Change but not for it's own sake

With 4 days to go, talking about the elections in unavoidable. Clearly, this is the most dynamic UK elections campaign in recent history. One in which 90mins of TV transformed a party-based system into a presidential one. This is no longer Labour vs Conservatives but Brown vs Cameron. And, more importantly, it is not even that. It is Clegg vs Cameron with Brown taking himself out of contention with every day that passes. After years of consistently diminishing impact on the British society, television is back; single-handedly changing an electoral system that's been in place for many decades.

Commentators are explaining the situation by appealing to people's desire for change. Nick Clegg is the fresh faced candidate. The anti-establishment leader who is coming into this contest with a clean slate. Not contaminated by 13 years in power through the worst recession in living memory. Not scarred by old-Tory values which, everyone knows, have guided Cameron since he tasted that golden spoon the day he was born. A commentator I greatly respect for his analysis on US politics - Andrew Sullivan - went further and even compared Clegg to Obama. Now I understand the point Sullivan is trying to make; like Obama who presented an alternative to Clinton and McCain, Clegg is an alternative to the old guard. However, that is where the similarities end. The Sunday Times published a poll today showing that voters like Clegg best yet at the same time, agree with least. They like the style but not the substance. For many months Obama's style was his electoral weakness. What carried him through was the substance. Or, to put it in American terms: Obama Clegg ain't.

Which takes us to Cameron. This election was Cameron's for the taking. He should have sailed through to a landslide. If change is what the voters want, why is Cameron struggling to take a clear lead? I don't think it's the Thatcher legacy. He is, after all, a compassionate Conservative. Ha ha ha. I dare say, it's the complete lack of substance. The key reason Cameron wanted the TV debates was, contrary to the perceived view, not that Brown would be so bad at it. And he clearly was. It was, rather, to turn this into a presidential vote. You see, Cameron's team is his biggest handicap. The quiet one? I can't even remember his name. Osborne? No child would trust him with their pocket money, let alone the economy.

So, whilst I understand the desire for change, I plead with the two of you reading this: please, not change for its own sake. Now I know, Brown is clearly the least endearing person in the history of politics. He would lose an election to Attila the Hun. At least Attila has charisma. And still, it is not Brown you'll be voting for but party with the most reasonable values and the team with the most experience. And in 2010, with a recession still in play and two wars being fought, that counts for a lot.

PS 380km down. 620km to go.