Britain's second so-called “great debate” last Thursday between the men who seek to lead the country was heralded as historic. In fact, it was a disingenuous display of the ability of practised politicians to pretend that they know the solution for the UK's major economic and political problems and that the country has reason to be hopeful about the future if it chooses wisely in May. In seeking to show themselves presidential, neither Gordon Brown, nor his principal adversary, the Conservative leader David Cameron, showed wit or wisdom. Both struggled to prove that they were reliable, the all-important quality. Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, the new boy on the block, proved himself an attractive, articulate debater. Not one of the three showed a command of foreign or domestic policy and, although all promised change, their proposals for domestic and foreign affairs reform were banal and mostly rhetorical.
上週四，幾位尋求成爲英國領導人的競選者進行了第二場所謂的「大辯論」，這場辯論被稱爲是歷史性的。實際上，它是老練政客虛僞的表演秀——他們假裝知道如何解決英國主要的經濟問題和政治問題，並佯稱如果英國在5月份做出明智選擇的話，就有理由對未來充滿希望。在試圖展示自己的總統素質方面，高登•布朗(Gordon Brown)和其主要競爭對手保守黨領袖大衛•卡麥隆(David Cameron)都沒有表現出風趣或智慧，都難以證明自己是值得信賴的——這是至關重要的一項素質。作爲一位參選的新人，自由民主黨領袖尼克•克萊格(Nick Clegg)證明了自己是一位富有魅力，能言善辯的辯手。這三人都沒有表現出自己精通外交政策和國內政策，儘管他們都承諾變革，但他們對國內事務和外交事務改革的提議缺乏新意，而且大多數華而不實。