Does Dave have the big mo?

Dave Cameron emerged as the winner from last night's television debate with an articilate, polished and positive performance. But does he have enough momentum to secure an overall majority or at least to be so far ahead of the Labour Party that he can govern effectively on his own given the fragmented nature of the opposition? For all Dave's relative success, it remains a three-way race, albeit with the Conservtaives in pole position. No one landed a killer blow.

Gordon Brown seemed nervous to begin with. He tried to defuse the issue of the gaffe, but responses from the 'worm' showed that this did not go down too well with viewers. He got better as he went on, but he often looked brooding and aggrieved. He floundered on defending his record. He kept returning to the issue of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems removing child tax credits for prosperous families, but if steps like this are not taken how is the deficit ever going to be reduced?

He managed to get his soundbites in on 'the same old Conservative party', which probably only plays with core Labour voters (although possibly that vote needs shoring up) and Dave Cameron and Nick Clegg both being 'a risk to the economy'. Although Dave Cameron over egged it when he talked of 'desperate stuff from a man in a desperate state', and there is evidence that voters don't like this kind of point scoring, I thought that it was an unimpressive performance by Brown.

Nick Clegg was once again personable and he held his own, although he came under some pressure on policy issues. The 'here they go again' comment addressed to his rivals didn't really work. I thought that he was right to emphasise the fairness theme as he has a real chance of picking up disillusioned Labour voters as their campaign risks imploding. Some Labour voters think that he is articulating the values that their party should be advancing.

The issue of immigration was discussed. Dave Cameron was able to convey the message that the Conservatives would be tougher on immigration, but he was still unable to specify the size of the proposed cap when pressed by Nick Clegg. As came out, 80 per cent of immigration is from the EU which created an opening for Nigel Farrage of UKIP in his post-debate comments.

I didn't really learn anything new from the debate and I certainly got no clear idea of how the deficit is going to be tackled, but then I didn't expect that. The debates have enhanced the campaign and aroused interest in the election, even if they tend to emphasise personality rather than policy. It looks as if Dave Cameron will be the next prime minister.

A wake up call

The Institute for Fiscal Studies provided a wake up call in the general election campaign yesterday. It attracted considerable media attention when it pointed out just how big the task of tackling the deficit was. Hopefully the party leaders will be pressed on this issue in Thursday's televised debate on the economy.

None of the parties will say very much about VAT but it is generally recognised that it will have to be increased to at least 18.5 per cent after the election (any further increase would have to take into account the effect on inflation). There is no scope for further increases in income tax and the use of national insurance is politically contested.

As far as expenditure cuts are concerned, both parties talk about efficiency savings, but it is by no means clear that these can be achieved, certainly in the timescale required. Labour's list of cutbacks does not add up to a fraction of what is required. Gordon Brown has been attacking the Conservatives and Lib Dems for proposing withdrawing tax credits from better off families, but unless one takes measures of this kind one isn't going to get started.

David Cameron points to the plan to increase the retirement age for men to 66 by 2016 but this will have no impact in the required timescale. It is the kind of drastic measure that would have an immediate effect because it would reduce expenditure and also make those between 65 and 66 continue to pay national insurance. It's politically explosive, of course, but the whole benefits area cannot be left alone as it would bring big savings very quickly. There would be a case for freezing all benefits except the state pension.

Read more about what the IFS has to say here: The Big Hole

Still a 3-way race

Polls following last night's television debate show pretty much a three-way split in terms of who won. Some put Dave Cameron ahead, others put Nick Clegg in front. All of them put Gordon Brown in third place, although he improved his ratings from the previous debate. No one delivered a knockout blow and there is still everything to play for in the last debate.

Dave Cameron was more relaxed and focused than in the previous debate, although sometimes his attempts to sound prime ministerial put him on the sidelines a little. He was probably at his strongest in Europe, although the inability of the Conservatives to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon treaty was a weak point. He also clearly felt a little awkward about some of his allies in the European Parliament. However, he scored some points against Labour making false claims about Conservative policies in leaflets (one of these distributed in Gordon Brown's own constituency according to Alex Salmond later). Brown said that he had not authorised the leaflets and the Conservatives are clearly going to press on this question today.

Nick Clegg held his ground well, gave a confident performance and once again addressed members of the audience more directly than the other two. He was perhaps in greatest difficulty over Trident where Dave Cameron said 'I agree with Gordon' and Gordon Brown urged Clegg to 'get real'. It was not clear what the Lib Dem policy was, other than to have a wide ranging defence review after the election which any party could and should hold. He managed to put Dave under some pressure over immigration by pressing him on what his cap actually was.

Gordon Brown managed to get in his soundbite about Dave being 'a risk to the economy' more than once. He also referred to Cameron's policies being a 'big society at home, little Britain abroad'. (Once again we heard little from Dave about the 'big society' except in his opening statement). Brown's charge that Clegg was 'anti-American', repeated twice, was a little odd: what Clegg is asking for is a different kind of relationship with the United States. At times Brown sounded a bit clunky, as when when he addressed a pensioner questioner on the lines of 'women, and you are a woman.'

One of the trickiest questions was about the Pope's visit to Britain and the failings and policies of the Catholic church. I thought that all three leaders answered this well, but also it was the point when Gordon Brown came across most authentically when he talked about his Presbyterian values. This is much more effective than reciting figures or listing the policies put in place.

The Lib Dems have failed to get the momentum which get them towards 35 per cent in the polls and the chance of winning a really significant number of seats. At the moment Labour is losing the campaign but the Conservatives are not really winning it or brushing off the Lib Dem challenge.

Yo it's Nick

In my view, and that of all other commentators I have heard, Nick Clegg was the clear winner in last night's leaders' debate. I am not a great fan of Nick Clegg: I think he is rather lightweight. He does not perform well at Prime Minister's Questions, although it is not an easy situation for him as he has to struggle to be heard and as a result can seem to hector. In this format he was much better: he had an opportunity and seized it.

He tried to answer the question that the member of the audience had asked. He also looked at the other leaders when they were speaking. Of course, both of them were aware that they might need his support after a general election, hence the repetition of 'I agree with Nick'. A good point made on Radio 5 this morning was that it's rather like a newly promoted team in the Premiership. They often do well in their first season, or at least the first half of it, because no one knows how to play them. The other leaders will have to work out how to deal with Clegg before the next two debates.

I thought that Dave Cameron's body language was a bit problematic. His facial expression was a mixture of puzzlement and petulance when he wasn't speaking. But his answers were relatively straightforward and clear and focus group evidence suggests that he did well on the subterranean issue of immigration.

I thought that Gordon Brown was stiff and wooden to start with and gave too much detail in his answers. He gained in confidence when he started to talk about the economy and it was here that Dave was in most difficulty in explaining how he was going to pay for everything he planned to do and cut the deficit.

I didn't learn anything new about the stances of the parties and I wonder of 90 minutes may have been long for most voters. It's a shame that members of the audience aren't allowed to come back and say their questions haven't been answered.

There was no deal breaker here between the two main parties. No one made a gaffe or gave a really memorable soundbite. Nick Clegg increased the chances of the Lib Dems holding most of their seats and winning one or two more.