[Closed] This election TV Debate twaddle...

Couldn't agree more. This is the kind of thing that turns people away from taking an interest in how their country's run, rather than switching them on, imho...

Agreed. Total waste of time. Tony Blair's press advisor was on Newsnight and he said he would never recommend a Prime Minister does a TV debate.

Questions from a panel of experts (Well 1 they like one they hate and one nobody has heard of) to the leaders one at a time with a rigorous examination of policies. That should be the minimum, hour each (well 15 mins for Ed Millibland)

But instead there will be more analysis of who put their hands where and what tie they wore.

To blame the people who don't ask enough questions

Dave and the Tory party hierarchy made their minds up a long time ago, that under no circumstances were they taking any part in any meaningful debate. I mean... defending democracy? By demanding the Greens are given a voice? Seriously? Do me a ****ing favour! He couldn't care less!

Dave is presently trying to do what he did last time around. Downgrade everything to some sort of vague, half-suggested idea, without any actual policy commitments, or pledges. Then, if elected, he's got a blank canvas to, oh I don't know.... privatise the NHS? Abolish the welfare state? That type of thing.... because he never actually committed to a single thing. There effectively was no manifesto. They're just making it up on the hoof.

So putting himself up for any meaningful interview or debate before the election might actually see him pinned down to actually commit to something. And he's determined that that aint happening

The TV 'debate' is going to be a complete circus. Just what Dave wanted all along

No idea why you would object to the prospective prime minster being compelled to explain and defend their views and their policies publicly in a debate. To not have this is to decide that you would rather have spin , PR and BS from the party machine as the method for policies to be presented to the masses.

CMD is scared and he is unilaterally dictating what must happen on his terms where as everyone else is either agreeing to whatever the tv companies want or trying to get to the debate.

Its cowardice and worse than that it is unprincipled and undignified.
if you cannot stand up publicly and defend your voiews and your aims with your political peers and to the nations then you do not deserve the privilege of leading this nation [ which may well involve involved debating ideas and persuading other folk you are right ...he seems to do well enough at the EU on that front eh 😉 ]

I am interested to see how the tory fans boy react to dealing with the fact Brown [ for all his faults] had more principles and courage in his convictions than Dave

This is the kind of thing that turns people away from taking an interest in how their country's run, rather than switching them on

I'm in favour of a more informal format - comfy chairs, plenty of booze

Genuine question here: -

Assuming that most people won't go online a search for/read a manifesto, how do the majority of people get the info on which to base the decision of who to vote for?

A leaflet through the door doesn't cut it and as discussed above, these debates don't add any real value.

Most of the news coverage seems to be why the other side are wrong, not why they are right.

It's not actually that easy to make an informed choice.

Who looks the nicest /who looks best in a tie..y'know the important stuff not what they stand for or are proud of.

They just vote for who they've always voted for, probably the same as their parents have always voted for, and whoever you feel safe with. If you live in an area where 75% of people vote either tory or labour there's not much point in voting for anyone else is their......

Brown was up shit creek without a paddle, he had nothing to lose. Cameron can't see an upside as Milliband is regarded as a loser so the only way is up for him. Both tactical decisions, no principles involved on either side.

You think politicians refusing to debate each other makes folk more likely to be interested and less likely to be cynical you cannot be being serious can you

You misunderstand me. [i]This[/i] debate, and the nonsense that has gone/is going on around it is switching many people off. One without the posturing, finger-pointing and desire for shouty-telly might actually be worth watching and, god forbid, informative.

He's not scared, don't be stupid. He knows that it's not in his interests to take part.

Do you think he is sacred of the consequences that are " not in his best interest"?

Anyway best put self interest before an informed electorate and and informed campaign.

Apologies fadda for my error

Not scared or a "coward" no, he's just playing the game.

If playing the game is the best that can be said [ and you have a point to be fair but he is still scared of the debate] then we really are , once more, let down by politicians who put their interests before the electorates.

I think camerons played a blinder on this

if he does do the debates then hes manage to include every other minority party, which will make his big threat-ukip look like just one of the 'others' again, as their media profile

while snp, greens etc get elevated in prestige and get to nobble labour votes

even if he doesnt show up he'll get mocked but the above will still be true

its all pointless really,
the torries were elected on- no top down reorganisation of the nhs and we'll bring the debt under control,
the limp dems on no tuition fee rises

[quote=kimbers said]
even if he doesnt show up he'll get mocked but the above will still be true
its all pointless really,

yup, and come voting day no-one will give a toss about Dave's non appearance anyway.

No idea why you would object to the prospective prime minster being compelled to explain and defend their views and their policies publicly in a debate.

See what @mefty says here, spot on. TV debates are not part of the UK election process, we have only ever had one. The viewing figures where high as it was a novelty. I've seen them in the US so just ignored them as I knew what a circus they would be.

Brown was up shit creek without a paddle, he had nothing to lose. Cameron can't see an upside as Milliband is regarded as a loser so the only way is up for him. Both tactical decisions, no principles involved on either side.

Exactly.

Anyway best put self interest before an informed electorate and and informed campaign.

This doesn't accord with my recollection, I seem to remember them creating more heat than light and "I agree with Nick".

The Daily Politics ran a much more informative series of "debates" on issue by issue between the party spokesmen. A particular highlight was Vince Cable being eviscerated by Stephanie Flanders.

In an ideal world where MPs answered questions it'd work

but did anyone see cameron's spectacular example of an MP avoiding a giving any sort of a straight answer at PMQs yesterday?

Every poll shows that the Incumbent [i]always[/i] comes off worse in TV debates. There vote share [i]always [/i]drops after them.

Dave knows this. More importantly Lynton Crosby knows this. They've been determined that there is no way on earth he's going to have any meaningful debate on TV, or anywhere else for that matter.

Pre the 2000 election a certain D Cameron went into raptures about the TV debates being an essential part of democracy, that would be here to stay. That was when he was the beneficiary. Now..... ?

[i]how do the majority of people get the info on which to base the decision of who to vote for?[/i]

I think most MPs, when it comes to re-election, probably hope that their constituents have no real information on which to base their vote

I don't understand why people moan about politicians making decisions that improve their chances of election, of course they do, they'd be idiots not to. Politics is essentially an ever ongoing game of chess, where each side tries to out maneuver the other.

They were crap last time out, I think the Lib Dems were supposed to have 'won'. Yet at the end of the day we aren't voting for a President, but a local MP.

but did anyone see cameron's spectacular example of an MP avoiding a giving any sort of a straight answer at PMQs yesterday?

PMQ's has always been a waste of time. Its never exactly been enlightening. They ignore the question and just read the soundbites they've had prepared by their press office.

Its also find it toe-curlingly embarrassing to watch a bunch or privately educated twonks behave in a manner that wouldn't look out of place at a chimps tea party. And thats our democracy in action, is it? Pitiful!

the bit i hate the most about pmqs is where some lines up the PM with a nice little bit of toadying, blatantly reading from the bit of paper the whip handed hime before he stumbled into the chamber, usually along the lines of "I would like to congratulate the PM for the recent figures showing that since the beginninng of this parliament crop rotation has improved by 14%....."

Brown was worse for those planted questions. With his tractor production figures that he'd then reel off. All a bit....

[img] [/img]

Indeed....and whilst I'm sure CMD would give poor Ed a pashing, I think he does come over a little more Prime Ministerial, not giving him even a chance to discuss.

Lets face it, the facts speak for themselves now, massive job creation, earnings back to pre recession levels (allegedly) an economy the envy of the world. Ed would just be hammering away at some ridiculous detail, in an attempt at point scoring. CMD just doesn't need it.

I always loved the statement from Brown on how there had been a 0% increase, genius.

It is also always good when they quote 'new money amde available' when in actual fact it is coming from the same pot and hence double counting.

@onzadog [url= https://voteforpolicies.org.uk/ ]vote for policies[/url]

If Cameron throws a spanner in the works of "head-to-head live TV debates" he has my full support. We managed perfectly well until a few elections ago without this American style dumbing down of politics.

And I find Miliband's constant puerile taunting particularly pathetic. Miliband should engage in real politics and offer an alternative to the Tories instead of trying to manufacture non-existing differences between Labour and the Tories.

Name calling might win you points but it won't win you my vote.

Surely though the tv debates would just be a glossy PMQs. None of them are worth my vote and neither Cameron or milliband are fit to run the country.

Cameron could - of course - say "no I'm not doing it"

For some reason, he doesn't seem keen on doing it that way.
I can't see the point in the debates but he should at least have the guts to say what he wants to do.

If I was CMD I wouldn't want to do it either, there's no upside for him, or indeed any sitting PM.

His problem is...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sirajdatoo/in-2008-david-cameron-attacked-labour-for-avoiding-leaders-d

Maybe he doesn't want to appear to be out of touch?

Couldn't agree more. This is the kind of thing that turns people away from taking an interest in how their country's run, rather than switching them on, imho...

Over 10m watched the 2010 head to head debate.

The Daily Politics ran a much more informative series of "debates" on issue by issue between the party spokesmen. A particular highlight was Vince Cable being eviscerated by Stephanie Flanders

Politics is essentially an ever ongoing game of chess, where each side tries to out maneuver the other.

I think he does come over a little more Prime Ministerial, not giving him even a chance to discuss.

I have to say to the prime minister that if he really thinks that these exchanges once a week are a substitute for a proper television debate, then he is even more out of touch than I thought.
We have to be honest with ourselves: Not many people watch these exchanges, and not all those who do are hugely impressed with them.
There are parliamentary systems that do have television debates; we have seen them in Italy, Australia, and Poland. The prime minister has no objection in principle – when he was shadow chancellor, he did a television debate against the then chancellor of the exchequer.
So I have to ask him: What on earth is he frightened of?

what's it going to be? an hour? with 10mins at the start amounting to naff-all. 50mins left.

call it 5mins each after questions. so, 5 prepared statements each that will go nowhere near answering any of the questions.

that's not a debate, by any definition.

90 minutes.

with 9 present so less than 10 minutes each

I think he does come over a little more Prime Ministerial, not giving him even a chance to discuss.

[i]Explain please. I dont get your train of thought here tbh[/i]

Thought it was obvious, but I feel that he is not lowering himself to stand in a studio listening to some dimwit shouting 'bollocks' at him in an effort to score points. There is NOTHING that Milliband can say that will out score CMD.

Edit: And....by giving Ed the oxygen of the occasion, he will effectively be promoting his position.

...... listening to some dimwit shouting 'bollocks' at him

I'm not convinced that you have seen a televised head-to-head debate.

Who was the dimwit shouting 'bollocks', Dimbleby?

Thought it was obvious,

Its a debate between political leaders not a bar room argument.
A politician can no more legitimately refuse to lower themselves to a debate with the leader of the opposition [ have you heard of PMQ's btw as he lowers himself regularly to this] any more than a teacher can refuse to lower themselves to teach or a refuse collector to empty bins.

There is NOTHING that Milliband can say that will out score CMD.

Your faith is admirable but its a view that not even CMD or the tory head office shares with you

Our representatives should be subject to constant public scrutiny. They serve us, not the other way round. In most cases scrutiny exposes the snake oils salesman and now women (thanks Nathalie!) and that is a good thing.

In others, however, they prove the law of unintended consequences - remember the Clegg effect?

On balance, I would always go for more scrutiny not less. But needs to be chaired well. Good luck with that....

QT from Glasgow tonight might put a few off the TV idea. The very angry Yousaf from SNP should be on his usual shouty form.

Can't we just have a Lab v SNP version in Scotland version and a Tory v UKIP one south of the wall and PC v Labour west of the dyke.

Haven't we all made up our minds by now???

But needs to be chaired well. Good luck with that....

I take it that's a dig at David Dimbleby ?

Haven't we all made up our minds by now???

What have you decided then THM ?

Well you take it wrongly

[quote=Junkyard ]I am interested to see how the tory fans boy react to dealing with the fact Brown [ for all his faults] [s]had more principles and courage in his convictions[/s] was a bit dafter and paid less attention to his advisors than Dave

Right at the top there's mention of one of Tony's PR people saying that standing PMs shouldn't do them - and his PR people were certainly good at their jobs. As standing PM, no matter how vague your policies there is always something substantive for you opponents to attack which the public will agree with you on.

(I've previously mentioned my admiration of Brown as a man of conviction, but I admire his courage in the same way I admire the courage of The 600).

TBH if you are citing Blair and his spins doctors as role models then you have lost the argument
Whilst I get the point being made what I want, irrespective of political hue, is people of principles who do the right ****ing thing for the country rather than serve their own self interests.

Attack may be a bit strong but if you cannot defend what you did [ or for that matter attack Miliband] then you dont deserve to be the PM

I have to say to the prime minister that if he really thinks that these exchanges once a week are a substitute for a proper television debate, then he is even more out of touch than I thought.
We have to be honest with ourselves: Not many people watch these exchanges, and not all those who do are hugely impressed with them.
There are parliamentary systems that do have television debates; we have seen them in Italy, Australia, and Poland. The prime minister has no objection in principle – when he was shadow chancellor, he did a television debate against the then chancellor of the exchequer.
So I have to ask him: What on earth is he frightened of?

The lying ****ing bastard

Is it any wonder we cannot "energise" folk to participate [ except the SNP in Scotland] in politics when they do this and we all nod sagely at the wisdom....we get what we deserve ...self serving ****s...this is not just a broadside at CMD or the Tories but most politicians are like this ..... I shall leave it there before I say zombie maggots and post pictures of guns and Guy Fawkes

Q1.......!!!

And angry man straight in there!

Is it any wonder we cannot "energise" folk to participate [ except the SNP in Scotland] in politics

What is that comment based on ? Obviously the SNP would like people to think that they "energise" voters but is there any evidence to back that up?

In the last general election voter turnout in Scotland was lower than the rest of the UK. And in the last Scottish Parliament election half of Scots didn't bother voting.

Admittedly turnout for the Scottish referendum was high but people rejected the SNP's position. Perhaps that is what you mean about the SNP energising Scots, ie, people were energised to get out and vote against the SNP's proposals?

DImbelby's doing a good job tonight - holding them (our servants) to account/to answer the question even if it means ignoring the more interesting candidates at either end!!

Some very angry Scotties!

Glad it was understood as quite often messages on here get comically misconstrued.

TBH if you are citing Blair and his spins doctors as role models then you have lost the argument

Eh? Say what you like but they knew how to win elections, and then we are back to lesson one of politics, the most important thing is winning the election, because without that, you're not in a position to do anything!

Whilst I get the point being made what I want, irrespective of political hue, is people of principles who do the right * thing for the country rather than serve their own self interests.

Blair had clear principles, he thought that Britain would be better off under a Social Democratic Labour government, and would have to do anything within his power to achieve that. He understood that this meant compromises in order to firstly win, and secondly stay in power, as these were vital steps towards doing, as you put it, the right * thing for the country

I do love this thing by the lefties that they choose to castigate Blair, without recognising that without him, they would never have been able to do all the lovely fluffy socialist stuff that they approve of.

Blair had clear principles

Blair had clear principles

😆

No wait......it get's better!

he thought that Britain would be better off under a Social Democratic Labour government

😆 😆

[quote=Junkyard ]TBH if you are citing Blair and his spins doctors as role models then you have lost the argument

I wasn't was I? Sorry if I gave that impression - I don't admire everybody who is good at their job* (very tempted to Godwin the thread 😉 )

*I'm referring the the spin doctors here

What is that comment based on ? Obviously the SNP would like people to think that they "energise" voters but is there any evidence to back that up?

100'000 members from 5 million population. Looks like evidence to me. Polls suggesting almost they will win most Scottish seats. Not evidence?

Polls suggesting almost they will win most Scottish seats. Not evidence?

It's not evidence that they have energised "folk to participate" which was the claim. It's evidence that they might win most Scottish seats.

As I pointed out in the last Scottish Parliament elections in 2011 half of the Scottish electorate didn't bother voting, and in the last UK general election in 2010 Scottish turnout was marginally lower than the rest of the UK - not higher, which is what I would expect if people have been energised to participate.

Of course things might change this coming general election but at this point the claim that the SNP have energised folk to participate is mere speculation. One which the SNP would obviously clearly approve of, as of course would UKIP, the Green Party, etc.

BTW just for the record I would be perfectly happy if Labour were swiped out in Scotland, even if that was at the hands of the SNP.

Interesting challenge from John Major today calling on Labour to rule out a coalition with the SNP. I doubt they would do so but it could stem the flow of support from Labour to the SNP in Scotland as it would mean a vote for the SNP in the GE was a wasted vote. SNP backing away yesterday from making abandoning Trident a pre-condition of a coalition.

I think there is a very good chance the TV debates won't happen, a single debate with 7, 8 or 9 parties will just be a shambles and you cannot empty chair Cameron if that means you just have Labour and the Lib Dems possibly plus UKIP

BTW just for the record I would be perfectly happy if Labour were swiped out in Scotland, even if that was at the hands of the SNP.

or possibly an uncomfortable (for some) Labour / SNP [s]coallition[/s] 'cooperative assembly'.

or do we not expect Labour to win enough seats in England?

have energised folk to participate is mere speculation

[quote=ahwiles ]or do we not expect Labour to win enough seats in England?

Typical Englander, forgetting England isn't the only country in the UK 😉

I thought the polls were suggesting it was quite likely to be NOC.

Labour or anyone else who gets into bed with the SNP if it's a hung parliament would be nuts, as they'd start to destroy their vote in England and to some extent Wales. The SNP are toxic to any of the Union parties.

TBH I don't see the SNP winning anything like the number of seats currently suggested by the polls.

...Typical Englander, forgetting England isn't the only country in the UK...

almost certainly true.

but isn't England the tricky one for Labour, historically?

i mean, if we (if only for a moment) assume that SNP wins in Scotland, don't Labour have to win a record number of seats in England to claim a GE 'victory' (and so form a Government).

You're still doing it - do I have to give a bigger hint?

The SNP are toxic to any of the Union parties.

I am less sure I suspect many Labour voters are more sympathetic to SNP policies than they are to the current labour party.

These threads show me that a reasonable % of STW [ what 5 % ? 10 % ?]despise the SNP but i dont think its enough to make it toxic*. i dont think that many of them are natural labour supporters either.

* for example I hate UKIP more than the Tories but I wont hate the Tories more for doing a coalition with UKIP but i will still never vote for either of them so what have they to lose by doing this. I assume its this but the other way round for lab /SNP.

Lets face it, the facts speak for themselves now, massive job creation, earnings back to pre recession levels (allegedly) an economy the envy of the world.

A yet despite all this amazing news the Tories almost certainly won't get a majority

Labour are a mess, a leader who is actually so far removed from reality he's now actually beyond parody. Add this to the fact they are about to be obliterated in one of their heartlands.

Both main parties will win less than 280 seats

The Lib Dems are pretty much toxic. In Scotland they will lose almost all their seats to the SNP and in England the Tories and Labour will divvy up about half of the rest leaving a rump of about 20 seats.

UKIP despite all the brouhaha will probably have 3 seats (the two they hold now plus Nigey boy in Thanet)

This man will be smiling after election day

[img] https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1_D0qBBwlmaZ_SAnBcTSpCVCncxCn1f2i_ALDEKtpM0gmmw8RlQ [/img]

Lets face it, the facts speak for themselves now, massive job creation, earnings back to pre recession levels (allegedly) an economy the envy of the world.
A yet despite all this amazing news the Tories almost certainly won't get a majority

because we all know its bullshit!

Can't think of any worse really, all those same-y suits and ties talking in a language that no one really understands.

Dull, no wonder people watch X factor

aracer - Member

You're still doing it - do I have to give a bigger hint?

it seems yes, you do.

i can only guess that you're hinting at Wales, which isn't relevant to the post i replied to.

SNP membership it has risen 5 fold or thereabouts in the last couple of years and has the highest % of any party in just one country. This activism is going to lead to a sea change and swing in a country the likes of which we have not seen in our lifetime. If this is not enough foor you to think they have energised folk to vote[ for them] then some more words from me wont change your view.

So by energising "folk to participate" you weren't including voting in elections, the central most important political participation in our society.

By [i]we cannot "energise" folk to participate [ except the SNP in Scotland] in politics [/i] you were in fact referring to joining a political party, not voting, you should have made that clear.

Well it's a fair point to claim that SNP membership has increased dramatically, but that doesn't necessarily always provide evidence that someone has been energised. After Tony Blair became Labour leader there was a concerted effort to increase Labour Party membership, it was made extremely easy for anyone to join the Labour Party at Bargain Basement prices. The increases in party membership looked extremely impressive on paper.

Now I don't know how many of these new members were energised or in anyway actively involved, but I do know that many longstanding members became totally de-energise under New Labour leaving the party in large numbers. The new members did not fill the role of former activists and after Tony Blair secured his job in Downing Street Labour Party membership collapsed.

Still, if growing party membership is the criteria for an energised electorate why claim [i]"except the SNP in Scotland"[/i] ? Other fringe parties have also seen surges in membership.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/15/green-party-membership-surge-leaders-debates ]Green membership surge takes party past Lib Dems and Ukip [/url]

And UKIP have made smaller gains in membership. Are not the Greens and UKIP also examples of people being energised? Why should that accolade be restricted to the SNP?

As I said earlier I will be perfectly happy if Labour are wiped out in Scotland next election even if it is by the SNP. But this imo reflects more on the catastrophic failure of the Labour Party than some great achievement by the SNP. Had the Labour Party not abandoned their traditional voters, which most Scots overwhelming were, the SNP would not be making the inroads they are.

All this fancy talk about the SNP in Scotland alone having energised the British electorate suggests that they offer some credible political solutions - they don't. The SNP were once, with some justification, often referred to as Tartan Tories. Nothing has fundamentally changed since then apart from two things, firstly, and most importantly, the Labour Party has shifted dramatically to the right leaving the SNP to the left of them despite not having moved themselves.

And secondly the SNP are a party of opportunists who are perfectly capable of exploiting Labour's self inflected wounds. Just how opportunistic they are was witnessed in the so-called independence debate. Without regurgitating the whole debate they repeatedly took contradictory positions on a whole range of issues - one of the most glaring being the promises of increased social spending and also tax cuts.

And secondly the SNP are a party of opportunists

This SNP are opportunists meme gets trotted out all the time.

People seem to forget they are the party of government in Holyrood enjoying a second term where they got an overall majority of seats in a PR voting system. Who would bet against them for a third term?

Hardly fly by night opportunists

emsz - Member
Can't think of any worse really, all those same-y suits and ties talking in a language that no one really understands.

Dull, no wonder people watch X factor

oh come on now

thats not fair

there really is no excuse to watch xfactor!

so they will be pressing ahead with this

[img] [/img]

its quite amusing watching all the tory cronies come out and say how terrible tv debates are when they were all for cameron sticking it to brown in 2010

is there anything more hypocritcal than politicians?

It might amuse you but I think there is something worryingly sinister about TV companies assuming that they have the right to dictate to a party leader how he or she should fight their election campaigns.

If David Cameron decides that he only wants to do one TV debate, or none at all, for whatever reason, then that's up to him - not the TV companies.

If they do “empty chair” Cameron it will obviously play no useful part and the threat to do so is clearly a cynical attempt to coerce and intimidate him.

I don't relish the prospect of broadcasters trying to manipulate politicians to do what they have decided they should do.

Personally I am more worried the PM wont engage with a debate tbh and he has been invited like all the others so he is no more and no less bullied than everyone else [ DUP aside].
A politician afraid to debate their ideas in a public forum is rather bizarre.
As for bullied or manipulated or coeerced what do you think Dave has done by trying to dictating his terms to them, in a final offer, unlike everyone else who has said they will debate whatever, whenever and with whomever.
Clearly he is free to refuse to turn up and defend his govt and his policies and we are free to make a judgement on this. Why do you think his view on tv debates has changed so radically over the last 5 years ? We really ought to be able to ask him to explain his principled stance in the face of "bullies"