It really couldn't be any clearer, Cameron wanted the greens, he got the greens, Cameron wants to set the timing of the debates, EM says fine, "any time anywhere" before or during the campaign, he is prepared to allow feeble Dave to dictate the timing so long as he agrees to a head to head,
So why play along with these debates that the blogger seems to think are unwinnable for the incumbent PM?
Why shilly-shally around to get the Greens involved? Why not just rule himself out and kill off the debates (if that was in the interest of teh country, the electorate and himself)?
If the debates are that worthless (and he didn't seem to think so a mere 5 years ago), why be bothered about what the public might think if he turned them down at the start?
Personally, I think he (or his team more like) have either been deliberately keeping his opponents on the back foot, or there is uncertainty at CPHQ as to what is the right course of action. Something in me tells me Cameron is marginally up for it, but Osborne and others are dead set against it.
Your hunch could be correct, if so it perhaps says much for DC's leadership and control over the party/party machinery
Incredible defence of outright cowardice again,
I suppose that you think that ST Margaret was also wrong when she fought against Argentina in a fight she had no guarantee of winning, and had she lost it would certainly have ended her career?
and I suppose you think it "shameful" that Churchill stood alone in a fight even his closest allies thought he could not possibly win?
ME? I prefer politicians with a spine, I might never agree with them politically, Thatcher and Churchill, but I certainly respect their courage and their willingness to stand by their belief that they are doing what is right, rather than running away because they might lose.
Thatcher refused to debate Callaghan and Kinnock because she wouldn't win
Blair refused to debate Howard,Hauge or Major because he couldn't win.
Brown only signed up for 2010 because he was so unpopular he needed anything to get a boost.
And comparing the Faklands war to a TV debate is plain rediculous
It's wholly insincere of Chicken Cameron to blame the broadcasters when it's been his own team of media and spin advisors who've all been responsible for all the obfuscation and delay. It's also hypocritical too because Chicken Cameron was bleating so much about the need for leaders' debates back in 2009 and the clips are all on Youtube, etc.
Chicken Cameron's stance has come in for universal condemnation from all the other party leaders from UKIP to the Greens and quite rightly so. His non-attendance and cowardice has become a major story in itself and I really hope that Chicken Cameron's personal standing is damaged over this issue. I also hope that the four broadcasting organisation proceed with the other two remaining debates and that they empty-chair Chicken Cameron if he does a no-show.
I agree with both the Times' and Janet Daley's comments below:
PM under fire as gamble on TV debates unites parties David Cameron’s high stakes move to refuse to take part in a televised head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband appeared to have backfired today, as all the other parties united to turn on him...“It is now clear that David Cameron is ducking the debate with me. He is cowering from the public,” Mr Miliband said today. “The British people deserve this debate. I’ll debate him any time, any place, anywhere. He should stop ducking and weaving and name the date.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
Avoiding the debates will hurt David Cameron – and the Conservative Party The precedent for having televised debates has been set. Trying to turn back the clock is very unwise indeed...But there is one great difference between then and now. We have had one memorable set of electoral debates – in which Mr Cameron was willing to participate. The precedent has been established. It created an instant tradition. To retreat now is very different from never accepting the idea in the first place. Mr Cameron has done a very unwise thing in trying to turn the clock back. It will not be forgotten. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11451895/Avoiding-the-debates-will-hurt-David-Cameron-and-the-Conservative-Party.html
is that right? He cannot win a fight (debate) against EM?
I thought that EM was supposed to lack credibility and that Dave could wipe the floor with him. and that he was not afraid of taking tough decisions, making tough choices, especially when it was in the interests of the country.
At least if he tried (and lost) he would perhaps be seen as someone who did try, even if the odds were not in his favour.
Nice one,
I love the way Ed "Wallace" Miliband the butt of so many sneering Tory supporters jokes, the man who can't eat a bacon buttie properly, the man who is too "inept" to ever be the prime minister, the man who many Tory supporters like to tell us is "a joke" has suddenly become the superman that Cameron can't beat in a 'fair fight'
and that this is a perfectly acceptable excuse for to him run away with his tail between his legs.
Poor show from Cameron, especially after his comments to G Brown at the last election, but just the same as he changed his tune over banking rules pre and post crash, I suppose. He seems to think we don't remember these things!
The weakest and worst PM since Callaghan. I can sense a big tax give away coming in the budget to get himself out the hole he's dug. Forget about the deficit, there's an electorate to be bribed. Why worry about debates when you can use the oldest trick in the book
...and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the big polling companies ran a poll relating to this issue which will, in turn, help to keep the story going. Farage and Miliband are going to have a field day over the next couple of months by branding Cameron as the 'frit chicken' of British politics.
Milliband has just been reported as saying 'anywhere, anytime, I will meet and I'm ready'.
This gives the idea that Cameron is running the timetable. You can tell Campbell and Mandelson are missing - Prescott in charge?
It gives the idea that Milliband is willing to be flexible to meet the niggling demands of Cameron. If anything, it backs him into a corner. If the opposition is willing to do the debate on his terms and he still doesn't turn up, the only logical conclusion everyone will take is that Cameron doesn't feel his party's policies can stand up to scrutiny (or that he's a crap debator!)
I love the way Ed "Wallace" Miliband the butt of so many sneering Tory supporters jokes, the man who can't eat a bacon buttie properly, the man who is too "inept" to ever be the prime minister, the man who many Tory supporters like to tell us is "a joke" has suddenly become the superman that Cameron can't beat in a 'fair fight'
It's not that he wouldn't beat him (C over M); Milliband wouldn't come across as a woeful a prospect as portrayed by the media. So in beating Milliband, he still loses because Milliband gains.
None of which should be taken as an excuse for the lying and two faced duplicity of Cameron who, like Milliband, seems to get more appalling the more you see of him.
Thatcher refused to debate Callaghan and Kinnock because she wouldn't win
Thatcher had never been an outspoken advocate of the TV debates and had always opposed them. unlike Cameron who is practically single-handedly responsible for introducing them
Blair refused to debate Howard,Hauge or Major because he couldn't win.
Blair had never been an outspoken advocate of the TV debates and as far as I am aware had always opposed them,
unlike Cameron who is practically single-handedly responsible for introducing them.
Brown only signed up for 2010 because he was so unpopular he needed anything to get a boost.
This will be the very same Brown who Cameron constantly berated for 'stalling' over the 2012 debates?
and who was called a chicken by the right wing media, THAT Brown?
And comparing the Faklands war to a TV debate is plain rediculous
I agree, "comparing" the Falklands war to a TV debate would indeed be 'rediculous' however I did no such thing, I was talking about the principle of running away from any fight on the grounds that you may not win, seeming to be perfectly acceptable behaviour for the prime minister of this country, and the leader of the party that gave us 2 prime ministers who most certainly (what ever else I might think of them) did NOT turn and run away from a fight because they might lose.
Oh do come off it - what makes you think that you are going to get any more straight answers off the pair of them to questions that you put than you get on a Wednesday afternoon.
If you want a grown up debate and forensic dissection of policy then the schoolboy yahh-boo that we get from ed and dave is the last way you would go about it.
Well, I'll concur that you'll never get a straight answer out of a politician. But if the debates are pointless by that measure, then so is the entire election process. They might as well not produce any literature other than a manifesto posted to a website, save themselves the expense and time of producing ad campaigns and going on TV/Radio shows, just let us read the policy documents and vote on the basis of that and that alone.
Actually, I think you might be onto something there!
It's not that he wouldn't beat him (C over M); Milliband wouldn't come across as a woeful a prospect as portrayed by the media. So in beating Milliband, he still loses because Milliband gains.
None of which should be taken as an excuse for the lying and two faced duplicity of Cameron who, like Milliband, seems to get more appalling the more you see of him.
this is the point I am constantly trying to get across, I DON'T CARE about the debates, I don't even care if they happen,
what I DO care about is a prime minister who is almost single handedly responsible for the introduction of these debates, he himself says he had been pushing for them for two years prior to 2010,
who is NOW doing all he can to avoid taking part in them because, as his supporters are claiming (and justifying) 'he might not win' now I dunno if I have a different 'principle compass' to most Tory supporters, but to me this is about as clear an example of someone being a coward as you could ask for.
It's wholly insincere of Chicken Cameron to blame the broadcasters when it's been his own team of media and spin advisors who've all been responsible for all the obfuscation and delay. It's also hypocritical too because Chicken Cameron was bleating so much about the need for leaders' debates back in 2009 and the clips are all on Youtube, etc.
Chicken Cameron's stance has come in for universal condemnation from all the other party leaders from UKIP to the Greens and quite rightly so. His non-attendance and cowardice has become a major story in itself and I really hope that Chicken Cameron's personal standing is damaged over this issue. I also hope that the four broadcasting organisation proceed with the other two remaining debates and that they empty-chair Chicken Cameron if he does a no-show.
I agree with both the Times' and Janet Daley's comments below:
PM under fire as gamble on TV debates unites parties David Cameron’s high stakes move to refuse to take part in a televised head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband appeared to have backfired today, as all the other parties united to turn on him...“It is now clear that David Cameron is ducking the debate with me. He is cowering from the public,” Mr Miliband said today. “The British people deserve this debate. I’ll debate him any time, any place, anywhere. He should stop ducking and weaving and name the date.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
Avoiding the debates will hurt David Cameron – and the Conservative Party The precedent for having televised debates has been set. Trying to turn back the clock is very unwise indeed...But there is one great difference between then and now. We have had one memorable set of electoral debates – in which Mr Cameron was willing to participate. The precedent has been established. It created an instant tradition. To retreat now is very different from never accepting the idea in the first place. Mr Cameron has done a very unwise thing in trying to turn the clock back. It will not be forgotten. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11451895/Avoiding-the-debates-will-hurt-David-Cameron-and-the-Conservative-Party.html
Wow, this is huge, even the Torygraph say he's wrong.
There's a general election and the future of the country at stake here. Not bragging rights as to who had the bloodiest nose at the end of an impeccably prepared, punchline driven, cliche overloaded TV PR extravaganza.
We had a TV debate once. Once in all the decades we could have had them. And leaders from both the parties regularly turned them down. But now, all of a sudden, they are for some - apparently - absolutely frickin' essential to the democratic process.
The way some are moaning away on here you'd think their human rights had been taken away. You want a fair, democratic election? Let's see all your posts where you complained about the Boundary revisions being voted down.
You are right - the future of the country is at stake. And are we to leave that decision to be based on glossy (but devoid of information) leaflets on the doormat, billboards, and carefully prepared party political broadcasts and PR-led talk-show interviews?
I actually think they will you know. I disagree with everything they stand for and represent, but I will say this for Farage, you know exactly what he stands for and represents.
Tactile voting people...tactile voting. Think carefully before you vote. Look at the bigger picture.
How does that work? Do you have to touch all the candidates before you decide?
Cameron can't win now, whoever is advising him on this has messed up big time. If he now turns up it looks like he has been pressured into doing so and if he doesn't it is because he is frightened of a man portrayed by his mates at the Mail and Sun as being useless.
No wonder he couldn't win the 2010 election and now he is doing the same 5 years later.
More especially so this one.
It reminds me of his invented EU referendum.
In an attempt to lure the far right he he prepared to risk Britains future by dangling an EU vote rather than admit to any actual clear cut policy.
That's the other thing, I suppose. If people now think Cameron can only have a debate on his terms, will he only offer the EU Referendum on his terms? i.e. a watered-down referendum.
Cameron can't win now, whoever is advising him on this has messed up big time. If he now turns up it looks like he has been pressured into doing so and if he doesn't it is because he is frightened of a man portrayed by his mates at the Mail and Sun as being useless.
No wonder he couldn't win the 2010 election and now he is doing the same 5 years later.
It wouldn't be the first u-turn from brown trousers Dave though would it?
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7wYAQyDsY8
It really couldn't be any clearer, Cameron wanted the greens, he got the greens, Cameron wants to set the timing of the debates, EM says fine, "any time anywhere" before or during the campaign, he is prepared to allow feeble Dave to dictate the timing so long as he agrees to a head to head,
and STILL feeble Dave runs scared.
Why shilly-shally around to get the Greens involved? Why not just rule himself out and kill off the debates (if that was in the interest of teh country, the electorate and himself)?
If the debates are that worthless (and he didn't seem to think so a mere 5 years ago), why be bothered about what the public might think if he turned them down at the start?
Your hunch could be correct, if so it perhaps says much for DC's leadership and control over the party/party machinery
On this issue, definitely. Having let Clegg slip in and seize the laurels five years ago, he may well be deferring to others now.
Thatcher refused to debate Callaghan and Kinnock because she wouldn't win
Blair refused to debate Howard,Hauge or Major because he couldn't win.
Brown only signed up for 2010 because he was so unpopular he needed anything to get a boost.
And comparing the Faklands war to a TV debate is plain rediculous
It's wholly insincere of Chicken Cameron to blame the broadcasters when it's been his own team of media and spin advisors who've all been responsible for all the obfuscation and delay. It's also hypocritical too because Chicken Cameron was bleating so much about the need for leaders' debates back in 2009 and the clips are all on Youtube, etc.
Chicken Cameron's stance has come in for universal condemnation from all the other party leaders from UKIP to the Greens and quite rightly so. His non-attendance and cowardice has become a major story in itself and I really hope that Chicken Cameron's personal standing is damaged over this issue. I also hope that the four broadcasting organisation proceed with the other two remaining debates and that they empty-chair Chicken Cameron if he does a no-show.
I agree with both the Times' and Janet Daley's comments below:
PM under fire as gamble on TV debates unites parties
David Cameron’s high stakes move to refuse to take part in a televised head-to-head debate with Ed Miliband appeared to have backfired today, as all the other parties united to turn on him...“It is now clear that David Cameron is ducking the debate with me. He is cowering from the public,” Mr Miliband said today. “The British people deserve this debate. I’ll debate him any time, any place, anywhere. He should stop ducking and weaving and name the date.”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/
Avoiding the debates will hurt David Cameron – and the Conservative Party
The precedent for having televised debates has been set. Trying to turn back the clock is very unwise indeed...But there is one great difference between then and now. We have had one memorable set of electoral debates – in which Mr Cameron was willing to participate. The precedent has been established. It created an instant tradition. To retreat now is very different from never accepting the idea in the first place. Mr Cameron has done a very unwise thing in trying to turn the clock back. It will not be forgotten.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11451895/Avoiding-the-debates-will-hurt-David-Cameron-and-the-Conservative-Party.html
Nice one,
I love the way Ed "Wallace" Miliband the butt of so many sneering Tory supporters jokes, the man who can't eat a bacon buttie properly, the man who is too "inept" to ever be the prime minister, the man who many Tory supporters like to tell us is "a joke" has suddenly become the superman that Cameron can't beat in a 'fair fight'
and that this is a perfectly acceptable excuse for to him run away with his tail between his legs.
(some) Tories eh? go figure.
If he wasn't doing them he should just have come out and said.
No one else has made demands.
Its what depresses me about Conservatism., They always prefer make up a reality to suit their personal agenda.
The weakest and worst PM since Callaghan. I can sense a big tax give away coming in the budget to get himself out the hole he's dug. Forget about the deficit, there's an electorate to be bribed. Why worry about debates when you can use the oldest trick in the book
All the BBC/ITV need do is set up a web poll.
...and I wouldn't be surprised if one of the big polling companies ran a poll relating to this issue which will, in turn, help to keep the story going. Farage and Miliband are going to have a field day over the next couple of months by branding Cameron as the 'frit chicken' of British politics.
It gives the idea that Milliband is willing to be flexible to meet the niggling demands of Cameron. If anything, it backs him into a corner. If the opposition is willing to do the debate on his terms and he still doesn't turn up, the only logical conclusion everyone will take is that Cameron doesn't feel his party's policies can stand up to scrutiny (or that he's a crap debator!)
It's not that he wouldn't beat him (C over M); Milliband wouldn't come across as a woeful a prospect as portrayed by the media. So in beating Milliband, he still loses because Milliband gains.
None of which should be taken as an excuse for the lying and two faced duplicity of Cameron who, like Milliband, seems to get more appalling the more you see of him.
Blair had never been an outspoken advocate of the TV debates and as far as I am aware had always opposed them,
unlike Cameron who is practically single-handedly responsible for introducing them.
This will be the very same Brown who Cameron constantly berated for 'stalling' over the 2012 debates?
and who was called a chicken by the right wing media, THAT Brown?
I agree, "comparing" the Falklands war to a TV debate would indeed be 'rediculous' however I did no such thing, I was talking about the principle of running away from any fight on the grounds that you may not win, seeming to be perfectly acceptable behaviour for the prime minister of this country, and the leader of the party that gave us 2 prime ministers who most certainly (what ever else I might think of them) did NOT turn and run away from a fight because they might lose.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=-iYBIsLFbKo
Well, I'll concur that you'll never get a straight answer out of a politician. But if the debates are pointless by that measure, then so is the entire election process. They might as well not produce any literature other than a manifesto posted to a website, save themselves the expense and time of producing ad campaigns and going on TV/Radio shows, just let us read the policy documents and vote on the basis of that and that alone.
Actually, I think you might be onto something there!
this is the point I am constantly trying to get across, I DON'T CARE about the debates, I don't even care if they happen,
what I DO care about is a prime minister who is almost single handedly responsible for the introduction of these debates, he himself says he had been pushing for them for two years prior to 2010,
who is NOW doing all he can to avoid taking part in them because, as his supporters are claiming (and justifying) 'he might not win' now I dunno if I have a different 'principle compass' to most Tory supporters, but to me this is about as clear an example of someone being a coward as you could ask for.
It reminds me of his invented EU referendum.
In an attempt to lure the far right he he prepared to risk Britains future by dangling an EU vote rather than admit to any actual clear cut policy.
Wow, this is huge, even the Torygraph say he's wrong.
And I'll repeat my response.
If Cameron doesn't feel he can tear apart Farage in a debate, then he may as well leave politics.
You are right - the future of the country is at stake. And are we to leave that decision to be based on glossy (but devoid of information) leaflets on the doormat, billboards, and carefully prepared party political broadcasts and PR-led talk-show interviews?
How does that work? Do you have to touch all the candidates before you decide?
No wonder he couldn't win the 2010 election and now he is doing the same 5 years later.
That's the other thing, I suppose. If people now think Cameron can only have a debate on his terms, will he only offer the EU Referendum on his terms? i.e. a watered-down referendum.
It wouldn't be the first u-turn from brown trousers Dave though would it?