This election TV Debate twaddle…

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

I could but it makes more sense to ask the current PERSON who is PM than ask a party why they have changed opinion form when someone else led the party
Honestly discussing what Tony Blair did is a bit pointless in relation to what happens at the current election [ especially when we had one last time and CMD has agreed but only on his terms]. However if you think its that important to discuss Blair then knock yourself out debating the real issue 😕

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.

As that is what has happened you must be delighted, he has refused they are going ahead with the folk who will turn up.

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 :

“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”

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

“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.”

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 unacceptable, from one of the broadcasters :

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

Broadcasters to Stick to Election Debate Plan

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.

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

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

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?

I didn’t say it wasn’t relevant to the overall numbers.

Labour are already doing well in Wales, they don’t even have a mathematical chance of making up for the 20 (or more) seats that The SNP are predicted to win from them.

Which is why I questioned whether Labour had the chance to win enough in england (to make up for the seats won by The SNP) – and here we are.

Notice the word ‘questioned’. I was asking a question, so, what do we think?

Well we are clearly following two different stories

You did not even produce an explicit quote to support your view and you followed up by asking different questions
You are better than this and I am not sure why you have taken this stance nor argued it so , uncharacteristically, poorly or passionately.
You missed the cycling analogy , strangely, could you explain how those who went riding bullied the one who tried, and failed, to dictate the ride?

As for attendance hopefully some of them are going because they think an electoral debate between leaders in an election is the correct thing for democracy rather than just for personal/party gain. I am sure they all have the confidence in their message that it will win them votes so I am not sure why they think they will be harmed.

“I absolutely believe in these debates and think they are great.” – David Cameron, Sky news, 14 April 2010

“I think it is great we are having these debates and I hope they go someway to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics because we badly need that once again in this country.” – David Cameron, Leaders Debate, ITV, 15 April 2010

“Look, I’ve been calling for these debates for five years, I challenged Blair, I challenged Brown, I challenged when I was ahead in the polls, and when I was behind in the polls. I just think they are a good thing.” – David Cameron, Daily Telegraph, 17 April 2010

“I’ve always wanted these debates to happen. I mean they happen in every country. They even happen in Mongolia for heaven’s sake and it’s part of the modern age that we should be in.” – David Cameron, BBC3, 21 April 2010

“I think these debates are here to stay. They clearly engage people in politics which is what we need.” – David Cameron, News of the World, 2 May 2010

“If you want the TV debates to go ahead you have got to do it fairly between the main parties and look, having said I want them, having challenged people to have them and quite right, Sky saying let’s have them, it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out so I thought we’ve got to stick at this, we’ve got to do it. It will be challenging, it was, but I think I came through them.” – David Cameron, Sky News, 3 May 2010

“On TV debates, I’m in favour of them, I think they’re good and we should go on having them and I will certainly play my part in trying to make that happen.” – David Cameron, Coalition mid term review, 7th Jan 2012

“I think TV debates are good. I enjoyed them last time – particularly the last one.” – David Cameron, Press Association, 10th December 2012

“You know we’ve been going on for years about let’s have these debates and I think it really vindicated having that. I think people will be asking themselves why on earth, what was all the fuss about? Why on earth didn’t we have these things before? We should have done and it’s great they’re underway now and I think we’ll have them in every election in the future and I think that’s a really good thing for our democracy.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014

“Blair pulled out against Major and Major pulled out against Kinnock, Thatcher pulled out against Callaghan. I’ve just always believed that these need to happen. It’s good for democracy. It’s good to see.” – David Cameron, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014

What’s your point caller? He’s offered to have a TV debate hasn’t he?

The TV companies want a head to head with Just Cameron and Miliband for example, well, we didn’t have that last time did we, so the ‘precedent’ isn’t really a precedent at all!

Oh, you meant “gain”. What you wrote means something a bit different from what you seem to have meant.

Steve Bell nails it again

What’s your point caller? He’s offered to have a TV debate hasn’t he?

Did you fail to note the plural in the quotes above from Dave and his unilateral refusal to attend all the others whilst demanding to say who attends? The precedent is for DEBATES as per last time and that is what he argued for.
I am not sure why you have needed the issue explaining to you tbh

Right, but you accept that the format of the debates being proposed/demanded/threatened by the TV companies does not match the format that was agreed last time?

Therefore ‘the ‘precedent’ set last time is irrelevant.

Right, but you accept that the format of the debates being proposed/demanded/threatened by the TV companies Dave does not match the format that was agreed last time? And of course it does not match what he argued for last time either. You further accept only Dave has dictated to them [ rather poorly]what must happen and set conditions on the number and type of debates he will attend. the ride analogy shows it for what it is. He was petulant and he ALONE cannot dictate to every other “stakeholder”.

TBH I forgot how you jumped around in debates when corrected and did not comment so I am off riding.

you further accept that only Dave has dictated what must happen

Well, that’s demonstrably not true, as the DUP has not only demanded they are included, but taken legal action over the issue, and up till this week Miliband was demanding they all took place after 30th March.

so I am off riding.

What at one o’clock? I’ve just come back. I don’t know about the rest of the country but the south east has been bathed in glorious almost summer sunshine/temperatures all day. What a shame it would have been to waste it debating about debates. Thanks for the patronizing comment about me being “better than this” btw.

What at one o’clock?

Like his debates, he prefers his rides closer to the election.

I would like to see a Cameron – Milliband debate as one of them is most likely to be next PM with either a very small majority, minority or coalition. I would have thought that Cameron would want a head to head as (1) he is a better debater and (2) the labour narrative has so far failed at each iteration. Either way they should both put themselves up to close scutiny.

Odd that Cameorn favours a bigger free for all. Some of the other parties merely spout BS that cannot be debated with (UKIP, SNP) and it’s almost impossible to manage in a meaningful way. More likely to be a mess with no winners IMO (ad agencies apart)

As discussed above, the incumbent PM is always going to be on a loser with a televised debate – that and it’s Wallace who has the biggest image problem which a debate might help fix. A big mess is exactly what CMD is after, as he’s likely to lose less and Wallace likely to gain less.

Are you expecting reasoned debating of policies rather than carefully scripted punch and judy stuff?

Are you expecting reasoned debating of policies …….

Asks the man who engages in childish name-calling and repeatedly refers to Ed Miliband as “Wallace”.

One can live in hope aracer, one can live in hope! But realistically no. As soon as the word austerity gets mentioned, you know you are on a slippery slope. If ever there was a misnomer used by all sides.

Surely these are totally pointless. I have never yet found a party that really cares what the voters want. Every single one just does what supposedly looks nice and might just get them a pat on the back from other leaders. So many times have we seen one leader slag another off for doing exactly what their own party did. I have yet to see a single move in the last five years that any benefit to me or was to my approval. Thing is the grinning idiot didn’t either nor did the brown lump. In fact within my voting years the only thing that I remember that was worth while was Maggie duffing up the Argentinians.
As for the debates, just what do they achieve apart from a waste of hot air. If there has to be one then why more than one? That’s just telly folk who are about the least responsible people you can get short of being a politician. Surely any leader who feels that they have nothing to gain shouldn’t play.The whole waste of time isn’t for our benefit.

FFS:

A future Labour government would legislate to ensure TV debates became a permanent feature of general election campaigns, Ed Miliband has said.

way to go milibean. If in doubt, just legislate the **** out of everything. ‘tard.

Must…control….everything…..

It’s staggering just how bankrupt Ed Miliband and the Labour Party are of any meaningful policies to offer the British people.

I guess that as we approach the General Election we can expect more desperate and ridiculous attempts by the Labour Party and its leadership to manufacture differences between themselves and the Tories.

What at one o’clock? I’ve just come back.

I do martial arts in the morning.
You still failed to use the cycling analogy to show how he was being bullied.

If in doubt, just legislate the **** out of everything. ‘tard

Retard is pretty offensive – no need IMHO. What else can he do to ensure the PM actually attends? He is basically ensuring he cannot do a dave and argue for them now and then duck them if he is PM. I am not sure why you think his stance is worse than Daves can you explain?

You also seem to want and expect a PM who does not legislate,whatever the hue, you are going to be disappointed.