Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Dave has made a mistake on the TV debates
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Dave has made a mistake on the TV debates
David Cameron will refuse to take part in TV debates if Greens not included, says @bbcnickrobinson
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Dave the Chicken.
I'm shocked. It really must be a bad move clearly.....
Out of interest how do you know it is an excuse.
She is a credit to this site and more power to her pencil.
Have the media companies yet actually said definitively that they're excluding the Greens?
Cameron may not come off well now but that is preferable to a Faragasm or a Milibang in April.
(Edited to include the word ex)
There's nothing to stop broadcasters inviting them on to a debate, is there? Surely that's a choice for the editors and part leaders? From the Daily Mail:
"It does not directly affect which party leaders are invited to take part in live TV debates, which is an editorial matter for each broadcaster in direct negotiation with the parties."
Incidentally, if past performance in UK general elections is their criteria, then UKIP surely fail that too IMHO. They only scored 3.1% in 2010GE. Partisan politics aside, I think the Greens should be included as they are clearly becoming a mainstream option now, albeit only very rapidly in the last 6 months.
But politics is changing very rapidly. Ofcom should recognise that.
With Farage around to throw ludicrous statements around, probably while sipping a pint, I can easily see why Cameron is scared of the debates.
As the last 24hrs regularly confirms, events trump any political posturing.
Meanwhile I have been watching the series of Iain Dale predictions with great interest.
Plus Ed's reputation is so poor if he does halfway decent, which he can easily manage, he could get a boost, it doesn't matter if Farage is superficial or not he is pretty good at these sorts of things and can play the outsider card with ease, and Clegg may be damaged but a damaged and desperate Clegg could find ways to lash out and hurt Cameron if he thinks he has nothing to lose by it.
PM: I don't think the current proposals work. You can't have one minor party without having another minor party and I think that's only fair
Remember how crap he was on the first debate in Manchester in 2005 and how in the last debate he made the ludicrous and vastly costly promise on pensioner perks.
Power?
You need the big stars for big box office.
That said, I do agree he's made an error here. It makes sense for him to want the Greens in if UKIP are also to be there, but when everyone else if ready and willing, even if he was being reasonable in being obstinate on this point, he just looks like a coward, not to mention no-one will believe he is making a stand on a point of principle.
Edit.Defending who is or is not in the debates is always going to be slightly twisty logic. It is pretty easy to defend UKIP as a major party and not the Greens, or vice versa prior to UKIP getting some MPs despite polling far better nationally, depending on which factors you give prominence.
Greens have an MP but do not stand in all (or almost all seats) and nationally have low polling (better than the LDs sometimes now, but electorally at GEs they have nothing to point to). UKIP used to be standing in most seats, much better polling and GE results on vote share, but no MPs. I could defend excluding both on that prospect.
Now UKIP are standing almost everywhere, are polling very well and have MPs. Very hard to argue against that, while one can still exclude the Greens, as indeed OfCom has.
Regardless, Cameron doesn't care about that. No-one can truly believe he is being principled, he is just understandably frustrated that the ruling hurts him more. Fair enough, but while the ruling is one which can be argued against, it is not in fact unreasonable given the explanations for the decision that can be made.
PamMike. You look tired!"I think UKIP get in on the strength of their by-election performances (among other factors).
Up to you Nige and Ed...
The "running scared" narrative doesn't really work when he's seen as a (mostly) competent prime minister by the voters who matter.
As a member of the young greens, I'm disappointed, obviously.
What Cameron is seeking is the BEST option for himself.
It is blindingly obvious that having the Greens is much better for Cameron - because they are far more likely to take Lab votes than Con votes.
Plus having five people rather than four helps reduce Farage's impact a bit - as nobody is going to be able to speak for very long and dominate.
It's very simple - he is proposing the best option for himself. Just as everybody else does in all negotiations about every other matter.
Clearly this will damage him, but one wonders why he would rather take this damage than participate. He wasn't that bad last time around.
'How can Ed Miliband refuse to agree to the Greens taking part as it will look as if he is frightened to debate with them. This was astute by Cameron and in my opinion the debates will either happen with the Greens or not at all'
Agree and presumably the TV companies can & will invite which ever parties they want
(1) If a story related to the debates is neutral or positive for Cameron they are irrelvant anyway, didn't move the polls last time etc:
(2) If a story related to the debates can be spun as negative for Cameron, they are intrinsic to the entire GE result.
"When David Cameron originally put forward his 2:3:5 format for debates (Lab+Con; Lab+Con+LD; Lab+Con+LD+UKIP+Green), it was suggested by some that it was a spoiler to ensure that the debates wouldn't take place. However, the broadcasters put forward a 2:3:4 format, with the Greens ending on the cutting room floor. With the Greens perking up in some of the polls and the desire to get the debates taking place, I anticipate that the broadcasters will accede to the original idea put forward by David Cameron."
Dieting Dave seems to be doing his bit to help my prediction along.
With regard to today's news I am not surprised Cameron wishes not to debate. I doubt he ever did wish to. But let us not forgetwhat happened in US. There were debates in 1960 and then none till 1976.
When it comes to debates, speeches and political strategy he goes into autopilot when he thinks the weather's calm, and tries to wing it. When it doesn't quite turn out that way, he panics and makes big earnest promises that he later realises he can't deliver. Not only that, he can often make several conflicting promises - to different strands of opinion within his own party - that actually contradict each other, without realising it, and therefore ends up losing respect. He promises big, and then fails big, and then loses respect. And votes.
Then, of course, his closest aides and his fellow ministers have to try and spin him out of his hole. And he retreats further into his comfort zone of close friends and allies.
I don't say he's lazy - by all accounts he works hard on his red-boxes and his paperwork - but he's an administrator not a leader. He doesn't really know how to do the latter.
Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.
At least one broadcaster should, and might just, call his bluff and empty chair him.
No debates at all >>> 5-way debate > 4-way debate
From the broadcasters' POV:
4-way debate > 5-way debate >>>>>> No debates
From Clegg/Mili/Farage's POV:
4-way debate >> 5-way debate >>> No debates
From Bennett's POV:
5-way debate >>>> 4-way debate > No debates at all [because being excluded is still a story]
It's not that hard to see the most likely compromise here.
I almost wish a rule could be identified that people point out an issue is of no interest to most people rarely enough that it is a signifier something is of interest to them, but sadly it doesn't work.
To be fair, I think he does (politically) have views on respite for disabled carers, support for children with special needs in the NHS/Education sectors and he probably still supports the repeal of the Hunting Act. I think his wife has also influenced him on gay marriage, and he is a small c-conservative believer in marriage, but that's it.
I.e. his only view are based on his own personal experiences.
[NB: Not trying to make a cheap political point there out of his own (very terrible and tragic) personal experiences, which I have the utmost sympathy for, just playing back what I think is the case.]
I do think this could go beyond the Westminster bubble -- the publicexpect the debates now imo.
That said, I can't see you can have UKIP and not invite Fatface down to take part.
And thank goodness Reckless is continuing with his lack of principles.
Also giving Farage massive coverage in the debates could mean some of the soft UKIP voters that Labour have won back in recent months could go back. When UKIP do really well and poll in the high teens it seems to impact Labour just as much as the Conservatives.
The Ofcom ruling today will mean Labour have an advantage over the Greens and that UKIP will get enough coverage to stay relevant but not surge IMO.
What's the word? Oh yes - unspoofable.
Not bad for a PM who "isn't very good at politics".
It's a poker game - Kippers are at a huge weakness as the are desperate for a debate or 10.
However the PM has the biggest pile of chips.
It's absolutely right that the Greens should be part of the debates, and vital we stick to our guns on this.
It's called principle Socrates.
Alternatively, they could just put this picture on his podium:
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/SirRobinMOT_6384.jpg
Conservative ......... 284
Labour .................. 282
LibDems ................. 26
Crossover!
Honestly, I like Cameron, certainly more than the malcontents in his party and I find him more encouraging than Ed M, but he really makes a lot of his own battles.
Taking a few hits for cowardice won't be a significant enough factor for many floating voters to alter where they mark their cross, as many other issues will have greater salience to them and GE campaign will have lots of sound & fury to drown that out. No-one beyond the politically-aware is listening today, what with France, and even if the charges are repeated during the campaign, so much else will be going on that it's unlikely to be dominant. Sure, it's negative mood music, but it can be drowned out easily enough by a good campaign.
Far worse would having debates and not winning them convincingly, while simultaneously giving oxygen of publicity to Miliband and Farage. Both can only benefit from a TV debate. Cameron, regardless of his potential performance, can only get away with a score draw at best, due to already being a known quantity.
Even if broadcasters go ahead and empty chair him (which I actually doubt they'd do), Farage duffing up Miliband will be enough for Cameron to not mind that outcome. In fact, in many respects, Miliband would really hate having to debate Farage without the presence of Cameron as a shield. There's only so many times he'd be able to avoid direct hits by alluding to Cameron's absence under that scenario. Of course, Cameron would get negative lots of negative publicity from the empty chair but it would cancelled out by Miliband being beaten up pretty badly as well. More likely, Miliband would refuse the debates if Cameron does, and then will try to pin lack of debates to Cameron. Both will come off badly in that scenario.
Demanding a Green presence allows Cameron to create the same charge of cowardice against Miliband, as Farage is used against him. "If Miliband isn't afraid of the Greens, why won't he agree to debate them", etc, etc. It's a way of muddying the waters and spreading the blame around as much as possible, and is the only real way he can proceed safely.
In truth, I suspect that in the end, the negotiations will yield something not-dissimilar to the 5-3-2 format the Tories really want. Confusion & diffusion in the first debate with both very left-wing and very right-wing party outflanking the two big ones on both sides, the benefit of two coalition parties in the second, and a straight fight between potential PMs in the last. If Cameron can't block the debates, this is clearly the preferred option and would suit him very nicely as an outcome. At worst, they might end up with a 5-4-3 or 5-4-2, and he could probably live with that too.
Ramping up the Greens is probably the only way he can play a weak hand in the hope of achieving this outcome, even if the cowardice attacks create problems. Better cowardice charges that can be drowned out by other issues, than getting pincered from right & left in 3 consecutive debates, which would be highly destructive, given how finely balanced things are.
It is like saying Wayne Rooney isn't very good at football. Alisdair Cook isn't very good at (test) cricket. Bill Gates isn't very good at software development. Johnny Wilkinson isn't very good at Rugby.
LOL
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ddff0c2-95c4-11e4-a390-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3OFcf0JZN
For those without paywall access, a couple of highlights:
"Across the world, and certainly across Twitter, people are showing solidarity with the murdered journalists of satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo, proclaiming in black and white that they too share the values that got the cartoonists killed. Emotionally and morally I am entirely with that collective display — but actually I and almost all those declaring their solidarity are not Charlie because we simply do not have their courage."
"It is an easy thing to proclaim solidarity after their murder and it is heartwarming to see such a collective response. But in the end — like so many other examples of hashtag activism, like #bringbackourgirls campaign over kidnapped Nigerian schoolchildren — it will not make a difference, except to make us feel better. Some took to the streets but most of those declaring themselves to be Charlie did so from the safety of a social media account. I don’t criticise them for wanting to do this; I just don’t think most of us have earned the right.
Many, if not most, journalists would self-censor; they would draw back from publishing images that they know would seriously endanger themselves or their organisation — and after this week’s events one can hardly blame them. Companies have a duty of care to their staff and people have a duty of care to themselves and their families.
There is also a reasonable desire not to give unnecessary offence; but it would be dishonest for most writers and cartoonists to claim they would as willingly mock the Prophet Mohammed as they would Jesus."
"Every year dozens of journalists are killed and many more injured reporting from the most dangerous places in the world, exposing brutality, war crimes and injustice...
But the rest of us, like me, who sit safely in an office in western Europe — or all those in other professions who would never contemplate taking the kind of risks those French journalists took daily — we are not Charlie. We are just glad that someone had the courage to be."
What's vital is that the Greens are included in the debates. Absolutely vital. In terms of vote share, historic successes including at last year's Euros when they came 4th, the fact they have a proper MP (as opposed to defector), and their distinctive voice means it is absolutely ESSENTIAL they participate.
I really really hope this will force Ofcom / TV's hands and we hear their voice. It's very very important for democracy.
Socrates retweeted
Nick Clegg @nick_clegg · 3m3 minutes ago
@David_Cameron Come on David Cameron, the broadcasters have invited us, the public expect it, just say yes and stop making excuses.
I'm sure that picture of robin williams is trying to stifle a laugh.