him again,” said Osborne with a smirk.
“Oh, hang on…” said Mandelson, leaning forward. The debaters were practically shouting at each other for a few seconds, until Huhne leaned back with a satisfied smile. Congdon was being very hesitant.
“A bit of an ‘oops’ moment, there,” suggested Osborne. “Did Congdon really say that UKIP could take us out of the EU without a referendum?”
“I can just about see the logic – if they had a majority, they could argue they’d already won democratic legitimacy for the move – but I don’t think the voters will like the idea of a complete leap in the dark,” said Mandelson.
“Smart move by Huhne, offering an in/out referendum. ‘Let the people decide directly’. That’ll always go down well. You think he meant it?” asked Osborne.
“Doesn’t matter – we all know the Lib Dems won’t get a majority, so they’ll not have to deliver on it,” said Mandelson. “And now we have Congdon agreeing with Chris after all.”
“I guess it’s catching,” said Osborne with a faint smile. He lost his smile a few minutes later. “Oh, come on! Linking us with extremists?”
Mandelson tilted his head. “Maybe that was a little unwise, but there is some fertile territory there for us with your new EU grouping.”
“I don’t think you’ll get much from that. Talking about politics in Poland and the Czech Republic…” said Osborne.
Mandelson shrugged as they continued to watch. As Adam Boulton finally wrapped up the debate, they both sighed as they got to their feet.
“Well, here’s where we both tell the press that our boy won hands down. Who do you really think won?” asked Osborne.
“I’m not sure,” said Mandelson. “Congdon lost ground on climate change, nuclear power and – did I imagine it, or was there really a bit about the Pope’s visit?”
Osborne snorted. “That threw me as well. But they did well on Defence. I thought they’d make hay on the faith in politics section, but Congdon just didn’t get going there. And there was only a little about the economy. So – I’ve got no idea, either.”
***
Reuters, 23rd April 2010
“(Reuters) - The main candidates to lead Britain after a May 6 election sought on Thursday to fend off a surprise challenge from a smaller party in a lively TV debate, but there was no undisputed winner.
Frontrunners David Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, together with third party leader Chris Huhne were under pressure to halt the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party leader Tim Congdon after he outshone them in an earlier debate.
“An awful lot of fire was turned on Congdon, and I think they got him on the ropes, but not on the canvas,” Jon Tonge, politics professor at Liverpool University, told Reuters.
Thursday’s clash, on issues from Afghanistan to Europe and pensions to the Pope, was the second of a series of three planned for the campaign -- the first time in British history that the main party leaders have taken part in TV debates.
Two snap polls after Thursday’s contest gave conflicting results, though both suggested that the performances were more balanced than a week ago when Congdon was the clear winner.”
***
30 Millbank, Saturday, 24th April
“Oh, goody – four new polls,” said Coulson, sarcastically. Despite it being late on a Saturday evening, CCHQ remained busy. It would be this way until at least polling day.
“Who have we got this time?” asked Hilton with a sigh.
“ICM, ComRes, YouGov and Mori. They’re going to dominate the Sundays.”
“Any good news?” asked Hilton. “I thought David did a lot better. Putting up the square themes in the background here had to have helped, and I don’t think David even noticed. Subliminal messages are always the best.”
“What?”
“The background. Squares rather than triangles. To adjust his… oh, never mind. How bad are the polls?”
Coulson bit his lip. “Bad. Really bad.”
“Go on.”
“ICM usually has the lower UKIP scores – and they’ve got them on 20. We’re leading, but only just. Us on 25, Labour on 24, the Lib Dems recovering a bit to 21, and UKIP on 20.”
Hilton refrained from pointing out that Coulson had repeated the UKIP score.
Coulson let out a long breath. “And that’s our best one. ComRes has Labour on 24, UKIP on 23, us on 22 and the Lib Dems on 21.”
“UKIP ahead of us?” Hilton turned pale.
“And they’re not the only one. YouGov have it as well – but with the Lib Dems ahead of both of us. Huhne’s lot on 25, UKIP on 23, us and Labour joint last on 22.”
Hilton shook his head. “I don’t believe that. Must be a rogue poll.”
“Two rogue polls from two companies at the same time?” demanded Coulson.
“What does Mori say?” asked Hilton, refusin
g to answer the question.
“Labour leading on 25, us second on 24, UKIP on 21, Lib Dems on 20.”
“So… Lib Dems first or last, us first or last, Labour first or last. This doesn’t make sense,” Hilton shook his head in disbelief.
“It’s called a statistical dead heat,” said Osborne’s voice from behind them. He stepped forward. He looked tired.
“We’re all somewhere between twenty and twenty-five points. That’s all we know,” he said.
“But – what does that mean on seats?” asked Hilton.
“I have no idea,” said Osborne, shaking his head. “Us and Labour are more entrenched and we have far more safe seats than anyone else, but even safe seats could be in danger. I reckon Labour would end up ahead on seats with us second and UKIP with just a handful of seats.”
“First Past the Post.” Hilton nodded, knowingly.
“It’s annoying, because there would be equal numbers of votes for Left and Right, but the Left would win,” said Osborne.
“Vote Purple, get Brown,” murmured Coulson. “I could do something with that – but I need to prepare the ground. We need someone other than us to…”
“Actually – I’ve got an idea,” said Hilton, interrupting.
***
News 24 Studio, 27th April
“A lot of people are asking why no-one seems to know what actual result the polls are pointing to. Electoral experts keep saying that it’s almost impossible to know how many seats the four parties will get from these polls and therefore who is going to win. If it’s a hung Parliament - as looks increasingly probable – this will dictate which combinations might be on the cards. Professor Curtice, could you tell us why the difficulty?” asked the interviewer
“Well, it’s down to our electoral system, usually called by the misleading name ‘First Past the Post’. It’s comparatively easy to forecast results in a 2-way contest, such as in the Fifties and Sixties, where a Uniform Swing applied to the results usually got answers to within a handful of seats,” said Curtice.