'By the same logic, a 6-way isn't great for Ed. "I'm not voting for Cowardly Cameron™, so here's my chance to decide which party to vote against him with."
Actually Ed would look quite good if he's standing next to the dopey woman from Plaid.
@MediaGuido: Meanwhile outside the Westminster politico-media bubble @PopulusPolls finds that 4% of the population has noticed the #TVdebates row...FOUR!
Quite agree - Cameron really comes out of this very badly indeed. God help the Tories if this is typical of the type of hide away strategy they are intending to adopt throughout the campaign.
From a purely partisan perspective, what I like is the way the Government has now been on the defensive on different issues for 3 weeks running. I occasionally see something by Osborne on poge 2 of the Standard saying the economy is doing something or other, but mostly it's been Cameron fights back about X or Cameron defends position on Y.
As I indicated previously Cameron's advisers on the debates issue need their goolies placed in mangle pour encourager les autres from future election stupidity.
The PM has now backed himself in a tight dead end of his own foolish making and appears to have the desperate options of either a humiliating climb down or the prospect of being empty chaired. He has gambled on the prestige of the Prime Minister not being snubbed and has lost and he deserved to lose.
In doing so the Prime Minister has appeared churlish, evasive and downright bone headed and worse still has even managed to make Ed Miliband appear credible. Quite a coup for the PM's election team.
Will there be a price to pay from your ARSE tomorrow?
Mr. Pulpstar, Sky News is acting very high and mighty about this.
@JackW is telling it as it is on this one. Cameron played a good game initially getting the Greens and especially Plaid F* Cymru involved, but he's overplaying his hand here. Badly.
@MediaGuido: Meanwhile outside the Westminster politico-media bubble @PopulusPolls finds that 4% of the population has noticed the #TVdebates row...FOUR!
Storm and teacup come to mind. That number will get larger if he is empty chaired!!
Storm and teacup come to mind. That number will get larger if he is empty chaired!!
@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.
"And try to imagine a 1 to 1 debate, with one of the 1s absent and the other 1 is ed. It will be hilarious, I promise you. A vagina monologue, you might say."
Not one of your best analogies and I'm not sure Ed monologuing about menstruation is the best way to remove the UKIP threat in Doncaster.
@MediaGuido: Meanwhile outside the Westminster politico-media bubble @PopulusPolls finds that 4% of the population has noticed the #TVdebates row...FOUR!
Mr. W, Cameron has stated for years he thought the debates should happen earlier and be more spaced out. Broadcasters ignored that.
Of course, he does look evasive, but as I loathe the debates, it doesn't bother me.
The risk isn't one way. Aside from the 'six squabbling idiots' scenario I outlined below, if the media and other politicians bang on about this ad infinitum, it'll annoy voters who want to know about things like taxation rates, the deficit, and so forth. There comes a point where complaining becomes whining.
The broadcasters ignored the PM's early debates because he doesn't determine the time scale and all other parties were signed up to them and Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.
As a supporter of the Coalition I am dismayed at the PM's stance. The blame lies with him and his idiot advisers. The majority of the public will also know where the problem lies and it is squarely in No10.
Agree 100%, JackW.
I'm afraid most of the posts on this website this afternoon amount to nothing more than cheerleading banter.
This is actually very, very serious for Cameron. He has to close the issue down immediately. He'll have to say something like:
"I would have preferred X and X would have been much more preferable but given the broadcasters have decided to go ahead with Y then I will of course attend".
That is all he can do.
It has been blindingly obvious what was going to happen and people churning out pointless cheerleading banter on here is a complete waste of time.
Finally I note Shadsy has withdrawn his debate odds.
Quite agree - Cameron really comes out of this very badly indeed. God help the Tories if this is typical of the type of hide away strategy they are intending to adopt throughout the campaign.
From a purely partisan perspective, what I like is the way the Government has now been on the defensive on different issues for 3 weeks running. I occasionally see something by Osborne on poge 2 of the Standard saying the economy is doing something or other, but mostly it's been Cameron fights back about X or Cameron defends position on Y.
Just 9 weeks to go.
Have you considered reading a different newspaper for an alternative perspective?
Storm and teacup come to mind. That number will get larger if he is empty chaired!!
@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.
Kinda like a selection meeting. Likeliest outcome from that portion of Joe Public that can be arsed to watch? "None of them are up to the job..."
Quite agree - Cameron really comes out of this very badly indeed. God help the Tories if this is typical of the type of hide away strategy they are intending to adopt throughout the campaign.
From a purely partisan perspective, what I like is the way the Government has now been on the defensive on different issues for 3 weeks running. I occasionally see something by Osborne on poge 2 of the Standard saying the economy is doing something or other, but mostly it's been Cameron fights back about X or Cameron defends position on Y.
Just 9 weeks to go.
Cameron fights back about X or Cameron defends position on Y.
Anything that keeps Ed out the news is fine by you, eh Nick?
Did you have your photo taken with Ed? Will he be on your literature?
Mr. W, Cameron has stated for years he thought the debates should happen earlier and be more spaced out. Broadcasters ignored that.
Of course, he does look evasive, but as I loathe the debates, it doesn't bother me.
The risk isn't one way. Aside from the 'six squabbling idiots' scenario I outlined below, if the media and other politicians bang on about this ad infinitum, it'll annoy voters who want to know about things like taxation rates, the deficit, and so forth. There comes a point where complaining becomes whining.
The broadcasters ignored the PM's early debates because he doesn't determine the time scale and all other parties were signed up to them and Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.
As a supporter of the Coalition I am dismayed at the PM's stance. The blame lies with him and his idiot advisers. The majority of the public will also know where the problem lies and it is squarely in No10.
Agree 100%, JackW.
I'm afraid most of the posts on this website this afternoon amount to nothing more than cheerleading banter.
This is actually very, very serious for Cameron. He has to close the issue down immediately. He'll have to say something like:
"I would have preferred X and X would have been much more preferable but given the broadcasters have decided to go ahead with Y then I will of course attend".
That is all he can do.
It has been blindingly obvious what was going to happen and people churning out pointless cheerleading banter on here is a complete waste of time.
Finally I note Shadsy has withdrawn his debate odds.
From my part I'm fairly relaxed about all this because I've not got a great deal invested (politically) in this election (unlike say 2010, when the number one aim was to Get Brown Out)
I would probably, marginally prefer the Tories to win (or ConDems to carry on) but I won't be crying all day on 8th May if Cameron's thrown out.
And at least it'll mean we have at least five years to point and laugh at Ed attempting to run the country...
Quite agree - Cameron really comes out of this very badly indeed. God help the Tories if this is typical of the type of hide away strategy they are intending to adopt throughout the campaign.
From a purely partisan perspective, what I like is the way the Government has now been on the defensive on different issues for 3 weeks running. I occasionally see something by Osborne on poge 2 of the Standard saying the economy is doing something or other, but mostly it's been Cameron fights back about X or Cameron defends position on Y.
Just 9 weeks to go.
Cameron fights back about X or Cameron defends position on Y.
Anything that keeps Ed out the news is fine by you, eh Nick?
Did you have your photo taken with Ed? Will he be on your literature?
I see Broxtowe was one of the seats on the receiving end of a £1000 blood money bung from Blair. How entertaining.
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).
@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.
A leadership debate without Dave is about as exciting as a ticket to watch Queen without Freddie.
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).
That's just a fact, not a justifiction.
Actually it's more than a fact, its the basis which Ofcom uses to evaluate how broadcasters have covered the election. Major party fairness is all that matters in terms of the overall coverage.
Mr. W, Cameron has stated for years he thought the debates should happen earlier and be more spaced out. Broadcasters ignored that.
Of course, he does look evasive, but as I loathe the debates, it doesn't bother me.
The risk isn't one way. Aside from the 'six squabbling idiots' scenario I outlined below, if the media and other politicians bang on about this ad infinitum, it'll annoy voters who want to know about things like taxation rates, the deficit, and so forth. There comes a point where complaining becomes whining.
We will have to see what happens but I agree with you. The debates - especially as they were run last time - are a perversion of democracy where twitches coughs and mannerisms and the ego of journalists count for more than policy. We managed without them in the past and can manage now. The thin justification of them is if we have a debate just before the so called short campaign. Then at least it would not disrupt the issues of the campaign. There is no real justification for any debate other than with the 3 main parties. Bringing in UKIP and no one else was bound to cause complaints.
@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.
A leadership debate without Dave is about as exciting as a ticket to watch Queen without Freddie.
@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.
A leadership debate without Dave is about as exciting as a ticket to watch Queen without Freddie.
@JananGanesh: Another phrase for "empty chair" is "several people who aren't prime minister debating each other". Not sure it's the spectacle some think.
A leadership debate without Dave is about as exciting as a ticket to watch Queen without Freddie.
It's almost too late now without him looking forced into it. An absolutely stupid decision to remain silent (unless they have some very interesting information on him) that he will probably live to regret. I'd have thought the grey beards would have had a word with him about it.
If the debates really don't happen then imo it's highly likely we'll get the lowest turnout ever for an election. A campaign consisting solely of party leaders doing photo-ops in supermarkets is just not going to catch the public imagination.
But that is nonsense! In the 1950s/60s/70s/80s we had no election debates but that did not prevent turnout ranging from 72% to 84% -- far higher than in 2010.
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).
That's just a fact, not a justifiction.
Actually it's more than a fact, its the basis which Ofcom uses to evaluate how broadcasters have covered the election. Major party fairness is all that matters in terms of the overall coverage.
Not so. Section 6.10 of Ofcom would seem to address fairness amongst smaller parties and in terms of their representation at Westminster it is not just a regional issue. The significant Irish parties should be given the same platform as other smaller parties and not to do so seems to breach Section 6.10 of Ofcom's rules.
6.10 In addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.....
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
Do none of the Tory parrots on here worry even a little that their leader appears scared to have a debate with Ed who most commentators have dismissed as sub Foot?
I just can figure out his thinking and though entertaining watching the pom pom girls on here doesn't help
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).
That's just a fact, not a justifiction.
Actually it's more than a fact, its the basis which Ofcom uses to evaluate how broadcasters have covered the election. Major party fairness is all that matters in terms of the overall coverage.
Not so. Section 6.10 of Ofcom would seem to address fairness amongst smaller parties and in terms of their representation at Westminster it is not just a regional issue. The significant Irish parties should be given the same platform as other smaller parties and not to do so seems to breach Section 6.10 of Ofcom's rules.
6.10 In addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.....
Ah yes I remember all those DUP election broadcasts on the TV now.
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
@Scott_P As Prime Minister, if he felt so strongly, he could have had the Coalition put forward a bill setting out the terms of reference for future broadcast debates? Or at least had a consultation?
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
Not a chance Clegg cries off with the Lib Dems on ~ 7% in the polls.
I see Sue Inglish, married to a former Labour party spin doctor, is one of the signatories to that letter from the broadcasters. Westminster politics is a small world innit.
Do none of the Tory parrots on here worry even a little that their leader appears scared to have a debate with Ed who most commentators have dismissed as sub Foot?
I just can figure out his thinking and though entertaining watching the pom pom girls on here doesn't help
I remember when Cameron stood on his own and vetoed the EU treaty change thing some years ago.
The left wing commentariat were just as adamant as you are now that it was a disaster for Dave-no-Mates.
What happened next in the polls?
You seem to under-estimate just how much a lot of people like to see someone go against the flow. People who simply drift along doing what they are told by broadcasters are weak.
There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign.
And he has been saying it for about 5 years
It was up to Cameron and his team to work with the broadcasters, as the other parties have Andrew Neil says that people in No.10 never wanted them to take place.
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
The broadcasters would make a big thing of Cameron not turning up. It would be very embarasing for Cameron and he would have media seeing what alternative plans he had.
As I indicated previously Cameron's advisers on the debates issue need their goolies placed in mangle pour encourager les autres from future election stupidity....
Very true and there are two main advisers to Cameron. Osborne and Crosby. Osborne carries the scars from his daft support for the debates (in that format) at the last GE. So it is puzzling that Crosby agrees. Or does Crosby think that? We will find out at some point in the future. Cameron has a better image overall than Miliband. But one of his few negatives is appearing to look out of touch. This decision reinforces that image.
Crosby is famous (some would say infamous) for wanting to able to control the campaign and make it extremely brutal on specific issues that his polling tells him are winners - it's his method. We've seen it already with the various orchestrated 'weeks', none of which have really gone off as they should due to events (HSBC, Rifkind & Straw, immigration, the debates themselves now). He'd likely dislike debates because they could steer the media narrative away from his chosen issues for days at a time. Think Farage savaging Dave on immigration and every journalist going over an area of Tory policy they can't really agree on, or Ed on cleaning up politics (which always suits a LotO). Even if it descends into a tit-for-tat bunfight it's on areas that the Tories aren't entirely comfortable on. In that respect it may be scars from 2005 that cause his trepidation - when a few off comments from Shadow Cabinet members meant that his strategy of sticking to solid Tory issues went awry. A bad response from Cameron might mean 2-3 days talking about a topic the Tories don't like.
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
Not a chance Clegg cries off with the Lib Dems on ~ 7% in the polls.
Here's the thing one of the Libdems primary objectives is to distance themselves from the Tories. If Clegg is the only one having to defend the Government's record that goes out of the window. Of course he could spend his time attacking the Government's record but without Dave there its almost as if he's attacking himself for being part of it. There is a big downside for the Libdems if Cameron is not there.
I see Sue Inglish, married to a former Labour party spin doctor, is one of the signatories to that letter from the broadcasters. Westminster politics is a small world innit.
Would that be Sue Inglish, married to John Underwood, the man who set up the mysterious Progressive Policies Forum, an organization with no employees and apparently engaged in no activity other than channelling funds to the election campaign of Peter Hain for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party in 2007?
Mr. W, Cameron has stated for years he thought the debates should happen earlier and be more spaced out. Broadcasters ignored that.
Of course, he does look evasive, but as I loathe the debates, it doesn't bother me.
The risk isn't one way. Aside from the 'six squabbling idiots' scenario I outlined below, if the media and other politicians bang on about this ad infinitum, it'll annoy voters who want to know about things like taxation rates, the deficit, and so forth. There comes a point where complaining becomes whining.
The broadcasters ignored the PM's early debates because he doesn't determine the time scale and all other parties were signed up to them and Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.
As a supporter of the Coalition I am dismayed at the PM's stance. The blame lies with him and his idiot advisers. The majority of the public will also know where the problem lies and it is squarely in No10.
He should have agreed to the debates, but he can't back down now.
I'm doubtful that they can lawfully happen if he doesn't agree.
Spectacular own goal by Cameron. He should have taken the revised offer from the broadcasters, that was a win for him. Now he looks, and will increasingly look, shifty, untrustworthy and, most importantly, unprime-ministerial.
The broadcasters in their letter today have left the door open for Cameron to turn up until the last minute. For those on here who believe that the prospect of Ed v an empty chair would be broadcasting suicide consider this:
At every morning news conference, at every walkabout the first, second, and third question asked will be "Will you be attending the debate?"
The broadcasters will bombard the airwaves with pre-debate adverts and news reports based on "Will Cameron show up?". It will make the coverage of "who killed Lucy Beale?" seem insignificant.
And then one day, on one walkabout, or one phone-in Cameron will be faced with a little old lady who will give him both barrels on his cowardice on the debates. That one moment will then be on an endless loop across the news across the campaign with, no doubt, a ubiquitous youtube video and "downfall" parody.
The moment will arrive, on the day the papers will be leading with - "D-day for Cameron" The Times, "Cameron the Chicken" The Mirror, "The REAL debate challenge: when will Phillip debate the ghost of Diana", The Express..
The debate will happen, viewing figures will be through the roof, and Ed will be alone. Those viewers may well then change channels in droves. The damage to Cameron will, however, have been done. It will be far from negligible.
An entirely preventable and monumental own-goal.
And to think that finally the polls were turning to the Tories.
Mr. Money, perhaps. I'm sure a majority of the electorate would enjoy seeing Ed Miliband gunged, or Nick Clegg put in stocks.
Or we could let politicians campaign as they see fit, and the public can judge them on that.
The 7-7-2 format is not carved on stone and handed down by the lord God to his broadcasting prophet Adam Boulton. It's a faintly ridiculous compromise, which is unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein, as well as the Lib Dems.
I do not think it healthy for the media to dictate the course of a campaign. And if we're going to claim that the public's wishes are paramount, I would anticipate the reintroduction of hanging and a vote, or outright withdrawal, on our membership of the EU.
It's not unfair to the DUP/Sinn Fein as they do not face a challenge from any Major Party in NI which is being included in the debates. It's really that simple. All Major Parties competing against one another are included (plus the Greens who are still fighting Ofcom on this).
That's just a fact, not a justifiction.
Actually it's more than a fact, its the basis which Ofcom uses to evaluate how broadcasters have covered the election. Major party fairness is all that matters in terms of the overall coverage.
Not so. Section 6.10 of Ofcom would seem to address fairness amongst smaller parties and in terms of their representation at Westminster it is not just a regional issue. The significant Irish parties should be given the same platform as other smaller parties and not to do so seems to breach Section 6.10 of Ofcom's rules.
6.10 In addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.....
Ah yes I remember all those DUP election broadcasts on the TV now.
Evening all,
Events moving fast, but the DUP and others will block this. I'm still convinced debates will not happen.
Cameron can save this. If he has any sense he will say "OK, I said one 7 way debate and that's what I will do. I will compromise on the date." One debate happens, afraid to debate charge nullified, subsequent debates without him are the dampest of damp squibs.
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
The broadcasters would make a big thing of Cameron not turning up. It would be very embarasing for Cameron and he would have media seeing what alternative plans he had.
It would be embarrassing but no moreso than having to back down to the TV companies in the first place. As for the 'alternative plans' I do not understand what you mean?
Whether you like the TV debates or not. Or whether you like the way they have been negotiated, the fact is that they became part of the UK election period, when Cameron encouraged Brown to agree to debates in 2010. There has been five years during which Cameron could have said that he was not happy with the way the debates took over the whole election campaign. But he seems to have left it to the last minute to object.
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
If he does turn up everyone will know that he, the Prime Minister had been faced down by the TV companies. He would start the debates already disadvantaged. I don't think he will attend. It won't stop Tories voting for Cameron but it will possible hinder swing voters doing the same. That said the debates without the Prime Minister will become somewhat farcical if the Government is not represented by its main party to defend their performance.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
The broadcasters would make a big thing of Cameron not turning up. It would be very embarasing for Cameron and he would have media seeing what alternative plans he had.
It would be embarrassing but no moreso than having to back down to the TV companies in the first place. As for the 'alternative plans' I do not understand what you mean?
This debate thing is absolutely brilliant .. all of the PB lefties are in an absolute pink froth that the PM is saying sod off .I will set my own agenda and I will tell the media what I WILL DO..NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND... WELL DONE CAMMO
@chestnut Parliament should control the media? But that would be the argument against implementing "Levenson" I thought?
The issue is the media controlling parliament.
Cameron is right to say that it isn't up to Murdoch and co to determine how electoral campaigns are conducted.
An invitation should not oblige the recipient to accept.
The problem is I believe that neither Ofcom nor the Electoral Commission have the power to intervene and in this case when we are talking about a significant new (as of 2010) enhancement to the campaign process really the whole issue should be deferred to them to come up with guidelines by which the TV Companies and political parties should adhere to.
What is clear is this current farce is embarrassing and damaging to our electoral system. Its like telling five year olds that they have the run of the kitchen to make a cake. All you get is one almighty mess
Cameron was quite happy, even enthusiastic for campaign debates in 2010.
And he saw how they took over the entire campaign and changed his mind.
When the facts change...
The facts have changed for Dave.
Empty chair or climb down.
Bullied by a foursome of which one is Rupert Murdoch. And you are happy about that?
I think Cameron is doing the right thing, even if it is ti his political disadvantage.
Was Cameron bullied into enthusiastically entering the debates in 2010 ?
Cameron had this badly wrong from the start and has dug himself a hole of his own making and seem intent on shovelling away. He'll find it's a bottomless pit of bad headlines and stories.
One other thing to note. Im not sure, but wasn't the last time someone withdrew from a debate John McCain in 2008. He "suspended" his campaign - including his debate with Obama - in order to "deal with the financial crisis". He was going to be empty-chaired, Obama said something like "to be President you have to deal with more than one thing at a time". McCain caved with a day to spare.
Lessons? 1. You will be empty-chaired and you will give in 2. After the debate no one will care.
OT. When you see ISIS destroying 3000 year old monuments what wouldn't you give to have Saddam back? Until Blair and Bush and put on trial at the Hague no can have any confidence in International justice.
Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn Follow I hear ITV contemplating going unilateral and hosting a 7 way debate as per No10 offer, as they have 1st one. Would send BBC/Sky apoplectic.
Tom Newton Dunn ✔ @tnewtondunn Follow I hear ITV contemplating going unilateral and hosting a 7 way debate as per No10 offer, as they have 1st one. Would send BBC/Sky apoplectic.
I hear TND talks Bollox
Don't speak badly of him; he has momentarily spared us the dreaded AV thread!
As I indicated previously Cameron's advisers on the debates issue need their goolies placed in mangle pour encourager les autres from future election stupidity.
The PM has now backed himself in a tight dead end of his own foolish making and appears to have the desperate options of either a humiliating climb down or the prospect of being empty chaired. He has gambled on the prestige of the Prime Minister not being snubbed and has lost and he deserved to lose.
In doing so the Prime Minister has appeared churlish, evasive and downright bone headed and worse still has even managed to make Ed Miliband appear credible. Quite a coup for the PM's election team.
I can see why the Cameroons don't want debates because Miliband or Farage are more likely to get a boost from them than he is. However, despite the PB Tory attempts at spin, he will either be perceived as a coward scared of debating with his opponents or a bully trying to stop debates going ahead because he hasn't got his own way. Can't see any way that Cameron comes out of this looking the winner when Clegg, Milliband and Farage are all united in their desire for the debates to take place. If he tries to stop being "empty chaired" legally he will be digging an even bigger hole.
The only course of action for the Tories is to do the first debate on ITV then accept the "empty chair" from BBC and Sky.
We have no idea what they implications of the "empty chair" will be but we do know that despite all the sound and fury in 2010 the debates made virtually no difference to the outcome so Cam may get away with being "empty chaired" anyway...
It'll make charter renewal fun Kudos to the BBC for not backing down.
Bloody disgraceful from the BBC,did they ever threaten to empty chair Labour PM Tony Blair.
Grow up Dave has tried to dictate further format changes despite already having a favourable format of 7-7-2. Bullying the Beeb will not go down well either.
Comments
[no more Ed = Goliath comparisons, I promise]
When the facts change...
Just 9 weeks to go.
What will happen when they go on the offensive?
Oh...
The Guardian says the girls were given letters to take home, which they hid rather than showing to their parents
According to the parents of the three girls, it would appear, everyone else is to blame for the girls running off to Syria, except the parents.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31766328
"And try to imagine a 1 to 1 debate, with one of the 1s absent and the other 1 is ed. It will be hilarious, I promise you. A vagina monologue, you might say."
Not one of your best analogies and I'm not sure Ed monologuing about menstruation is the best way to remove the UKIP threat in Doncaster.
I'm afraid most of the posts on this website this afternoon amount to nothing more than cheerleading banter.
This is actually very, very serious for Cameron. He has to close the issue down immediately. He'll have to say something like:
"I would have preferred X and X would have been much more preferable but given the broadcasters have decided to go ahead with Y then I will of course attend".
That is all he can do.
It has been blindingly obvious what was going to happen and people churning out pointless cheerleading banter on here is a complete waste of time.
Finally I note Shadsy has withdrawn his debate odds.
Empty chair or climb down.
Miliband and the rest couldn't qualify.. Europa League
In 1939, Britain declared war on Germany - the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and South Africans made their own minds up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/us/debate-on-a-jewish-student-at-ucla.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
Anything that keeps Ed out the news is fine by you, eh Nick?
Did you have your photo taken with Ed? Will he be on your literature?
'Kinda like a selection meeting. Likeliest outcome from that portion of Joe Public that can be arsed to watch? "None of them are up to the job..."
They could rename it 'Meet the B team'
I would probably, marginally prefer the Tories to win (or ConDems to carry on) but I won't be crying all day on 8th May if Cameron's thrown out.
And at least it'll mean we have at least five years to point and laugh at Ed attempting to run the country...
Interesting defence.....
'Mr Palmer, who received money, did not respond.'
'http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tories-and-nationalists-will-exploit-tony-blairs-106000-blood-money-donation-to-labour-10090487.html'
These things need to be short and snappy. How about a future for all, towards a fairer future, a better future, a better and fairer future.
Never thought I'd say this but bring back Mandelson.
http://tlv1.fm/so-much-to-say/2015/02/26/why-netanyahu-wont-do-the-televised-debate/
I think Cameron is doing the right thing, even if it is ti his political disadvantage.
We managed without them in the past and can manage now. The thin justification of them is if we have a debate just before the so called short campaign. Then at least it would not disrupt the issues of the campaign. There is no real justification for any debate other than with the 3 main parties. Bringing in UKIP and no one else was bound to cause complaints.
After the shock all they'll have left to do is tear themselves apart or justify onr of the most biased piece of broadcasting ever.
6.10 In addition to Rule 6.9, broadcasters must offer the opportunity to take part in constituency or electoral area reports and discussions, to all candidates within the constituency or electoral area representing parties with previous significant electoral support or where there is evidence of significant current support. This also applies to independent candidates. (However, if a candidate refuses or is unable to participate, the item may nevertheless go ahead.)
6.13 If coverage is given to wider election regions, for example in elections to the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly, London Assembly or European Parliament, then Rules 6.8 to 6.12 apply in offering participation to candidates.....
The truth is that Cameron and his team have wanted to avoid the TV debates during the electon campaign. They thought that making the negotation difficult for the broadcasters to agree to, would stop them happening. But the broadcasters have outsmarted Camerons team and will force Cameron to take part, even if he would prefer not to. There is no way that Cameron would not turn up. Would he risk an empty chair with an audience of 10 million watching being told that Cameron had refused to accept the invitation. The Tories would lose the election.
I just can figure out his thinking and though entertaining watching the pom pom girls on here doesn't help
Good luck with that mate.
Of course the secondary question is what does Clegg do? If Cameron doesn't attend he will end up the one defending government policy because everything that has gone through his party agreed with. Five on to one is not going to be pretty. Could Clegg also cry off if Cameron doesn't go?
As Prime Minister, if he felt so strongly, he could have had the Coalition put forward a bill setting out the terms of reference for future broadcast debates? Or at least had a consultation?
The left wing commentariat were just as adamant as you are now that it was a disaster for Dave-no-Mates.
What happened next in the polls?
You seem to under-estimate just how much a lot of people like to see someone go against the flow. People who simply drift along doing what they are told by broadcasters are weak.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/jan/13/uk.partyfunding
I'm doubtful that they can lawfully happen if he doesn't agree.
Parliament should control the media?
But that would be the argument against implementing "Levenson" I thought?
The broadcasters in their letter today have left the door open for Cameron to turn up until the last minute. For those on here who believe that the prospect of Ed v an empty chair would be broadcasting suicide consider this:
At every morning news conference, at every walkabout the first, second, and third question asked will be "Will you be attending the debate?"
The broadcasters will bombard the airwaves with pre-debate adverts and news reports based on "Will Cameron show up?". It will make the coverage of "who killed Lucy Beale?" seem insignificant.
And then one day, on one walkabout, or one phone-in Cameron will be faced with a little old lady who will give him both barrels on his cowardice on the debates. That one moment will then be on an endless loop across the news across the campaign with, no doubt, a ubiquitous youtube video and "downfall" parody.
The moment will arrive, on the day the papers will be leading with - "D-day for Cameron" The Times, "Cameron the Chicken" The Mirror, "The REAL debate challenge: when will Phillip debate the ghost of Diana", The Express..
The debate will happen, viewing figures will be through the roof, and Ed will be alone. Those viewers may well then change channels in droves. The damage to Cameron will, however, have been done. It will be far from negligible.
An entirely preventable and monumental own-goal.
And to think that finally the polls were turning to the Tories.
(edited for typos may not have caught them all
Events moving fast, but the DUP and others will block this. I'm still convinced debates will not happen.
Cameron is right to say that it isn't up to Murdoch and co to determine how electoral campaigns are conducted.
An invitation should not oblige the recipient to accept.
Pretty much Dave told them, "My way or the highway" and is now watching a car speeding off into the distance leaving him at the roadside.
Out of your depth again.
Yes I am out of my depth, but fortunately I have you to stand on.
February: "Cameron's so clever! He doesn't want the debates, so he's negotiating to avoid them happening without taking the blame."
March: "Well debates are dumb anyway."
What is clear is this current farce is embarrassing and damaging to our electoral system. Its like telling five year olds that they have the run of the kitchen to make a cake. All you get is one almighty mess
Cameron had this badly wrong from the start and has dug himself a hole of his own making and seem intent on shovelling away. He'll find it's a bottomless pit of bad headlines and stories.
Lessons? 1. You will be empty-chaired and you will give in 2. After the debate no one will care.
Cameron should take note.
Follow
I hear ITV contemplating going unilateral and hosting a 7 way debate as per No10 offer, as they have 1st one. Would send BBC/Sky apoplectic.
I hear TND talks Bollox