Second Leaders Debate – International Affairs, Sky News Bristol, Thursday 22nd April 2010

Following the tumultuous fallout from last week’s historic UK Leaders debate, an event which so far seems to have irrevocably altered the complexion of Britain’s political landscape, last night’s debate proffered a far closer result between the three leaders and will be remembered for the improved performances of Cameron and Brown as much for the sustained cogency of Liberal Democrat Nick Clegg’s performance.

Unsurprisingly, the unprecedented and unanticipated significance of last week’s debate, which thrust the once marginal Nick Clegg into the centre of the political debate wholly magnified the pertinence of the evenings performances. For Clegg, following a slew of attacks from the UK’s right wing media, the evening was defined by the need to not only maintain the exceedingly high standards he set last week, but to also provide substance and clarity to some of the Liberal Democrats more divisive policies, such as the scrapping of the Trident nuclear deterrent system, his party’s Pro Europeanism and the Lib Dem’s controversial immigration amnesty policy.

These aims were, by general consensus, broadly achieved, with the Independent and Guardian newspapers recognising the night as an albeit narrower victory for Clegg.

For the Liberal Democrats, perhaps the most notable aspect of the debate was Clegg’s ability to endure the strong attacks from both Brown and Cameron on the issues of Trident, energy policy and national security, all of which are issues on which many analysts regard the party as being particularly vulnerable. Clegg also delivered well on his strong suits, in particular on his calls for voting reform. Equally pleasing was Clegg’s sustained narrative of change throughout the evening. Despite the victory, Clegg’s performance relevant to that of his opponents was incomparable to last week, a fact largely owing to the vastly improved showings from Cameron and Prime Minister Brown.

For David Cameron, his improvement was largely owed to his aping many of the affectations for which Clegg was so praised last week, including maintaining a more direct eyeline with the camera and demonstrating a greater range of emotions. He was also more engaging on issues of policy and aptly explicated the Tories’ energy policy and its position on Afghanistan.

Yet while the Conservative will be pleased with Cameron for “steadying the ship” following an uncomfortable week for their campaign, the need for a decisive victory against Clegg was ominously unfulfilled. Nonetheless, Cameron’s improvement was evident and he used his relaxed demeanor to deliver strong performances on the central issues of immigration and MPs expenses while also acquitting the Conservative party’s Euro-scepticism confidently. Cameron’s performance was also hindered by his failure to put Clegg under greater scrutiny on his expenses record, which had been a subject for the media that morning.

Despite Clegg and Cameron dominating the headlines, it was arguably Prime Minister Brown who produced the greatest improvement from the first debate, a feat achieved through portraying himself as a man of substance and import. This stylistic shift was complimented by his constant and often irksome attempts to steer the debate toward the economy, an issue on which the Labour party believe they can make their core gains. It was also telling the visual benefit Brown drew from a new haircut, which many critics noted as giving him a more youthful and statesmanlike presence. The combination of these tactics appeared to have modest benefits for Brown, who was no more than 8 % adrift of either of his opponents in any poll and level with Cameron in ICM’s evening poll.

In conclusion, the evening’s debate forwent much of the theatrics and rhetoric that defined the first, with all three parties favouring substantive debate on issues from the war in Afghanistan, Britain’s future role in Europe and the nation’s nuclear security. In terms of political analysis, while this debate has not produced the same furore as the first owing to the closer performances of the three, this is perhaps precisely the outcome that the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties would want.