Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Methinks that Dave has made a mistake on the TV debates

2456

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    Brilliant decision by David Cameron to refuse to debate unless the Greens are included. Tactically astute, there is no way he should share a platform with Farage and split his vote if Bennett is not also there to split the Labour vote. At the same time it also gives him the moral high ground, after all New Zealand, Sweden etc have 6/7 leaders in their debates so why not the UK? If the Greens are not included he should only agree to a direct 2 man debate with Miliband. In my view his cleverest political move for ages and likely to see the Greens rise at Labour's expense!
  • The Tories retake the lead according to the the latest forecast by the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model:

    Conservative ......... 284
    Labour .................. 282
    LibDems ................. 26

    Crossover!

    Or maybe not! Labour ahead in this year's polls so far (1.2% in ELBOW, 1.4% on a simple average).
  • ashleyashley Posts: 19

    RobD said:



    Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.

    I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Cameron believes he should be PM, thank-you-very-much.
    He has the Etonian confidence that he is born to lead. I think he genuinely believes in it too. He looks and sounds the part, but just isn't very good at politics.

    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.]
    Who (lviving) is doing better than Cameron based on political achievement?

    LOL
    Well, the shortlist is people who have become PM I suppose.

    Major and Blair won elections.

    Neither Cameron nor Brown won one, so it's between them for worst of the lot. But Brown has got huge political achievements to his name compared to Cameron, not least his long years in No 11.

    So by the criteria you set out, Cameron is by far the worst politician.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 63,125
    Socrates said:

    The fact that nearly 300,000 signed the petition to the BBC, myself included, will not have been lost on Cameron but this is incredibly brave.

    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.

    Who knew that David Cameron felt so strongly about the Greens having their voice heard? He is surely a great and principled man, and not running away from Farage for partisan advantage.
    As I argued this morning no politician worth the name would have done otherwise. He has to either get out of the debates all together or try and bolster the attack on Labour from the left.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    What marks me out as different from many of the UKIP supporters, many but not all, is believing democracy to be more important than my party allegiance. I would have thought the events of yesterday should reinforce that. We need the Greens in the debates. They have a vital voice: it's distinctive, different, but proven both locally and nationally. I am not a Green. I happen to dislike many of their policies but it's absolute nonsense not to include them. They must be heard.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited January 2015
    How about a compromise of one debate with those over 15 points in the polls, one debate with those over 10 points, and one debate with those over 5 points. Once you establish clear polling lines, you settle this permanently.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578


    Ramping up the Greens is probably the only way he can play a weak hand in the hope of achieving this outcome

    Maybe. Whether by his fault or circumstance, he seems to face a situation of playing weak hand in pursuit of probably slight hopes quite often.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,705
    edited January 2015
    Vote Blue, Go Green.
    image
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Socrates said:

    How about a compromise of one debate with those over 15 points in the polls, one debate with those over 10 points, and one debate with those over 5 points.

    What if someone on 5 jumps to 10 after their debate?
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    kle4 said:

    Socrates said:

    How about a compromise of one debate with those over 15 points in the polls, one debate with those over 10 points, and one debate with those over 5 points.

    What if someone on 5 jumps to 10 after their debate?
    Do an average for the month before each debate. That should strip out the volatility.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Good evening, everyone.

    Tactically, it's a mistake by Cameron.

    However, as someone who loathes the debates I'd be quite happy if they didn't occur.

    Cameron could go for a 5 man debate in the very near future, though, before broadcasting rules kick in, right? Would a TV station turn that down? Would the other leaders refuse to take part?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    HYUFD said:

    In my view his cleverest political move for ages and likely to see the Greens rise at Labour's expense!

    Exactly

    What we need now is an enterprising journo to ask Miliband if he wants the Greens in the debates

    He has to say yes, even though he really, really doesn't want to
  • The Tories retake the lead according to the the latest forecast by the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model:

    Conservative ......... 284
    Labour .................. 282
    LibDems ................. 26

    Crossover!

    Or maybe not! Labour ahead in this year's polls so far (1.2% in ELBOW, 1.4% on a simple average).
    The figures from the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model are a forecast Sunil. Your (deeply flawed ELBOW) is based on historical polls.

    Using your ELBOW is like driving your car using your rear view mirror instead of looking out of the windscreen. And in your case the mirror is broken. Hence the variation even to a simple average.

    In the real world it is how most business become bankrupt.
  • ashleyashley Posts: 19

    By the way, there won't be a neutral response on pb.com, especially from Mike, because it's full of people who love politics and who therefore love political debates. Heck, some of you probably even watch Question Time.

    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.

    You are fooling no-one, why do you even bother?

    Cameron would have been better just saying that he's come to the conclusion that TV debates are a bit cr*p generally.

    He'd still show himself to be a coward, but at least he'd have a valid point.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038
    MikeL said:

    It's nothing to do with running scared - that sort of phrase is just classic PB school playground knockabout.

    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.

    FYI - the first average markers have appeared on the graph!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    Socrates On present polling trends the Greens have more of a claim to be in the debates than the LDs
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    George Galloway will be contesting Bradford West again according to this article:

    http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/11709886.Bradford__key_battleground__as_campaigning_starts_for_General_Election/
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    What marks me out as different from many of the UKIP supporters, many but not all, is believing democracy to be more important than my party allegiance. I would have thought the events of yesterday should reinforce that. We need the Greens in the debates. They have a vital voice: it's distinctive, different, but proven both locally and nationally. I am not a Green. I happen to dislike many of their policies but it's absolute nonsense not to include them. They must be heard.

    Yet Cameron didn't believe in it last time, and you believe in democracy so strongly you're prepared to wreck one of the main ways people tuned into politics at the last election. And in a way that entirely coincides with party interest. Cameron the Cowardly is running scared and we all know it.
  • ashley said:

    RobD said:



    Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.

    I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Cameron believes he should be PM, thank-you-very-much.
    He has the Etonian confidence that he is born to lead. I think he genuinely believes in it too. He looks and sounds the part, but just isn't very good at politics.

    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.]
    Who (lviving) is doing better than Cameron based on political achievement?

    LOL
    Well, the shortlist is people who have become PM I suppose.

    Major and Blair won elections.

    Neither Cameron nor Brown won one, so it's between them for worst of the lot. But Brown has got huge political achievements to his name compared to Cameron, not least his long years in No 11.

    So by the criteria you set out, Cameron is by far the worst politician.
    Or by your logic Cameron is the fourth best politician out of 60 Million people. Probably counts as better than "not very good".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    AndyJS said:
    A shame - I'd hoped he was going for the 'representing different seats' record.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038

    The Tories retake the lead according to the the latest forecast by the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model:

    Conservative ......... 284
    Labour .................. 282
    LibDems ................. 26

    Crossover!

    Or maybe not! Labour ahead in this year's polls so far (1.2% in ELBOW, 1.4% on a simple average).
    The figures from the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model are a forecast Sunil. Your (deeply flawed ELBOW) is based on historical polls.

    Using your ELBOW is like driving your car using your rear view mirror instead of looking out of the windscreen. And in your case the mirror is broken. Hence the variation even to a simple average.

    In the real world it is how most business become bankrupt.
    If we continue that analogy, forecasts are like handing your car over to a computer, and having it use the rear view mirror to try and guess where to drive. Yes, it may use information from other roads you have driven on, but it has no idea what lies ahead. ;)
  • kle4 said:


    Ramping up the Greens is probably the only way he can play a weak hand in the hope of achieving this outcome

    Maybe. Whether by his fault or circumstance, he seems to face a situation of playing weak hand in pursuit of probably slight hopes quite often.
    I wouldn't disagree.

    But then again, the last PM with a really strong hand to play while in office was Tony Blair pre-Iraq (10yrs ago), and before that Thatcher in the mid-80s (30yrs ago). So, it's a pretty rare thing anyway. It's rare for PMs to be in strong positions, generally speaking. Most of the time, the job seems like an exercise in constant fire-fighting & damage-limitation to me. Why it's attractive as a profession, god only knows.

    Sure, politics and the associated game-playing is terribly entertaining, but actually being a politician? Mug's game.
  • TheWatcherTheWatcher Posts: 5,262
    edited January 2015
    Highly entertaining thread.

    Kippers objecting to Green debate involvement in case it has an adverse effect on the Labour vote.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 52,123
    edited January 2015

    The Tories retake the lead according to the the latest forecast by the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model:

    Conservative ......... 284
    Labour .................. 282
    LibDems ................. 26

    Crossover!

    Or maybe not! Labour ahead in this year's polls so far (1.2% in ELBOW, 1.4% on a simple average).
    The figures from the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model are a forecast Sunil. Your (deeply flawed ELBOW) is based on historical polls.

    Using your ELBOW is like driving your car using your rear view mirror instead of looking out of the windscreen. And in your case the mirror is broken. Hence the variation even to a simple average.

    In the real world it is how most business become bankrupt.
    Flawed or not, as we remind Lord Ashcroft every week, ELBOW is a snapshot, not a prediction :)

    Crossover has NOT occurred in the polls... yet :)
  • ashleyashley Posts: 19

    ashley said:

    RobD said:



    Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.

    I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Cameron believes he should be PM, thank-you-very-much.
    He has the Etonian confidence that he is born to lead. I think he genuinely believes in it too. He looks and sounds the part, but just isn't very good at politics.

    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.]
    Who (lviving) is doing better than Cameron based on political achievement?

    LOL
    Well, the shortlist is people who have become PM I suppose.

    Major and Blair won elections.

    Neither Cameron nor Brown won one, so it's between them for worst of the lot. But Brown has got huge political achievements to his name compared to Cameron, not least his long years in No 11.

    So by the criteria you set out, Cameron is by far the worst politician.
    Or by your logic Cameron is the fourth best politician out of 60 Million people. Probably counts as better than "not very good".
    of course.

    compared to the average bloke he's an excellent politician.

    compared to his peers he's p!ss poor.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Highly entertaining thread.

    Kippers objecting to Green debate involvement in case it has an adverse effect on the Labour vote.

    The Kippers have never hidden their desire for the most Europhile candidate to be the next PM
  • ashley said:

    RobD said:



    Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.

    I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Cameron believes he should be PM, thank-you-very-much.
    He has the Etonian confidence that he is born to lead. I think he genuinely believes in it too. He looks and sounds the part, but just isn't very good at politics.

    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.]
    Who (lviving) is doing better than Cameron based on political achievement?

    LOL
    Well, the shortlist is people who have become PM I suppose.

    Major and Blair won elections.

    Neither Cameron nor Brown won one, so it's between them for worst of the lot. But Brown has got huge political achievements to his name compared to Cameron, not least his long years in No 11.

    So by the criteria you set out, Cameron is by far the worst politician.
    Or by your logic Cameron is the fourth best politician out of 60 Million people. Probably counts as better than "not very good".
    I thought you were a Kipper, not a Tory?
  • AlbionTilIDieAlbionTilIDie Posts: 119
    edited January 2015
    RobD said:

    The Tories retake the lead according to the the latest forecast by the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model:

    Conservative ......... 284
    Labour .................. 282
    LibDems ................. 26

    Crossover!

    Or maybe not! Labour ahead in this year's polls so far (1.2% in ELBOW, 1.4% on a simple average).
    The figures from the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model are a forecast Sunil. Your (deeply flawed ELBOW) is based on historical polls.

    Using your ELBOW is like driving your car using your rear view mirror instead of looking out of the windscreen. And in your case the mirror is broken. Hence the variation even to a simple average.

    In the real world it is how most business become bankrupt.
    If we continue that analogy, forecasts are like handing your car over to a computer, and having it use the rear view mirror to try and guess where to drive. Yes, it may use information from other roads you have driven on, but it has no idea what lies ahead. ;)
    That's actually good (and I haven't heard it before). I will use it at my client next week (which is JLR) so fits perfectly. If JLR did an annual report I would wager I could get that into the FD's statement.

    Extra edited bit - and incidentally I did drive a Range Rover last year which parallel parked itself. And did a much better job than I would have done. The robots are coming.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    George Galloway should have stood in Portsmouth South. It lacks a credible Respect challenger at present.
  • audreyanneaudreyanne Posts: 1,376
    edited January 2015
    HYUFD said:

    Socrates On present polling trends the Greens have more of a claim to be in the debates than the LDs

    Quite. But you can't reason with kippers. They remind me of JW's. They would do anything that wasn't principled, as we saw with Reckless, and when a matter of principle happens they can only see it through their own twisted lens. Bilious lot on the fringes of society. They won't go anywhere but down.

    I want to hear the Green voice. They are different, principled (!) and important both locally and nationally. They have a proven track record that demands they participate.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Mirror Politics ‏@MirrorPolitics 9m9 minutes ago
    On Twitter @nick_clegg just told @david_cameron to “stop making excuses” about TV debates https://twitter.com/nick_clegg/status/553247057939804160 … pic.twitter.com/qTe6s8pbJk
  • As I said on the previous thread I agree with this entirely. The Greens are a national party with Parliamentary representation who are within striking distance vote wise of the other two minor parties who will be considered majors for this coming election. If UKIP and the Lib Dems are given major party status then the same should apply to the Greens. Actually as it stands we need a 2 tier system with Labour and the Tories in the top tier and UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems in the second tier.
  • We at the Sunil on Sunday want the Greens to be in the debates, for the record (if only because we've decided to include them in ELBOW starting this weekend!).
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    I have no objection to the broadcasters and political leaders adopting the much acclaimed "JackW Debate Solution"

    1. One debate in each of Wales, Scotland and Ulster with regional leaders.

    2. Three UK wide debates. The first with Ukip, Green party and Respect. The final two debates with Con/Lab/LibDems.

    I thank you ....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    Sunil Well at least Cameron wants to debate everyone, Miliband is running scared of the Greens!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @politicshome: .@natalieben on TV debates says there is a "huge issue here for British democracy in terms of representing a range of views" @LBC

    Nick and Ed trying to stifle minority views... How democratic
  • RobD said:

    The Tories retake the lead according to the the latest forecast by the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model:

    Conservative ......... 284
    Labour .................. 282
    LibDems ................. 26

    Crossover!

    Or maybe not! Labour ahead in this year's polls so far (1.2% in ELBOW, 1.4% on a simple average).
    The figures from the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election model are a forecast Sunil. Your (deeply flawed ELBOW) is based on historical polls.

    Using your ELBOW is like driving your car using your rear view mirror instead of looking out of the windscreen. And in your case the mirror is broken. Hence the variation even to a simple average.

    In the real world it is how most business become bankrupt.
    If we continue that analogy, forecasts are like handing your car over to a computer, and having it use the rear view mirror to try and guess where to drive. Yes, it may use information from other roads you have driven on, but it has no idea what lies ahead. ;)
    Nice one! :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038

    Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    I don't think that is entirely true if the Greens end up on the debates, and he agrees to them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    Highly entertaining thread.

    Kippers objecting to Green debate involvement in case it has an adverse effect on the Labour vote.

    And non-kippers not necessarily objecting to their involvement but pointing out Cameron is only trying to involve them for partisan reasons, and the decision not to include them is not unjustifiable.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,326
    antifrank said:

    After yesterday's travesty of an article in the FT on the French terrorist attack, it redeems itself with a very fine piece indeed today on the same subject:

    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."

    Well, if they want to be Charlie, why don't they just publish the bloody cartoons? After all quite a lot of newspapers already have.

  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    ashley said:

    ashley said:

    RobD said:



    Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.

    I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Cameron believes he should be PM, thank-you-very-much.
    He has the Etonian confidence that he is born to lead. I think he genuinely believes in it too. He looks and sounds the part, but just isn't very good at politics.

    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.]
    Who (lviving) is doing better than Cameron based on political achievement?

    LOL
    Well, the shortlist is people who have become PM I suppose.

    Major and Blair won elections.

    Neither Cameron nor Brown won one, so it's between them for worst of the lot. But Brown has got huge political achievements to his name compared to Cameron, not least his long years in No 11.

    So by the criteria you set out, Cameron is by far the worst politician.
    Or by your logic Cameron is the fourth best politician out of 60 Million people. Probably counts as better than "not very good".
    of course.

    compared to the average bloke he's an excellent politician.

    compared to his peers he's p!ss poor.
    Cameron is a remarkable politician. He's also made a decent fist of being PM.

    I cannot imagine why you'd wish to pretend to be blind when the obvious is staring you in the face.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Greens would obviously hurt Labour and the Lib Dems.

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538
    That's a nice picture. Ed is laughing at the chicken, who looks very shifty.

    Cameron could be right. If he knows he would be outclaased by the other leaders, he's best not to go for it.

  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Sean_F said:

    That's a nice picture. Ed is laughing at the chicken, who looks very shifty.

    Cameron could be right. If he knows he would be outclaased by the other leaders, he's best not to go for it.

    Perhaps he's learned from Nick Clegg's experience last year. Never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038
    Looking at the liveblog on the telegraph about the manhunt underway in France:
    18.11 Rory Mulholland writes:
    Quote If the suspects are indeed in the forest, it will be highly unlikely that police will be able to find them overnight.

    The forest, which stretches for miles on either side of the N2 road that leads from Paris towards the Belgian border, was plunged into deep darkness by a moonless night.

    Even with night-vision goggles, police would be hard pressed to cover much of the wood before daylight.
    Anyone heard of thermal cameras? Sounds perfect for this situation...
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    As I said on the previous thread I agree with this entirely. The Greens are a national party with Parliamentary representation who are within striking distance vote wise of the other two minor parties who will be considered majors for this coming election. If UKIP and the Lib Dems are given major party status then the same should apply to the Greens. Actually as it stands we need a 2 tier system with Labour and the Tories in the top tier and UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems in the second tier.

    There's three debates though. That's why there can be a three tier system:

    Debate 1: threshold of 15 points
    Debate 2: threshold of 10 points
    Debate 3: threshold of 5 points

    You can then do the average for the month leading up to the debates. That way we get a 2-3-5 system, and establish clear guidelines for future elections too, to stop this squabbling next time.
  • Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    But if he agrees to the debates because the Greens are included he has won the battle and the war.
  • Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    Precisely why it's not a mistake to say no. Many times, you have to pick the least-worst option. Having the debates, with Farage & Miliband playing ping-pong with him (in the first one at least) would be far worse than not being there. Saying no crystallises the downside by making it a known variable, and something you can then try to neutralise. Having the debates leaves it open as an unknown but likely downside and that's much more difficult to neutralise in the midst of all the chaos of a GE campagain.

    But if by ramping them now, he actually can get the Greens in the first debate as well as UKIP, move it to either BBC or ITV and then either avert the 4 way fight entirely or postpone it to the second debate (and move it to Sky/C4), before a direct square-off vs Miliband in the 3rd, then that would definitely be good for Cameron and I'd suggest he should then take that gamble.
  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    I thought Dave had said "enough green crap?"
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    OGH Absolutely not, it will boost the Greens at Labour's expense, tactically brilliant from Cameron!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    edited January 2015
    I can understand why he has done it. Still seems a bit yellow. However, it now passes the hot potato to Ed Miliband to agree involvement from the Greens and if he welches on that it will be worse as Dave has already agreed to UKIP participating so now it puts pressure on Ed to do the same with a party that can potentially split the left.

    Dave has already swallowed the poison pill now he is trying to force Ed to do the same, if it works it is a big net gain.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038
    isam said:

    I thought Dave had said "enough green crap?"

    But this isn't 'green crap', it's 'green stealing-labour-votes gold'.
  • macisbackmacisback Posts: 382
    The debates will happen, Cam is shrewd in making sure they happen as close to his terms as possible. He would rather there were none but it will be impossible to bail out.
  • Sean_F said:

    That's a nice picture. Ed is laughing at the chicken, who looks very shifty.

    Cameron could be right. If he knows he would be outclaased by the other leaders, he's best not to go for it.

    But the chicken has shat on Eds head and he doesn't realise it.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    Scott_P said:

    Highly entertaining thread.

    Kippers objecting to Green debate involvement in case it has an adverse effect on the Labour vote.

    The Kippers have never hidden their desire for the most Europhile candidate to be the next PM
    There's not a single UKIP poster on this thread objecting to Green involvement. Both of you are delusional. No wonder you're Tories.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    HYUFD said:

    Socrates On present polling trends the Greens have more of a claim to be in the debates than the LDs

    Only if you combine the three different Green parties as one.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,963
    Farage should back the Greens' inclusion.

    There's not much UKIP/Green overlap, and it could help UKIP in some seats.

    Mr. D, aye, but the canopy could stop them being used by helicopter, and on foot the trunks would get in the way. Still useful, but not an instant win.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,538

    Sean_F said:

    That's a nice picture. Ed is laughing at the chicken, who looks very shifty.

    Cameron could be right. If he knows he would be outclaased by the other leaders, he's best not to go for it.

    But the chicken has shat on Eds head and he doesn't realise it.
    There is a White patch on Ed's head, now that you mention it.
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976

    As I said on the previous thread I agree with this entirely. The Greens are a national party with Parliamentary representation who are within striking distance vote wise of the other two minor parties who will be considered majors for this coming election. If UKIP and the Lib Dems are given major party status then the same should apply to the Greens. Actually as it stands we need a 2 tier system with Labour and the Tories in the top tier and UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems in the second tier.

    Agree - I was baffled by the decision this morning to give major party status to a party with 2 newly elected MPs, and not to a party of one MP, elected last GE and of with several years’ experience. – However, as I understand it, this is only a consultative decision and not final.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    audrayanne Absolutely right, the Greens have every right to be there and Cameron is tactically and morally right to demand their inclusion
  • To extend the reasons why it may be an error - the received wisdom on the Greens is that any exposure in the debates will irrevocably harm Labour, but will it necessarily? Natalie Bennett is no Nigel Farage and unlike UKIP, who are unashamedly populist and have an appeal to a large section of the electorate (even if you think they're wrong), the more exposure the Greens get, the more people see that they aren't just cuddlier Labour, but can be totally bonkers and anti-science. Isn't there a fair chance Bennett will say something completely mad (or get pulled up on a past position that is) and it will sink the greens'?
  • ashleyashley Posts: 19
    heh

    Tony Blair last night infuriated William Hague and Charles Kennedy by rejecting proposals by the BBC and ITV for a three-way televised election debate on the grounds that Britain's democratic combat is lively enough without one.

    The prime minister's decision not to risk such a high-profile contest had been widely expected but prompted taunts that Mr Blair is what the Tory leader dubbed "a real chicken".

    Mr Kennedy said the prime minister was unwilling to debate without the "400 cheerleaders" who sit behind him in the Commons.

    Mr Hague even urged the broadcasters to go ahead with the two proposed debates anyway. "If Tony Blair still refuses to show, we'll just leave an empty chair with a big sign of 'coward' for where Tony Blair would have sat if he'd had the guts to turn up," he said.
  • HYUFD said:

    Sunil Well at least Cameron wants to debate everyone, Miliband is running scared of the Greens!

    Is it just me, or does "debate WITH everyone" sound better Queen's than "debate everyone"?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904
    'Ed days' - counting from say "01 jan 15".

    I really want someone to offer this as a spreadbet.



  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Nick Robinson just said Cameron has said in private he doesnt want the debates as in 2010 he believes Clegg and Brown gained ground because of them.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    Too many instant judgements being made, Dave has supposedly thought it out, lets see how it pans out.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Nick Robinson just said Cameron has said in private he doesnt want the debates as in 2010 he believes Clegg and Brown gained ground because of them.

    So much for audrey's claim he was doing it our of principle and solidarity with the Greens!
  • ArtistArtist Posts: 1,893

    As I said on the previous thread I agree with this entirely. The Greens are a national party with Parliamentary representation who are within striking distance vote wise of the other two minor parties who will be considered majors for this coming election. If UKIP and the Lib Dems are given major party status then the same should apply to the Greens. Actually as it stands we need a 2 tier system with Labour and the Tories in the top tier and UKIP, the Greens and the Lib Dems in the second tier.

    Agree - I was baffled by the decision this morning to give major party status to a party with 2 newly elected MPs, and not to a party of one MP, elected last GE and of with several years’ experience. – However, as I understand it, this is only a consultative decision and not final.
    If you ignore pretty much every other criteria including actual election results, then yes it would be baffling.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,038

    Farage should back the Greens' inclusion.

    There's not much UKIP/Green overlap, and it could help UKIP in some seats.

    Mr. D, aye, but the canopy could stop them being used by helicopter, and on foot the trunks would get in the way. Still useful, but not an instant win.

    One option would be to napalm the forest to remove the canopy.

    May have a slight detrimental effect on the health of the suspects, however.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    Actually the more I think about it the better the move becomes. If Ed and Nick are saying the debates are important for democracy etc... then they will have to agree to allowing the Greens in so they go ahead, they can't on the one hand say they should go ahead, but then on the other hand block them and stop a legitimate party from participating.

    Yes in the short term Dave can expect some damage to his personal ratings, I'm not even sure about that as I don't think this news will get outside of the Westminster bubble, but if they go ahead on his terms the Greens will suck up leftist votes from Labour and in places where UKIP have united the opposition to Labour into a single bloc it will make Labour very vulnerable, especially given how little motivation Labour voters seem to have in safe seats and how motivated anti-Labour voters seem now that they have a chance of winning.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Socrates said:

    Scott_P said:

    Highly entertaining thread.

    Kippers objecting to Green debate involvement in case it has an adverse effect on the Labour vote.

    The Kippers have never hidden their desire for the most Europhile candidate to be the next PM
    There's not a single UKIP poster on this thread objecting to Green involvement. Both of you are delusional. No wonder you're Tories.
    They genuinely don't understand what Cameron is doing, or why. Dumb and Dumber.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,904

    HYUFD said:

    Sunil Well at least Cameron wants to debate everyone, Miliband is running scared of the Greens!

    Is it just me, or does "debate WITH everyone" sound better Queen's than "debate everyone"?
    Yep - the latter seems American and horrible. I'd just say one word though "Aluminium".

  • Sean_F said:

    Sean_F said:

    That's a nice picture. Ed is laughing at the chicken, who looks very shifty.

    Cameron could be right. If he knows he would be outclaased by the other leaders, he's best not to go for it.

    But the chicken has shat on Eds head and he doesn't realise it.
    There is a White patch on Ed's head, now that you mention it.
    Eds increasingly weird personal appearance, accent, mannerisms and vocabulary make him such an easy target. Dave looking a bit fat from a certain angle pales into insignificance. And this matters. Not to me, but to lots of people.
  • marktheowlmarktheowl Posts: 169
    edited January 2015
    antifrank said:

    Sean_F said:

    That's a nice picture. Ed is laughing at the chicken, who looks very shifty.

    Cameron could be right. If he knows he would be outclaased by the other leaders, he's best not to go for it.

    Perhaps he's learned from Nick Clegg's experience last year. Never argue with an idiot because he'll drag you down to his level then beat you with experience.
    Arguing with idiots is notoriously difficult! https://youtube.com/watch?v=kGex0kLgNok


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    Sunil Depends, could 'with' suggests you are debating on the same side
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Omnium said:

    ashley said:

    ashley said:

    RobD said:



    Probably because he doesn't believe in anything enough to care.

    I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure Cameron believes he should be PM, thank-you-very-much.
    He has the Etonian confidence that he is born to lead. I think he genuinely believes in it too. He looks and sounds the part, but just isn't very good at politics.

    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.]
    Who (lviving) is doing better than Cameron based on political achievement?

    LOL
    Well, the shortlist is people who have become PM I suppose.

    Major and Blair won elections.

    Neither Cameron nor Brown won one, so it's between them for worst of the lot. But Brown has got huge political achievements to his name compared to Cameron, not least his long years in No 11.

    So by the criteria you set out, Cameron is by far the worst politician.
    Or by your logic Cameron is the fourth best politician out of 60 Million people. Probably counts as better than "not very good".
    of course.

    compared to the average bloke he's an excellent politician.

    compared to his peers he's p!ss poor.
    Cameron is a remarkable politician. He's also made a decent fist of being PM.

    I cannot imagine why you'd wish to pretend to be blind when the obvious is staring you in the face.

    That's right ! Only politeness prevented me to say he was an arsehole !
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    Socrates said:

    Dave giving publicity to the Greens is a bad thing for the Tories why?

    Because it looks like (and is) an excuse, and he risks being empty-chaired. He could always send Ms May to represent him, I suppose.
    I just don't get it. Dave faced Brown and a shiny new Clegg in the last debates and won through in the end. Why would he be scared of facing off against Ed, a damaged Clegg and a sweaty superficial Farage. Doesn't make sense.

    Out of interest how do you know it is an excuse.
    Farage wiped the floor with Clegg and he would wipe the floor with Cameron too. Cameron the Cowardly is running scared.
    To win a war, you need to fight only the battles that (a) you can win and (b) matter. Varus is an example of what happens if you get (a) wrong and Pyrhus if you get (b) wrong.

    There is nothing cowardly about tactical manouvring to avoid a contest that offers Cameron limited upside and plenty of downside risk.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 22,736
    Nick Robinson says "Cameron has told his closest political allies that if there are no GE2015 debates he would be rather happy"

    I thought EIC what is Dave scared of?
  • Nick Robinson just said Cameron has said in private he doesnt want the debates as in 2010 he believes Clegg and Brown gained ground because of them.

    Is that ear on the ground Toenails who called the Labour leadership election for David Miliband?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    MarktheOwl The kind of leftwingers who will vote for the Greens are not always far from bonkers themselves!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    Ashley Did not do Blair much harm did it, he beat Hague and Kennedy by a landslide!
  • ashleyashley Posts: 19

    Too many instant judgements being made, Dave has supposedly thought it out, lets see how it pans out.

    1) Cameron does a "no more NHS top-down reorgnisation" and does a shameless about-face on his word about the Greens.

    2) Cameron is empty chaired.

    Or

    3) There's some messy compromise where who is to blame for the mess gets lost in the mess.

    Cameron is clearly gambling on the latter, calculating that it would be less bad for him than actually defending his record in public.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.

    But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Which Greens are we talking about ? The England & Wales one or the Scottish Greens which are a completely different party.

    If the E&W Greens are on a UK wide debate, surely the SNP, PC, DUP, SDLP and SF have abetter claim.since they have more seats.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    AndyJS said:
    UKIP says its number one target in Yorkshire in the forthcoming elections is Bradford South and its candidate is Jason Smith, its Bradford and district chairman.
    Eh? Top target ahead of Rotherham?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578

    To extend the reasons why it may be an error - the received wisdom on the Greens is that any exposure in the debates will irrevocably harm Labour, but will it necessarily? Natalie Bennett is no Nigel Farage and unlike UKIP, who are unashamedly populist and have an appeal to a large section of the electorate (even if you think they're wrong), the more exposure the Greens get, the more people see that they aren't just cuddlier Labour, but can be totally bonkers and anti-science. Isn't there a fair chance Bennett will say something completely mad (or get pulled up on a past position that is) and it will sink the greens'?

    A fair point. I've only seen her in extended fashion once, it was on QT I believe, and she was bloody awful. Maybe it was a poor night for her.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    ashley said:

    Too many instant judgements being made, Dave has supposedly thought it out, lets see how it pans out.

    1) Cameron does a "no more NHS top-down reorgnisation" and does a shameless about-face on his word about the Greens.

    2) Cameron is empty chaired.

    Or

    3) There's some messy compromise where who is to blame for the mess gets lost in the mess.

    Cameron is clearly gambling on the latter, calculating that it would be less bad for him than actually defending his record in public.
    You missed:

    4) The Greens get invited to the debates.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    ashley said:

    Too many instant judgements being made, Dave has supposedly thought it out, lets see how it pans out.

    1) Cameron does a "no more NHS top-down reorgnisation" and does a shameless about-face on his word about the Greens.

    2) Cameron is empty chaired.

    Or

    3) There's some messy compromise where who is to blame for the mess gets lost in the mess.

    Cameron is clearly gambling on the latter, calculating that it would be less bad for him than actually defending his record in public.
    The most likely is option four and the debates go ahead with the Greens participating. The onus is now on Ed and Nick to agree.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    The SNP are wading in with their take on this:

    http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments

    The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,731
    ashley said:

    heh

    Tony Blair last night infuriated William Hague and Charles Kennedy by rejecting proposals by the BBC and ITV for a three-way televised election debate on the grounds that Britain's democratic combat is lively enough without one.

    The prime minister's decision not to risk such a high-profile contest had been widely expected but prompted taunts that Mr Blair is what the Tory leader dubbed "a real chicken".

    Mr Kennedy said the prime minister was unwilling to debate without the "400 cheerleaders" who sit behind him in the Commons.

    Mr Hague even urged the broadcasters to go ahead with the two proposed debates anyway. "If Tony Blair still refuses to show, we'll just leave an empty chair with a big sign of 'coward' for where Tony Blair would have sat if he'd had the guts to turn up," he said.

    Happened in 1997 as well - Blair challenged Major to a debate, then panicked and withdrew when Major agreed. It had finally dawned on Alistair Campbell that as expectations for Major were so low, he would almost certainly exceed them.

    As I recall, on that occasion the Tories did hire a pantomime chicken to represent Tony Blair at a rally, which was then attacked by a rival chicken provided by the Daily Mirror.

    They should have stuck to the Demon Eyes poster...at least with hindsight we can say that was more or less accurate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,894
    Artist You mean like the 2014 Euro election results where the Greens beat the LDs?
  • corporeal said:

    Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.

    But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
    "Face-saving escape" or "delivered the plan he had all along"? No one really knows (apart from Nick Palmer and David Cameron). Certainly not me, you or Toenails.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 43,346
    calum said:

    The SNP are wading in with their take on this:

    http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments

    The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?

    And PC too, of course.

    It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.

    One other thought: it will remind people that who is really in charge of Mr Murphy is Mr Miliband. Hmm.

  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    What's the legal position regarding non-participation ? Last time, Sky said they would have an empty chair. Is that permissable under Electoral Law ?
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549

    corporeal said:

    Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.

    But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
    "Face-saving escape" or "delivered the plan he had all along"? No one really knows (apart from Nick Palmer and David Cameron). Certainly not me, you or Toenails.
    Well, it's a face saving escape either way, since he's put himself in a bit of a hole today. He may have planned an escape but it seems a long shot.
  • corporealcorporeal Posts: 2,549
    surbiton said:

    What's the legal position regarding non-participation ? Last time, Sky said they would have an empty chair. Is that permissable under Electoral Law ?

    The law is they have to offer him the opportunity to take part.

    If he refuses then they can go ahead without him. (The empty chair is just a bit of theatre).
  • corporeal said:

    corporeal said:

    Andrew Hawkins of ComRes has this right

    If Cam agrees to #debates he's seen as caving into pressure, and if he doesn't he looks like he's running scared. Neither looks good.

    He has a face-saving escape if he can get the greens involved somehow.

    But that won't save much face, and won't help the flak he's getting right now.
    "Face-saving escape" or "delivered the plan he had all along"? No one really knows (apart from Nick Palmer and David Cameron). Certainly not me, you or Toenails.
    Well, it's a face saving escape either way, since he's put himself in a bit of a hole today. He may have planned an escape but it seems a long shot.
    No, it isn't an escape if he had planned it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,578
    Carnyx said:

    calum said:

    The SNP are wading in with their take on this:

    http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jan/snp-pms-tv-debate-comments

    The SNP's likely exclusion from the national debates will likely result in them being one of the winners. Interestingly, I wonder how many English seats the SNP would need field candidates in before they would be considered a "major party"?

    It's remarkable how un-Unionist the Unionists can be when it comes to trying to exclude their opponents on any excuse whatsoever.


    Perhaps that is sometimes so, but in this particular instance, it seems perfectly reasonable, and I have no doubt the SNP have no real problem with it either. Complaining about it is as much as they would have wanted or needed out of this situation.
This discussion has been closed.