Forum menu
...really is a crock-of-droppings!
They just end up as a mud-slinging, points-scoring affair in which we learn nothing at all.
If I were DC I wouldn't do any of them. It's just the TV companies who want nice shouty telly, like Question Time has become.
(I know there was an old thread about this bit couldn't find it).
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
21 million watched them last time so they are interested. 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 😕
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.
JY because it's a circus which is why Blair's adviser said he would do all he could to prevent a TV debate. There is nothing remotely "informed or informing" about TV debates.
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?
I did, I think it was some kind of record for minimum questions actually answered. He didn't even give too many evasive answers never mind straight ones. Its a good thing we just have these once a week now not twice. Getting to be a waste of time.
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.
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
True but the masses are unlikely to watch this and they like the X factor format
Politics is essentially an ever ongoing game of chess, where each side tries to out maneuver the other.
It may well have become this but this is not what it is really about its about representing and serving the best interest of the people not the best interests of you or your party.
I think he does come over a little more Prime Ministerial, not giving him even a chance to discuss.
Explain please. I dont get your train of thought here tbh
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,
It is not obvious now you have explained it.
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....