Brown should debate Cameron – what has he got to lose?

By Paul Richards

Peter Mandelson never says anything by accident. Not for him a rogue use of the word ‘twat’. So when Mandelson raised the prospect last week of a televised debate during the general election between Gordon Brown and David Cameron, he revealed that Labour’s strategists are seriously considering it. Mandelson was asked about a head-to-head debate, live on TV, between the Prime Minister and the man who wants his job. He replied “I don’t think Gordon would have a problem with that”.

And nor should he.

Britain has never gone in for US-style TV debates between leaders. Our general elections comprise 600-plus local constituency elections, not a winner-takes-all as in the USA, France, or other countries with presidents. The idea of a Prime Minister and a Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition point-scoring for the cameras seems very un-British.

Prime Ministers have always resisted the idea of debating their opposite numbers. In 1987 Margaret Thatcher dealt with Neil Kinnock’s demands for a TV debate like she was swatting a buzzing mosquito. John Major did the same five years later. When Blair was challenged to a debate by the four Conservative leaders he faced, he used the same line: the British people can see me and Tory leader debate every week, on a Wednesday, at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs) in the House of Commons.

The problem with PMQs is that there is no debate: just set-piece arguments by Cameron and Brown, each hoping for a cheer from their backbenches, and a soundbite on the news. I’ve seen first-hand the inordinate amount of time that is spent preparing briefing folders for Prime Ministers for PMQs, all for a few seconds of shouting in the Chamber of the Commons. The public finds it incomprehensible and off-putting. And of course there are no PMQs during the election, because the Queen has dissolved ‘her’ Parliament.

Prime Ministers have nothing to gain from a TV debate. For Cameron it’s a win-win: either he can force the PM to debate on equal terms, or he can call him a coward for running away.

So why are Labour’s strategists even contemplating such an idea?

Firstly, there’s a real frustration at our inability to land a glove on Cameron. I’ve sat through presentations and discussions where ideas have been bounced around on how to nail Cameron. Remember how Labour started out calling Cameron a ‘chameleon’, willing to change his political colours to match whatever people wanted? Since then he’s been called an estate agent, a slick salesman, or a spin merchant. Calling him a ‘toff’ was less than successful. Alan Johnson tried to say Cameron was basically okay, it was just all the people behind that are the trouble. In a presentation to Labour advisers in March 2008, Brown’s new PR man Stephen Carter suggested that ‘focus groups’ of the public saw Clegg as a bunny rabbit, Brown as a polar bear, and Cameron as a rattle-snake.

Every jibe and label has slid off Cameron like an ice-lolly sliding off its stick. Labour’s latest attempt to ‘get Cam’ is to present Brown as the man of substance, and Cameron as the man of spin. This will be at the heart of Labour’s campaign at next year’s election. So a public debate, with enough time for substantive answers, and serious issues under discussion such as tax, immigration and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, might suit Brown more than Cameron. At least that’s what Labour’s strategists will hope.

Second, there’s a fear that people are so disillusioned with all the political parties following the expenses scandal, they’ll stay at home rather than come out and vote. We should all be terrified that a low turn-out will deliver Cameron the top job. The spin doctors are calculating that the novelty of a Britain’s first-ever TV debate, in prime time, will excite and enthuse the public in the same way as Strictly Come Dancing or Dancing on Ice. It might serve to get people talking about politics around the water cooler and at the school gates, and cajole them to the polling station on 6th May 2010.

Third, if Labour gets to Spring next year with the Tories still 20 points ahead in the opinion polls, and recession biting, any doubters around Brown are likely to conclude: what have we got to lose? Peter Mandelson has been test-driving the ‘Labour is the underdog’ line. If Cameron is widely seen as the Prime Minister-in-waiting by next year, but fails to best Brown in a TV debate, then people might think twice about taking the risk on him. Cameron might even lose his temper, like he did in PMQs in November when he sent his briefing papers flying – or best of all, swear.

I’ve listened to Gordon Brown in meetings away from the cameras speaking with great passion and conviction about tackling global poverty. That’s a side the public seldom see, and one the Downing Street spin doctors will hope comes through in a TV debate.

Brown will get the credit for being the first British Prime Minister to have the cojones to debate live on TV, and counter the Tories’ jibe that he is a ‘bottler’.

My advice, for what it’s worth: call Cameron’s bluff, name the day, and invite the world to watch.

What have we got to lose?

Related posts:

1. Obama’s economist backs Brown and slaps Cameron
2. Time to correct Brown’s most shameful act – or we’ll deserve to lose
3. Brown facing tougher questions from inside and outside the Labour Party
4. Brown and Blair will be questioned publicly
5. Backbenchers circulate a letter calling for Gordon Brown to resign