[Closed] This election TV Debate twaddle...

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"

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

Well you're going to have to explain that then - why is the number of seats Labour wins in Wales not relevant to whether they win enough seats to form a coalition government with SNP?

Personally I am more worried the PM wont engage with a debate tbh

He doesn't want to engage in TV debates as dictated by others, if that bothers you sufficiently then I would suggest that you don't vote for the party he leads.

Why do I think his view on tv debates has changed so radically over the last 5 years ? Presumably because he thinks it would detrimental to his party's election campaign, although it doesn't really matter what his reasons are. It's up to him and his party how they fight their election campaign, not the broadcasters.

You could also ask why the Labour Party's view on tv debates has also changed significantly over time - in two elections as leader of the Labour Party Tony Blair refused attempts to have head-to-head tv debates, although I don't suppose that you will.

It is perfectly legitimate for a senior politician to request a tv debate with an opposing party politician, it's also legitimate for that request to be refused, judge them on that if you will.

But it's not legitimate imo for broadcasters to demand that a particular politician engages in a tv debate or for them to pull stunts like "empty chairs" if they don't get their way. As I said, it can serve no useful purpose.

The tv head-to-head between Clegg and Farage in the European election campaign happened because they both agreed to it, not because the broadcasters decided they would both engage in a debate. That's the way it should be.

Parties have the right to choose who represents them in debates and whether or not they take part. It's their election campaigns. I'm not impressed by broadcasters who feel they have a right to pull stupid stunts with empty chairs.

sinister,intimidated? my arse , ernie are you realy that gullible?
he's been given an invitation he can turn up or not, his dithering and constant wrangling over other parties being there or not shows hes more than happy to play the game

can you guess who made these statements in the 2010 election buildup.......

"Im absolutely delighted this is happening I think people have the right to look at the people putting themselves forward as the next prime minister"

"I think its great we are having these debates and I hope they go some way to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics"

"I have to say to the prime minister if he really thinks these exchanges once a week are a substitute for a proper television debate, then hes even more out of touch than I thought"

if his opinion on tv debates has really changed maybe he should be as honest as he claims to be and explain why

and my original amused comment was regarding toby young's recent videoblog telling everyone how dreadful tv debates were, despite being a sky pundit and loud champion of cameron last time round

You could also ask why the Labour Party's view

It is perfectly legitimate for a senior politician to request a tv debate with an opposing party politician, it's also legitimate for that request to be refused, judge them on that if you will.

I dont know about you but if 7 people get invited for a number of bike rides we dont not have them because one insisted it had to be at this time and only that time and that was the only way it could happen and we all had to be there or they were not coming and no one else could ride. What we do is have the ride without them and laugh at how they thought they were being bullied and pressurised.

Empty chair is a phrase meaning go ahead without him. You are taking it rather literally.

I thought we'd all be for a free press, where a tv producer could decide on the format of his own tv show, rather than have it dictated to him by the dear leader

sinister,intimidated? my arse , ernie are you realy that gullible?

Well I'm not so gullible as to think that the threat an "empty chair" is anything other than a stunt which serves no useful purpose at all. Other than trying to coerce a politician by threatening to do so of course. Nor am I gullible enough to think there is nothing worryingly sinister about TV companies deciding how election campaigns should be fought and managed.

.

if his opinion on tv debates has really changed maybe he should be as honest as he claims to be and explain why

I have no idea if he's claiming to be honest but how about you showing a bit of honesty ?

Why aren't you asking why the Labour Party has changed its mind over live TV debates ? Both in 1997 and 2001 the Labour Party dodged live head-to-head TV debates.

David Cameron isn't keen on live TV debates because he thinks it is more likely to be detrimental to the Tory election campaign than to enhance it. We all know that.

Ed Miliband on the other hand is very keen on live TV debates because he thinks it is more likely to enhance Labour's campaign than to be detrimental to it. We all know that. It's got **** all to do with "the people deserve it" and all that bollocks. If Miliband thought a head-to-head with Cameron risked him losing the election he would be less than keen. We all know that.

So what's the difference ? Why is Cameron's hypocrisy unacceptable but Miliband's hypocrisy not even worthy of a mention ? Because one is a Tory and the other Labour ?

How about you being you being honest and not hypocritical ?

Empty chair is a phrase meaning go ahead without him. You are taking it rather literally.

Well we are clearly following two different stories :

[i]"To comply with the regulations broadcasters could be forced to have a commentator representing the Conservative's views during the campaign instead of Mr Cameron"[/i]

And I'm not sure how a head-to-head with only one person can go ahead, do you know?

[i]"However the corporation and other broadcasters insisted that the debates "will go ahead" and host two election debates with seven party leaders and one head to head."[/i]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11455986/TV-election-debates-Tories-go-to-war-over-BBCs-institutional-arrogance.html

EDIT : In case the Telegraph is [i]unacceptable[/i], from one of the broadcasters :

[i]The debates will go ahead on the following dates:

30th April: Sky News and Channel 4 produced head to head debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition[/i]

[url= https://corporate.sky.com/media-centre/news-page/2015/broadcasters-to-stick-to-election-debate-plan ]Broadcasters to Stick to Election Debate Plan[/url]

Obviously whether there is a chair, a table, a scarecrow, or an empty space, is irrelevant.

ernie when you can find footage of milliband saying how woeful tv debates are b4 the 2001 and 97 elections then ill gladly call him a hypocrite on that one, can you? if you can ill happily stand corrected

however theres plenty of cameron quotes out there from 2010 that contradict his current excuses

so its very easy for me to take that stance

as for head to head with only one , i believe the suggestion was that paxo
would do the questioning

(and yeah as regards anything bbc the telegraph is about as biased as you can possibly get- that headline being a wonderful case in point)

so its very easy for me to take that stance

What stance is that - that Miliband really is concerned that "the British people deserve this debate" ? And you accused me of being gullible ! 😆

Miliband knows that without this debate the electorate are likely to go to the polling stations thinking of him as a gormless muppet. He has little to lose if he has a head-to-head with Cameron and is given the chance to perhaps land a few punches.

He certainly wouldn't be supporting the idea of this debate if he thought it would be likely to harm his election chances. Everybody knows that. Everybody except perhaps for the terminally gullible.

Personally I think the power of TV debates in the UK is hugely exaggerated, this isn't the US, the British electorate are considerably more sophisticated. But that's another issue, whatever the truth people's attitude to the debates are driven by hypocrisy and dishonesty, including I dare say yours Kimbers - I doubt very much that you are as gullible and naive as you make out.

.

the telegraph is about as biased as you can possibly get

Not like the Guardian eh, which is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yeah well I knew I was likely to get "I'm not going to believe that, it's in the Telegraph" cop out, which is obviously why I also included a quote from one of the broadcasters, so I don't know why the need to inform me that the Telegraph as biased as you can possibly get.

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.

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

Well, we don't know that and personally I think they will!