Cameron judged winner of election debate

1 of 20. Conservative Party leader David Cameron (L), Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg (C) and Prime Minister Gordon Brown take part in the third and final televised party leaders' debate in Birmingham April 29, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Jeff Overs/BBC

BIRMINGHAM, England | Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:27am BST

BIRMINGHAM, England (Reuters) - Polls declared Conservative leader David Cameron the winner Thursday of a final TV debate before next week's British election, giving him a boost going into the closing stages of the campaign.

At the start of a debate focussed on the economy, Prime Minister Gordon Brown mocked himself for a high-profile campaign gaffe and stressed his record, trying to convince voters he was the man to secure future growth.

A Yougov poll for the top-selling Sun newspaper asking respondents who they judged had won the debate put Cameron on 41 percent, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg on 32 percent and Brown on 25 percent.

A ComRes poll for broadcaster ITV found 35 percent thought Cameron had won, against 33 percent for Clegg and 26 percent for Brown. A Populus survey for the Times newspaper put Cameron and Clegg neck-and-neck on 38 percent and Brown on 25 percent.

An ICM poll for the Guardian newspaper was the only one not to rank Brown in last place, putting him second behind Cameron.

"It was Cameron's best performance of the three debates and he won it narrowly from Nick Clegg," said Simon Lee, politics lecturer at Hull University.

BROWN'S GAFFE

The run-up to the debate was overshadowed by a blaze of bad publicity for Brown after he was caught by a lapel microphone calling a supporter of his Labour Party "bigoted" Wednesday.

Earlier polls Thursday suggested the incident had not seriously dented Labour support ahead of the May 6 election.

Brown, finance minister for a decade before he took over as prime minister in 2007, swiftly acknowledged his mistake. He warned the Conservatives' plan to cut a record budget deficit this year risked plunging the country back into recession.

"There's a lot to this job and as you saw yesterday I don't get all of it right," he said.

"But I do know how to run the economy in good times and in bad. When the banks collapsed I took immediate action to stop the crisis becoming a calamity and the recession becoming a depression."

The economy is a key election issue as Britain struggles with sluggish growth and a deficit running at more than 11 percent of GDP.

Three U.S.-style television debates, the first in British politics, have dominated campaigning, raising the profile of Clegg, whose party has in the past been in third place.

Polls put the Conservatives in the lead but predict the Liberal Democrats will grab enough votes to deny both traditional main parties an overall majority, an outcome not seen since 1974.

Following the debate, bookies cut their odds on the Conservatives winning the most seats. According to betting on its website, Betfair said the likelihood of the election resulting in a Conservative majority increased by 3 percent over the course of the debate.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS

Brown, Cameron and Clegg clashed on a range of economic issues, including taxes, the banking sector and the decline of British manufacturing industry, but all three largely repeated their respective well-trodden party lines.

The most lively exchanges of the night were prompted by a question on immigration, a topic which has surfaced in each of the three debates and triggered Brown's outburst Wednesday.

Cameron repeatedly attacked Brown's economic record.

"This prime minister and this government have left our economy in such a mess with a budget deficit that this year is forecast to be bigger than that of Greece," he said.

Bidding to end 13 years of Labour rule, Cameron promised Britain a brighter future.

"If you vote Conservative Thursday, you can have a new fresh government making a clean break and taking our country in a new direction and bringing the change that we need," he said.

Clegg told voters not to return to the two parties that have dominated post-war politics.

"When you go to vote next week, choose the future you really want. Together we will really change Britain."

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden, Estelle Shirbon, Jodie Ginsberg and Mohammed Abbas; editing by Andrew Roche)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
Tadge wrote:
Cannot see why anyone could a word Brown says in public any more

Apr 29, 2010 7:43pm BST  --  Report as abuse
gally3000 wrote:
In a campaign dominated by the economy, unemployment and immigration, it’s truly astounding that there has been no mention whatsoever in any of the debates about language education. The fact of the matter is that despite pouring billions into banks, they are simple not lending anywhere near enough for there to be a marked increase in employment opportunities. It is also important to note that whichever party wins the general election, it will take months, not weeks to finally make banks more open to lending at reasonable rates. That is why education and specifically language education is so important now and for UK graduates of the future. Nevermind class sizes – the reason why there is so much unrest about the fact that young, intelligent british graduates are unable to seek employment and are more often than not beaten to it by a non-UK nationals is because the UK has worst level of language tuition in europe – meaning languages are not incorporated into the cirriculum with any major degree of importance. There ARE jobs that match UK qualifications in Benelux, France, Germany, Italy, and other countries yet graduates remain in the UK. Why? They remain because successive government have not explained to the people why europe is so important, nor have they explained why language is so important as a result. In many parts of the United States, spanish is considered an unofficial second national language is taught intensively in schools. Having the ability to work in a professional enviroment in a second working language is one of the most important professional commodities in todays job market. Its incredible how Mr Clegg has not brought this up given that he worked for the European Institutions and knows full well how valuable and rewarding language skills are. This also brings me onto immigration. When I refer to immigration in this context I am referring to immigrants who come to the UK to enter the professional job market. Why is it that you have french bankers, german IT consultants and spanish retail managers who are both qualified and speak fluent english? If you want to stop young people quite rightly complaining about the lack of opportunity in the UK, then you must give them an alternative – that alternative is a structured, intensive approach to ensuring that every child in the UK is fluent in at least one other language by the time they are 15. Globalisation has meant that many avenues, previously thought restricted are now available and the UK are seriously lagging behind the rest. I am a mothertongue english speaker and I am only too aware of the terrible job market in the UK. But my education has enabled me to be fluent in 3 languages since the age of 13 and I no longer have (a) linguistic barriers to workplaces in over 25 other countries and (b) the sense of feeling that my qualifications mean nothing are not an issue. The EU is there for more than just eurocrats. Mutual recognition is more than just a principle. If a young graduate is confined within one country in order to get a job and put food on the table in the 21st century, then something is seriously wrong.

Apr 29, 2010 2:01am BST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.