It won't be an issue in May though. Cameron has took the hit now and will move on.
Everyone is getting sidetracked over something that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things
Rubbish, quite a few wavering voters will have made their mind up not to vote Tory after this debacle.
Maybe they will not vote at all as Cameron has made a mockery of British politics with his arrogance and ''I'm unblocking the logjam created by broadcasters'
Absolute bunkum...
Everybody wants to debate with David Cameron
Why isn't Sturgeon demanding a one-on-one debate with Miliband?
Why isn't Farage demanding a one-on-one debate with Natalie Bennett?
Cameron doesn't need to lower himself to debating with anyone one-on-one
He debates one-on-one with Miliband every week on PMQ's
Well yeah, he's the incumbent PM. He's the guy they're trying to replace.
He debates one-on-one with Miliband every week on PMQ's
Ah PMQs...the most orchestrated piece of crap around. But Dave has taken it to new lows - he may as well not show up and often doesn't. It's a complete waste of a time and a shambolic illustration of our "democracy".
Dave should "lower himself" to these debates since he didn't even manage a majority against the seemingly ridiculously unpopular Gordon Brown. Him and the Tories have acted like they won a landslide without winning at all; now time to be held to account like all the other parties.
Everybody wants to debate with David Cameron
Why isn't Sturgeon demanding a one-on-one debate with Miliband?
Why isn't Farage demanding a one-on-one debate with Natalie Bennett?
Cameron doesn't need to lower himself to debating with anyone one-on-one
He debates one-on-one with Miliband every week on PMQ's
What you mean when he is handed a script of the questions and he is provided with a sheet of pre written answers? that kind of "debate"?
one in which he can avoid answering the question and can go off on a tangent without a chairperson to drag him back and demand he answers instead of avoids the question? that sort of debate?
and one in which he doesn't have rows and rows of howling cat calling and sneering idiots sitting behind him ready to shout down and drown out the opposition in the hope of cutting down the actual time for any kind of 'proper debate'?
and YES I know the benches opposite are just as bad with the pathetic shouting and howling, the thing is though, they aren't the one's with a leader running scared.
You actually believed he was ok with these debates weren't you (unless you were having us on). Don't you feel just a teensy let down that he proves himself untrustworthy yet again?
Yes, I genuinely thought he was and part of me still thinks he might be. But then again, I'm not privy to the inner machinations of CPHQ where, apparently, they were dead set against them.
As for being untrustworthy - no. Well, I mean, not any more than normal and certainly not compared to Ed (these things are always comparative). Unless, of course, Ed's manifesto is going to say that Labour will reverse every single one of the hundreds of Coalition cuts that Labour voted against - in which I pledge here and now to vote Labour if only because Ed is obviously a man of his word.
Rubbish, quite a few wavering voters will have made their mind up not to vote Tory after this debacle.
Maybe they will not vote at all as Cameron has made a mockery of British politics with his arrogance and ''I'm unblocking the logjam created by broadcasters'
Absolute bunkum...
He refused to appear in a Lib/Lab/Con/UKIP debate because he thought it looked like a stitchup (which it was ). Why is UKIP a party with no elected MP's at the last GE getting a better deal than the Greens or SNP etc BUNKUM!!!!
If we had a Presidential system where you voted for one candidate to run the country then the debates would make sense.
We have a Parliamentary democracy where you vote for your local MP.
If perchance Cameron lost is seat at the election then he could not be Prime Minister anyway do the debates would be ultra meaningless.
Media idiots see the US presidential debates and think that would work in the UK - it doesn't - David Elstein (broadcasting mogul) was interviewed on Radio 5 earlier and said the broadcasters had messed up by telling everyone what was going to happen, before any of the leaders had even been approached.
there is no "faux" outrage as far as I can see, there is however an air of almost disbelief that a prime minister of this country is running away from a fight, and that many of his supporters excuse this by saying, "it's perfectly acceptable to run away from a fight you might not win"
and he is the leader of the party who gave us Winston Churchill and Maggie Thatcher, 2 Tories who are not really noted for running away from a fight just because there's a chance they might not win. I am no fan of Thatcher, but she was twice the man HE will ever be.
Nope what is "fundamentally wrong" is a prime minister who said, and I quote,
the above is one of ten quotes from the link in which Cameron expressed staunch support for the debates the most recent one being from April LAST YEAR when he said,
David Cameron and Allan Beswick, BBC Radio Manchester, 16 April 2014
and now we can add Cameron to that list, and from now on he is "feeble Dave" after all, he DID say, "it would have been feeble to find some excuse to back out" David Cameron, Sky News, 3 May 2010
As I said before no one is debating that he's "being tactical" he's using the 'tactic' of running away from a fight because he might not win.
and as for "besting" Miliband frequently, you do realise that he has a list of questions that are going to be asked as well as a sheet of pre prepared answers? or do you think he comes up with his smart Alec deflections and sneers off the top of his head?
We have seen what happens when he has to go 'off script' out comes the stiff claw hands the bright red face and the shouty spoilt brat. and THAT is what he is terrified of,
Of course you would like to see the whole thing scrapped, it has Cameron cornered,
but the beloved leader seemed to disagree with you. “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 will repeat (and will continue to do so until it finally gets through) I was against the debates last time I saw them as yet another American import,
However, what we as individuals think about the 'worth' of the debates is NOT the issue here, the issue is a British prime minister who lacks the confidence in his beliefs, principles and 'achievements' to the point where he is risking public ridicule by running away rather than to stand up and fight for what he believes in and for the people who support and trust him (he certainly does not deserve the unfaltering loyalty that some are displaying) because there is a chance he might lose,
[highlight]we have a word for people like that and it starts with 'C' and ends with oward.[/highlight]
and lets not miss what has just happened here, a British prime minister and leader of a COALITION governement, he didn't even get the mandate of a working majority FFS, has just dictated to the broadcasters (in a 'free' and democratic country) under what conditions he will take part in an election debate, who can take part, when it should happen, and how long it will last, and that there will be only one.
Did I just wake up in China or North Korea?
What an excellent post, so well quoted. I've just finished watching an edition of Top Of The Pops on BBC4 which ended with the No1 song this day in 1980 being Coward Of The County by Kenny Rogers.
People should now update that song for Cameron to "Coward Of The Country" and chant it at him...."Everyone considered him the coward of the country".
What an excellent post, so well quoted. I've just finished watching an edition of Top Of The Pops on BBC4 which ended with the No1 song this day in 1980 being Coward Of The County by Kenny Rogers.
People should now update that song for Cameron to "Coward Of The Country" and chant it at him...."Everyone considered him the coward of the country".
If we had a Presidential system where you voted for one candidate to run the country then the debates would make sense.
We have a Parliamentary democracy where you vote for your local MP.
If perchance Cameron lost is seat at the election then he could not be Prime Minister anyway do the debates would be ultra meaningless.
Media idiots see the US presidential debates and think that would work in the UK - it doesn't - David Elstein (broadcasting mogul) was interviewed on Radio 5 earlier and said the broadcasters had messed up by telling everyone what was going to happen, before any of the leaders had even been approached.
I'd argue the debates are meaningless anyway. Less than 20% of the electorate (not the country) watch them and after they're over a fraction of those that watched, and many that didn't, rush to the online polls to tell us who won (in reality - who their favourite is). That info is then splashed all over the UK and for reasons that utterly escape me, is taken as gospel.
And apparently, for some this system is better than extended detailed analysis of manifestos and campaigning door to door (actually meeting people and listening to them).
I'm knackered, so my last word tonight is - it's bollox. Yeah, I know. Two words.
Not exactly. He'd almost certainly beat Milliband in a head to head as for one thing he's got a quasi-personality that Milliband has not. But he can only lose even if he wins, because the public's image of Milliband is so bad that a relatively insipid performance will still raise his profile, his bar being so low. Cameron is keen to keep the public impression of Milliband as a bacon sandwich chomping goon alive. It's all loss and no gain for him.
But, as the Telegraph's Janet Daley pointed out, his current strategy has turned into an own goal. Not only has he been universally condemned by all the other party leaders for his naked cowardice, he's also been seen to be running away from, and scared of, a debate with Miliband of all people so Miliband now looks the more principled politician in this instance.
Throughout the rest of the election campaign, Farage, Miliband and Sturgeon can now quite rightly call Cameron a 'frit coward'. Cameron has been poorly advised by Lynton Crosby and Craig Oliver and Cameron is now likely to be verbally attacked on this very issue in the one debate that he will attend and he'll no doubt be made to look weak and defensive on this issue if not an outright laughing stock.
David Elstein (broadcasting mogul) was interviewed on Radio 5 earlier and said the broadcasters had messed up by telling everyone what was going to happen, before any of the leaders had even been approached.
It was more about Political gamesmanship, being able to point the finger at Dave. It doesn't matter if its rubbish, being able to repeat the same stuff may sway the mind of a floating voter ( the purpose of the whole thing ).
This issue won't fade. It's an ongoing thing because of one of these:
a) only one debate will happen, and people will know why
b) no debates will happen at all, and people will know why
c) the broadcasters will go ahead with all the other debates, and Cameron won't be there and people will know why.
So it will keep rumbling on. A relatively trivial thing constantly being talked about for weeks.
But, as the Telegraph's Janet Daley pointed out, his current strategy has turned into an own goal. Not only has he been universally condemned by all the other party leaders for his naked cowardice, he's also been seen to be running away from, and scared of, a debate with Miliband of all people so Miliband now looks the more principled politician in this instance.
Throughout the rest of the election campaign, Farage, Miliband and Sturgeon can now quite rightly call Cameron a 'frit coward'. Cameron has been poorly advised by Lynton Crosby and Craig Oliver and Cameron is now likely to be verbally attacked on this very issue in the one debate that he will attend and he'll no doubt be made to look weak and defensive on this issue if not an outright laughing stock.
Oh it gets better and better. I am just popping in to explain that there is a difference between OpEds and Editorials, something that seems to be misunderstood.
Janet Daley is an OpEd, as is Mary Riddell, Dan Hodges et al. The DT editorial is this:
This issue won't fade. It's an ongoing thing because of one of these:
a) only one debate will happen, and people will know why
b) no debates will happen at all, and people will know why
c) the broadcasters will go ahead with all the other debates, and Cameron won't be there and people will know why.
So it will keep rumbling on. A relatively trivial thing constantly being talked about for weeks.
It might not fade for vitriolic lefties but most normal people won't be bothered.
The bbc are negotiating a Scottish debate. (Source: Radio Scotland Morning Call) Murphy will doubtless lose the rag as usual.
As the SNP are likely to be a major "shareholder" at the next Parliament its a suprise they havent been invited to participate at the televised debates.
This issue won't fade. It's an ongoing thing because of one of these: a) only one debate will happen, and people will know why
b) no debates will happen at all, and people will know why
c) the broadcasters will go ahead with all the other debates, and Cameron won't be there and people will know why.
So it will keep rumbling on. A relatively trivial thing constantly being talked about for weeks.
Cameron has committed himself, on bad advice, to only one debate so that's pretty likely to take place. However, the furore over this issue will pretty much guarantee a huge audience for this debate and along with the debate will come an invited/selected audience. The moment Cameron attempts to feebly justify his non-attendance at the other two debates, there's a very high probability of laughter and boos of derision for Cameron from that audience in the full view of 10 million+ viewers.
That scene itself will be humiliating and it will be car crash television just like this incident here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs. That's why the advice of Crosby and Oliver on this issue is insane and Cameron would have been better advised to go to all three debates after a crash course of testing dummy run debates.
Such an entertaining thread, there's the people who wouldn't vote for Dave's lot even if he appeared in every debate and won them all convincingly, crying like babies because he won't do what they want. Then there's the people who keep turning up to say it's all really not that important, so not important that they have to keep stating that "fact" evey page or so. Finally, there's the people who seem so shocked and amazed that a politician (of all people) has been revealed to have changed their mind to suit themselves or maybe, as some might say "lied".
As the SNP are likely to be a major "shareholder" at the next Parliament its a suprise they havent been invited to participate at the televised debates.
They have been invited to two (the seven party ones) and bbc Scotland will likely hold a Scottish leaders debate.
Well, the other parties can now rightly point out that Cameron is trying to run rings around the electorate like he has just done to the debate organisers.
Comments
Rubbish, quite a few wavering voters will have made their mind up not to vote Tory after this debacle.
Maybe they will not vote at all as Cameron has made a mockery of British politics with his arrogance and ''I'm unblocking the logjam created by broadcasters'
Absolute bunkum...
Well yeah, he's the incumbent PM. He's the guy they're trying to replace.
David Miliband or Alan Johnson.....if only, Cameron could be packing his bags now!
Ah PMQs...the most orchestrated piece of crap around. But Dave has taken it to new lows - he may as well not show up and often doesn't. It's a complete waste of a time and a shambolic illustration of our "democracy".
Dave should "lower himself" to these debates since he didn't even manage a majority against the seemingly ridiculously unpopular Gordon Brown. Him and the Tories have acted like they won a landslide without winning at all; now time to be held to account like all the other parties.
What you mean when he is handed a script of the questions and he is provided with a sheet of pre written answers? that kind of "debate"?
one in which he can avoid answering the question and can go off on a tangent without a chairperson to drag him back and demand he answers instead of avoids the question? that sort of debate?
and one in which he doesn't have rows and rows of howling cat calling and sneering idiots sitting behind him ready to shout down and drown out the opposition in the hope of cutting down the actual time for any kind of 'proper debate'?
and YES I know the benches opposite are just as bad with the pathetic shouting and howling, the thing is though, they aren't the one's with a leader running scared.
Yes, I genuinely thought he was and part of me still thinks he might be. But then again, I'm not privy to the inner machinations of CPHQ where, apparently, they were dead set against them.
As for being untrustworthy - no. Well, I mean, not any more than normal and certainly not compared to Ed (these things are always comparative). Unless, of course, Ed's manifesto is going to say that Labour will reverse every single one of the hundreds of Coalition cuts that Labour voted against - in which I pledge here and now to vote Labour if only because Ed is obviously a man of his word.
It's politics, NG. You know that as well as I do.
He refused to appear in a Lib/Lab/Con/UKIP debate because he thought it looked like a stitchup (which it was ). Why is UKIP a party with no elected MP's at the last GE getting a better deal than the Greens or SNP etc BUNKUM!!!!
We have a Parliamentary democracy where you vote for your local MP.
If perchance Cameron lost is seat at the election then he could not be Prime Minister anyway do the debates would be ultra meaningless.
Media idiots see the US presidential debates and think that would work in the UK - it doesn't - David Elstein (broadcasting mogul) was interviewed on Radio 5 earlier and said the broadcasters had messed up by telling everyone what was going to happen, before any of the leaders had even been approached.
People should now update that song for Cameron to "Coward Of The Country" and chant it at him...."Everyone considered him the coward of the country".
Yes, why face real life debates when the right wing media can dominate the agenda?
Thank you, very nice of you.
I'd argue the debates are meaningless anyway. Less than 20% of the electorate (not the country) watch them and after they're over a fraction of those that watched, and many that didn't, rush to the online polls to tell us who won (in reality - who their favourite is). That info is then splashed all over the UK and for reasons that utterly escape me, is taken as gospel.
And apparently, for some this system is better than extended detailed analysis of manifestos and campaigning door to door (actually meeting people and listening to them).
I'm knackered, so my last word tonight is - it's bollox. Yeah, I know. Two words.
But, as the Telegraph's Janet Daley pointed out, his current strategy has turned into an own goal. Not only has he been universally condemned by all the other party leaders for his naked cowardice, he's also been seen to be running away from, and scared of, a debate with Miliband of all people so Miliband now looks the more principled politician in this instance.
Throughout the rest of the election campaign, Farage, Miliband and Sturgeon can now quite rightly call Cameron a 'frit coward'. Cameron has been poorly advised by Lynton Crosby and Craig Oliver and Cameron is now likely to be verbally attacked on this very issue in the one debate that he will attend and he'll no doubt be made to look weak and defensive on this issue if not an outright laughing stock.
It was more about Political gamesmanship, being able to point the finger at Dave. It doesn't matter if its rubbish, being able to repeat the same stuff may sway the mind of a floating voter ( the purpose of the whole thing ).
a) only one debate will happen, and people will know why
b) no debates will happen at all, and people will know why
c) the broadcasters will go ahead with all the other debates, and Cameron won't be there and people will know why.
So it will keep rumbling on. A relatively trivial thing constantly being talked about for weeks.
The bbc are negotiating a Scottish debate. (Source: Radio Scotland Morning Call) Murphy will doubtless lose the rag as usual.
Janet Daley is an OpEd, as is Mary Riddell, Dan Hodges et al. The DT editorial is this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11449850/There-is-no-excuse-not-to-hold-a-leaders-debate.html
It might not fade for vitriolic lefties but most normal people won't be bothered.
He's probably right on that.
As the SNP are likely to be a major "shareholder" at the next Parliament its a suprise they havent been invited to participate at the televised debates.
Cameron has committed himself, on bad advice, to only one debate so that's pretty likely to take place. However, the furore over this issue will pretty much guarantee a huge audience for this debate and along with the debate will come an invited/selected audience. The moment Cameron attempts to feebly justify his non-attendance at the other two debates, there's a very high probability of laughter and boos of derision for Cameron from that audience in the full view of 10 million+ viewers.
That scene itself will be humiliating and it will be car crash television just like this incident here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqM0Ube0oLs. That's why the advice of Crosby and Oliver on this issue is insane and Cameron would have been better advised to go to all three debates after a crash course of testing dummy run debates.
That's surprising coming from Peter Kellner.
If the debates go ahead anyway then it will rumble on for many weeks.
Such fun.
They have been invited to two (the seven party ones) and bbc Scotland will likely hold a Scottish leaders debate.