Unions' view: interesting for what was not said
Updated on 30 March 2010
Nigel Stanley, head of campaigns at the Trades Union Congress, says last night's Chancellors debate was interesting for the topics it didn't discuss.
Many will have watched this as they would a sporting contest. The pre-match buzz said that the real test for all three was not to make a mistake. On that basis none of them did.
Each managed a few shots at goal - and some of them hit home. George Osborne probably had most to lose. The other parties have apparently identified him as a weak link.
In the show it did often seem to be two against one, even if not strictly true if you look at strict policy lines.
While Cable and Darling agree that you should not cut spending this year, Cable and Osborne think you can tax banks unilaterally while Darling disagrees.
Perhaps this is because to the extent that there is still an ideological dividing line in UK politics, the Conservatives are one side while Labour and Lib Dems are on the other, however much Darling and Cable agree or disagree on particular points. And it was issues that illustrated this - such as inheritance tax when it came alive.
But I doubt that the programme will have done much to change voting intentions.
While Lib Dems can justifiably complain that they are excluded from the news, that does not apply to Vince Cable. No-one will have been hearing him speak for the first time, and his better record than most in calling the crash gives him moral authority.
But Alistair Darling also derives authority from the comments that got him into so much trouble with his next door neighbour - and a similarly straightforward unflashy budget.
More on Channel 4’s Ask the Chancellors debate
- Chancellors clash over deficit and tax plans
- Chancellors debate: 'A few blows, but no knockout'
- Ask the Chancellors: audience reaction
- Ask the Chancellors: live blog
- Ask the Chancellors: FactCheck
- Gary Gibbon: Cable man of the match
- Gary Gibbon: Cable wins, but nobody ganged up on him
The contents of the debate were also pretty predictable. The differences are already well-rehearsed. And while it was an entertaining exchange, it was as interesting to note what was not said, rather than what was.
There was little real debate about whether tax rises or spending cuts should do most to plug the structural deficit. None of them came out for Robin Hood transaction taxes as a progressive indirect tax that can provide real revenue even when introduced unilaterally.
No-one really wanted to set out where the cuts will hit, and we had diversionary tactics such as talking about public sector pensions for the few very well paid public sector staff that won't make any real contribution to reducing the deficit.
There were too many euphemisms about efficiency savings, and tosh about saving front-line services. Public facing staff need the support from behind the scenes colleagues to do their job. If no-one has bought the scalpels, operations get cancelled.
Such debates will always have an in-built paradox. On the one hand everyone is interested because there is an election. But because there is an election the politicians will be at their most risk-averse, focus-group fed and cautious.
