Hopi Sen blogs that Brown should debate Cameron in the run up to the next election in response to a post by Danny Finklestein. Sen thinks these debates will generate more attention on policy, where Cameron is weak, thus boosting Labour's chances. Finklestein argues that Cameron doesn't have much to gain by debating Brown, so shouldn't bother.
They are both wrong.
While I agree that debates will allow more time for policy detail than would otherwise occur in an election campaign, I remain unconvinced that such a forum would benefit Brown. His YouTube appearance last week emphasised how uncomfortable he is communicating policy (although in this case the policy was not thought through either). Cameron, a former PR man, is far more polished on his WebCameron videos and will likely do well in any televised debate.
A live debate is therefore a danger to Brown. Remember Kennedy-Nixon 1960?
It is for this reason that I think Cameron would benefit from a debate - it would take a lot for Brown to convince voters, even if his policy detail was impeccable. He has much to lose. Cameron does not.
That all said, if the debates were structured such that ministers and shadow ministers debated detailed policies, leaving Brown and Cameron to fight it out over the big picture narrative, then this might work to Brown's advantage: while Cameron has detoxified the Conservative brand, not all shadow cabinet ministers are so endearing; and, while the focus is on others, Brown is, ironically, less likely to lose votes.
Such talk may be academic, however, given there is so much debate over whether there should even be a debate.
No response to “Debatable”
Post a Comment