Brown, Clegg and Cameron - comms experts discuss BBC Leaders' Debate

What was at stake at last night’s debate for the prime ministerial candidates?

Gordon Brown had to somehow overcome Duffygate and undo the damage done to him personally and to every Labour candidate in this General Election;

Nick Clegg had to ensure that his remarkable popular surge following the first debate carried through into the last week of the campaign;

David Cameron had to convince the majority of the British people to trust and vote for him to avoid the hung parliament that almost now seems inevitable if we are to believe the experts; and, lastly, all three had to outline a credible plan for the economy and most of all give a clear account to the electorate on their plans to manage cuts in public spending to sort out the country’s financial mess.

So, how did they do? Well there wasn’t a knock-out blow or a change in tack by the would-be prime ministers and I doubt we’ll see a big impact in the polls.

Brown put in a decent show all things considered and put in a robust argument for continuing Labour’s economic plan, however, I doubt this performance will reflect itself in a boost in his polling;

Cameron put in another polished performance but still didn’t provide the detail, particularly on cuts, that many curious floating voters might need to think voting Tory once more; and Clegg once again portrayed himself as the mediator of the two main parties urging collaboration in order to solve the country’s economic woes and did well despite not having Vince Cable by his side. He was also slightly shut out at the beginning.

What can we take from the debates? Well, they’ve certainly had the impact that many people prophesied they would. It enabled the Liberal Democrats an equal share of voice that they’ve never enjoyed before; put the focus square on Cameron’s policies and tested his credibility as a future leader; and, ensured that the campaign was one of personalities, possibly to the detriment of Gordon Brown. One thing’s for sure, TV debates will become a permanent fixture of future general election campaigns to come!

Helen Marsden, founder of Corixa PR

Rumble in the jungle it wasn't, to the disappointment of anyone still sitting on the edge of their seats at the end of this third trial-by-media novelty. Nothing approaching a knockout blow, and not even any meaningful jabs below the belt. David Dimbleby, in the role of referee, barely glanced over the top of his glasses, let alone had to intervene.

Brown, distancing himself rather effectively from the legacy of the last 13 years, articulated his key message of fairness, while doing a fair job of implicating the Tories in the current economic mess by referring to the 'same old conservative party', while Cameron stuck to his script of Labour's wasted spending and ongoing lies to the electorate.

It was Brown's strongest performance by far, with the line "I had to nationalise Northern Rock" - now there's a great conversation stopper - thrown in more in sorrow than in anger. Despite this, stiff body language and a rictus grim ensured that he still looked more like a Victorian automaton than a Prime Minister waiting to take up the reins of power again. He seemed to lose interest in his own answers by the end of his delivery, and was at his strongest when depicting either of the other two a "risk" towards the end of the debate. It's a clever message in these most risk averse of times.

Cameron, despite his PR training, came across as strangely disengaged, with his eyes neither meeting the camera nor the questioner. His determination to stick to his own script rather than answer the question misses by a mile the first two tenets of the classic media training advice of ABC - Answer (the question), Bridge (the sentence) and Communicate (what you actually wanted to say when you agreed to come on the programme). Again, he suddenly seemed to remember that we should be reminded that Labour had in fact been in power for the last 13 years towards the end of the debate, and so rather failed to capitalise on the point.

So once again Clegg, with his direct engagement with the questioner, resulting in lots of shots of members of the audience nodding in agreement as he gave his response, came out top by a small margin. Oozing empathy, he talked of having "a really good salary", used personal experience to good effect, and hammed up his exasperation with the 'old' parties. His position in the middle of the rostrum gave his something of a parental air as disagreements broke out over his head, and he made good the opportunity to present himself as the mediator.

There's a lot less of 'I agree with Nick' going on these days, and no doubt the knives will still be out for the rank outsider in the desperate-to-be-influencer printed media in the final week.

The big loser? The English language. It appears that the opposite of 'ordinary' isn't extraordinary any more. It's banker.

Jonathan Gabay, brand expert, Brand Forensics

The general election debates have come to a climax.

Three weeks ago it looked like it would be a two-leader shoot out at the OK Coral. Then, as with the best spaghetti westerns, out from nowhere rode a new kid into town. Everyone was for themselves.

The debates, the first of their kind in the UK, marked a milestone in British political history. From the start, pundits and commentators, cast aspersions over the merits of each leader’s presentation style.

Before the first line was drawn in the first debate, the press eagerly scoured the annals of political debating history in search of classic political golden clanger or debating debacles from the past.

You Tube clips from the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate of 1960 received record numbers of hits.

The crucial question was, would this turn out to be more of a political beauty contest offering brand buff than a serious showdown delivering product substance?

In terms of brand delivery, the first debate, which attracted nine million viewers, felt ‘clunky’. The austere poker-faced PM hedged his bets, repeatedly saying, “I agree with Nick”; leaving the TV audience with no real choice than to concur with Mr Brown’s sentiments.

The second debate attracted some four million viewers. In addition to witnessing a son et Lumiere branding spectacular on behalf of SKY TV, the audience was treated to the leaders gaining greater confidence in their saddles. Undoubtedly advised by his brand image consultants, Mr Cameron fired off round after round of promises starting with the line: "If I was your Prime Minister…”

Even the media trained Mr Clegg, looked assertively down the barrel of the TV camera - in an attempt to connect directly with the viewing audience.

The third debate had to concentrate on the deal clinching key issues of recession, immigration, housing, the national debt and employment. The ritzy brand pitches had set the agenda, now people needed to know, one way or the other, what was meant by policies such as, ‘The Big Society’, amnesties for illegal immigrants, jobs for the long term unemployed, or what the parties would do in the event of a predicted hung parliament or what a fair future for all actually meant?

From style or substance to recession or Rochdale.

Throughout the three-week debating period, the media had clung on in desperate hope for that ‘golden clanger’ which would lay a media egg for them to hurl with a reassuringly gooey ‘splat’ in the politicians’ faces.

Their opportunity finally arrived within 24 hours of the final debate, in the shape of a 65 year old from Rochdale - Mrs Gillian Duffy.

Gillian asked Mr Brown what would his party do about immigration?

Whilst initially the PM handled the question with professionalism, in private - but caught on a microphone, he called Gillian a ‘bigot’.

It was exactly what the media yearned for - mud - glorious mud - ready to enliven the debate the next day.

Working on the premise that when credibility is rock bottom the only way one can go is up, the PM opened his ‘pitch’ with the words: “There’s a lot to this job and as you saw last night - I don’t always get it right.”

Once in the swing, the leaders agreed that difficult decisions would need to be made in order to help the economy recover. Rather than accept responsibility for political mismanagement, bankers were universally made scapegoats.

In supporting his tax pledges and policies, rather than pointing to economists and think tanks, Cameron turned to high street brands as his greatest advocators (A sure sign of an era where high profile brands rather than anonymous ‘civil servants’ are used to carry weight for the public in national debates). Even Clegg lamented over how workers at a great British brand, Cadbury’s, had been short-changed by government policy.

The real change in Britain

In hindsight, the debates turned out to be less of a media circus and more of a stage which helped opened up politics to a much greater conversation -including on the web - than may have remained under stimulated without the televised pitches.

For example in 2005, voter turnout only reached 61.28% (although that was better than the 2001 election which only saw a 59.17% turnout out at the ballot boxes).

So now the studio lights have been switched off all that is left for the leaders is to make their way home in the Birmingham rain and wonder who this time next week will be looking forward to a ministerial saloon and who will have to ride off into the sunset.

Kevin Johnson, managing director, Urban Communications

Going into this final debate, Cameron had to find a game changer and connect better with voters; Brown had to exploit his trump card of economic substance; whilst Clegg had to make sure he did not drop a clanger.

Brown was even more nervous, jumbled and untidy than in his previous two opening statements.

Cameron had an eloquent opening and followed the lead set by Clegg, looking straight down the barrel.

Clegg sported an orange tie, whilst all the leaders chose to wear orange faces (thanks to the X Factor Lighting Director!).

Clegg continued to do his plague on both their houses routine, with lots of well rehearsed waving.

Clegg remained the master of connecting with the audience in the Hall and at home – where Brown was uncomfortable and Cameron just too polished. Clegg used a natural conversational style, rather than appearing to give a lecture.

I would love to have seen the Leaders tell a questioner he or she was wrong rather than how right they were – or perhaps even a bigot, which would have been fun.

As Clinton said: “it’s the economy, stupid.” This election - and this debate - were meant to centre on the economy.

None of the leaders moved on the debate to a significant degree; there was no new light on economic policy or answers to this week’s IFS report on filling in the black hole. The electorate will be none the wiser after tonight.

Brown went in hard on the Tories and their inheritance tax policy.

Cameron used a good line on Brown not understanding the difference between Government and the economy more than once.

Clegg struggled to effectively communicate his immigration “amnesty” under pressure from both sides.

So in my instant opinion, what difference will it make? Not much. Brown did convey some of his substance and command of detail. Like last week, Cameron improved but was some distance from winning on either style or substance. Clegg banked most of his first night success.

Nathan Lane, director of Ptarmigan Bell Pottinger

The economy was the theme of the third debate but the media went their own way and the day's headlines focused on Gordon's microphone mishap. Twitter reliably informs me the conversation with Mrs Duffy was today's most watched video on Youtube in the UK

This was billed as the social media election and although twitter has provided a few belly laughs, the volume of tweets is a tiny percentage of the viewing audience of each debate. Looking at the polls it will be hard to underestimate the impact of the debates on swaying opinion through this election.

Cameron hammered the change message - a road well trodden by Obama. He seemed a more composed and focused figure in this final debate. National insurance proved a happy hunting ground and is an issue where the Conservatives have clear backing from business.

Clegg has excelled in the debates and in many of the interviews I have seen over the election. He speaks to the man on the street and doesn't trot out the same hackneyed political phrases but I wonder how many new won Clegg 'fans' have read his manifesto?

All parties have received criticism on details around their economic plans. Each leader pushed a greater level of detail to address this issue. All three leaders did some good regional homework to drop in information relevant to the West Midlands. It was interesting to see the RDAs play such a prominent role in the debate. The merits of RDAs are clear, especially in the North, but I am not convinced they mean much to the average voter.

Brown is on home ground with the economy and the fear factor is a powerful message to play. Turmoil in Europe was a frequent touchstone for the Prime Minister in the debate.

A scientific poll of both of us in the living room gives the final debate to Cameron. A far more confident performance that allowed him to get his message across and score some important points along the way.

Moray Macdonald, deputy managing director of Weber Shandwick Scotland

Finally, the third debate saw passion from the three contenders. You could tell this was the last debate, and that it matters.

A strong debate on the economy, and each with their own policy direction. Cameron saying cuts need to happen now to stop wasting tax payers money. Brown wanting to maintain spending until 2011. Clegg wanting to make savings by cutting major defence projects like the new Euro fighters. Each leader was appealing to their core vote. What we won’t really know until next Friday morning is which direction the country will be going in.

Each of the leaders performed well tonight, learning from the previous week. Cameron in particular made strong play of speaking down the camera, looking as though he was speaking directly to the viewer.

For the first two debates Cameron appeared slightly nervous and to hold back a little. Not tonight, Cameron was strong, direct and forceful with his policies. It made him come across with passion.

On the tricky issue of immigration Nick Clegg was captured in a pincer movement by Brown and Cameron. This is an area where the Lib Dems could scare off their potential new voters with their proposed amnesty on asylum seekers in the UK.

Overall Cameron upped his game considerably tonight. The polls of Scottish opinion on ScotlandVotes.com that took place during the debate showed Cameron consistently taking the lead, particularly on the economic issues. Something missing of course, was opinion about the SNP as they are missing from the debate. Whatever your thoughts on whether they should be in the debate or not, there is no doubt their lack of presence is hurting their opinion poll ratings.

If Cameron can maintain this momentum for the final week, then the Lib Dem bubble might well be burst. One thing looks certain, Labour look set to have a dismal night on 6 May.