Will anyone bother watching the opposition debate? The answer to that question will show whether the broadcasters were right to cave in to the Conservatives.
The opposition debate will get more hits than the 1 to 1 with the 3 leaders.
People want to see debates not a farce.
The debates have been diluted and don't forget the campaign will have begun with 24 hour tv coverage, the programmes may well suffer from voter fatigue
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
Dunno - not Cleggs fault though. Farage didn't have the leverage he thought he deserved.
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
I guess Farage has two debates.Clegg has one debate and one QT.
Mr Owls - NHS England is the 'NHS' as far as England is concerned. The NHS in Wales and Scotland are devolved. As such it is just the authorising board under which the local commissioning group operate. As even the BBC is forced to admit Greater Manchester will have control of a £6 billion NHS budget. That is devolution; that is localism. Furthermore it is health and social care, which gives the opportunity for local needs to have a local organisation. Its not top down, but clearly the opportunity and structure for local initiatives has to come from the leadership who hold the budgets. Rather than sticking your head in the sand what you should be arguing for is 'best practice' to be followed by other local spending and commissioning groups which build on success and do not repeat mistakes.
Yes, good points well made. If the NHS must persist then localism is the way forward with the flexibility and responsiveness which that inevitably brings.
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
Because UKIP aren't a major party.
OFCOM were quite clear on that, whereas the Lib Dems are.
Will anyone bother watching the opposition debate? The answer to that question will show whether the broadcasters were right to cave in to the Conservatives.
The opposition debate will get more hits than the 1 to 1 with the 3 leaders.
People want to see debates not a farce.
The debates have been diluted and don't forget the campaign will have begun with 24 hour tv coverage, the programmes may well suffer from voter fatigue
You can make innumerable assumptions.
Let`s see what the viewing figures are.
The big question in all of this is how the moderators 'call out' misleading comments by all the participants
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
I guess Farage has two debates.Clegg has one debate and one QT.
The Opposition 'leaders' event can't and won't be a proper debate - as whoever is moderating it will have to constantly be checking for impartiality and balance because of who is on the panel. The exact method by which this will be achieved is not yet known - but it won't be a debate like any ever seen before. It is a very bizarre confection. Particularly as 2 of the participants aren't actually standing for election on May 7. All very strange.
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
Clegg would be defending all of the coalition policies. Perhaps also a back scratch to Cameron who in return saw Clegg in the QT.
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
By all reports, "the quad" actually get on pretty well even after 5 years. You don't think that Cameron and Clegg might not have had a chat about what is in both their best interests?
p.s. I chatted to some people today about the budget & I seem to be alone with my misgivings. Very interested in tonights polls. Tories tightening all the time on the markets & Labour going out. Dunno if that means anything.
BBC News website still has no mention whatsoever of Ed and his hedgie mate. Sky News site is covering it. Honestly. does anyone seriously think the BBC is politically impartial?
Hmm, Ed’s £600K hedge fund donor has been reported by all the major newspapers, Sky giving it major coverage on their on-line site, even the Evening Stardard has covered it – and yet the BBC has no write up anywhere, whatsoever. Quite unbelievable really.
Indeed, yes, although unfortunately it's not 'unbelievable' at all ... in fact it's quite predicable behaviour for the biased BBC.
'Quite outrageous' is closer to the mark. The great pity is that the Conservatives won't ever grow the balls to fix this and privatise the BBC. Then they can revel openly in their left of centre mindset paid for enthusiastically only by those who wish to subscribe.
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
Because UKIP aren't a major party.
OFCOM were quite clear on that, whereas the Lib Dems are.
UKIP are only a major party in England and Wales.
The Lib Dems are a GB wide major party.
I don't think that can be the reason - not when Scotland is less than 10% of GB.
Just X-referencing back to my earlier post - could the thinking be that Clegg and Farage are both in 2 programmes so they are being treated equally?
ie Clegg could NOT have opted to be in the 16 April debate?
Even though Clegg still clearly wins by being in the final programme.
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
It strikes me that Clegg's best bet would be to send his mother.
But is Farage a 'major party leader'? Lets get real shall we? And of course this is not Question Time. They will be appearing separately and there is no 'panel' as such. What might be fun if you are the sort of person who likes to keep his ferrets in his trousers is the 5 way debate by so called opposition leaders. Since the LDs are in government, will this include them?
We're all guessing in the dark about the impact of the debates etc., but I'd think it will be fairly limited unless someone commits a huge blunder. Whether that's in Cameron's interest remains to be seen - I'd have thought that he'd want to do something to disrupt the current balance of voting intention.
On a practical note, all the debates/interviews will be before the PVs go out (20th-ish) except the last. A 7-leader debate will be perfectly manageable if people behave reasonably - I've seen 10-leader debates go well. They force people to talk about their own policies more than attacking others, since you don't have time to launch 6 attacks and you don't want 6 people retaliating. Not such a bad thing.
Mr Owls - NHS England is the 'NHS' as far as England is concerned. The NHS in Wales and Scotland are devolved. As such it is just the authorising board under which the local commissioning group operate. As even the BBC is forced to admit Greater Manchester will have control of a £6 billion NHS budget. That is devolution; that is localism. Furthermore it is health and social care, which gives the opportunity for local needs to have a local organisation. Its not top down, but clearly the opportunity and structure for local initiatives has to come from the leadership who hold the budgets. Rather than sticking your head in the sand what you should be arguing for is 'best practice' to be followed by other local spending and commissioning groups which build on success and do not repeat mistakes.
I lived through the top down reorganisation you are making yourself look ridiculous if you argue 2012 Health and Social Care Act wasnt a top down reorganisation..
Ask people at PCTs SHA's and the new NHS Commissioning board, regions or local offices.
@montie: No10 was determined to stop all debates.This was not what it wanted.Presidential debates now set to be fixed part of parliamentary elections
I have long since given up any expectation of @montie being pleased with anything.
He has a point. We will now have debates at every future election.
Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on how these are perceived. The very disjointed nature of them makes it hard to see which format will win out. Particularly if we continue to see the rise in the use of postal votes - which would mean debates having to be front-loaded at the start of the campaign to have maximum impact.
I can see this messy set of events seeing people just give up on the idea and going back to proper campaigning!
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
Clegg would be defending all of the coalition policies. Perhaps also a back scratch to Cameron who in return saw Clegg in the QT.
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
By all reports, "the quad" actually get on pretty well even after 5 years. You don't think that Cameron and Clegg might not have had a chat about what is in both their best interests?
Yes - agree with you both - it's all very, very convenient for both of them.
@steverichards14: TV debates- Cameron outwits broadcasters and Miliband. Question Time, with balanced audiences, and yet whipped up anger, safely formulaic.
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
Clegg would be defending all of the coalition policies. Perhaps also a back scratch to Cameron who in return saw Clegg in the QT.
Any thoughts on WHY Clegg has opted not to be in the 16 April debate?
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
By all reports, "the quad" actually get on pretty well even after 5 years. You don't think that Cameron and Clegg might not have had a chat about what is in both their best interests?
Yes - agree with you both - it's all very, very convenient for both of them.
5 years of doing deals paying dividends. Kippers and Labour should have teamed up but I guess not their thing.
Mr Owls - NHS England is the 'NHS' as far as England is concerned. The NHS in Wales and Scotland are devolved. As such it is just the authorising board under which the local commissioning group operate. As even the BBC is forced to admit Greater Manchester will have control of a £6 billion NHS budget. That is devolution; that is localism. Furthermore it is health and social care, which gives the opportunity for local needs to have a local organisation. Its not top down, but clearly the opportunity and structure for local initiatives has to come from the leadership who hold the budgets. Rather than sticking your head in the sand what you should be arguing for is 'best practice' to be followed by other local spending and commissioning groups which build on success and do not repeat mistakes.
I lived through the top down reorganisation you are making yourself look ridiculous if you argue 2012 Health and Social Care Act wasnt a top down reorganisation..
Ask people at PCTs SHA's and the new NHS Commissioning board, regions or local offices.
Look and learn what a conflict of interest mess the 2012 NHSHSCA has produced http://www.google.de/imgres? ... [snip] ...0CCEQrQMwAA
In the name of all that's holy would you PLEASE listen to the continued requests for you to use tinyurl.com/ or similar. Thanks in advance etc etc.
@paulwaugh: His critics will still call him chicken. But undeniable David Cameron has outfoxed both broadcasters + parties to get TV debates he wanted.
@steverichards14: TV debates- Cameron outwits broadcasters and Miliband. Question Time, with balanced audiences, and yet whipped up anger, safely formulaic.
One of the interesting outcomes of this is that with Miliband in all 4 events, he will have to spend more time in dark rooms preparing and trying to remember to talk about the economy.
Perhaps Labour are planning on keeping him hidden other than for this 4 things!
Farage the only major party leader not invited to QT - poor negociation.
Poor what?
I would have thought the OFCOM major party status would have made it almost impossible for Clegg to be in there without Farage. How have they got around that?
Because UKIP aren't a major party.
OFCOM were quite clear on that, whereas the Lib Dems are.
UKIP are only a major party in England and Wales.
The Lib Dems are a GB wide major party.
Yeah a programme with just Cameron, Miliband and Clegg is really relevant to Scottish politics
I have a feeling a good many people may have voted before the 30th April...
I think they have to be back a week or so before the election (??) but given the numbers to be issued I am not sure that many will have a particularly early chance to vote.
At the start of this process Labour thought they had got UKIP nicely lined up to outflank the Tories on the right. From the moment Cameron understandably demanded the Greens join in as well, labour have been on the back foot. This is what I like to see in a leader... someone willing to take on vested interests.
The bottom line of the debate shenanigans debates..
Dave was too scared to debate with Farage.
And that`s why he ducked out of the head to head with Ed Miliband.WOW
There was never a serious likelihood of that happening. Ever.
It was a Labour spin tactic that has failed to produce that 'confrontation' - a meeting they never actually wanted to happen.
Bit silly of Cowardly Cameron to say he wanted a head to Ed debate then before Chickening out
Cowardly or not, Cameron knows how to negotiate and get what he wants.
Meanwhile Ed has struck out.
We will see.
The 5 way debate gives Ed more airtime than Cowardly Cameron.
Lets see how that works out.
But that 5 way event will be moderated in such a way as to ensure political impartiality and proper balance. That doesn't make it particularly valuable. And it means Ed has to spend more time prepping for it - and less time campaigning.
During the latter stages of the Vietnam war, "Talks about talks" became a synonym for utter futility. I suppose we will be arguing about the shape of the table next.
I wonder how the BBC are going to ensure "impartiality" if they give the 5 opposition leaders that air time? A special program with just Cameron and Clegg? I presume this must have been agreed already as well, otherwise I don't see how they can be deemed balanced coverage.
I wonder how the BBC are going to ensure "impartiality" if they give the 5 opposition leaders that air time? A special program with just Cameron and Clegg? I presume this must have been agreed already as well, otherwise I don't see how they can be deemed balanced coverage.
If the broadcasters were serious about debates, they should have collectively sponsored debates in each constituency so that voters could have access to all of the candidates for whom they could vote - that is where debates are really needed. None of this other nonsense.
Have you never heard of hustings? I do agree however all these debates are absurd, no matter what the format. We are not electing a president.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
I wonder how the BBC are going to ensure "impartiality" if they give the 5 opposition leaders that air time? A special program with just Cameron and Clegg? I presume this must have been agreed already as well, otherwise I don't see how they can be deemed balanced coverage.
It doesn't really say what that program could or would be...I mean will it be Evan Davis or Andrew Neil grilling him or will be a "day in the life of" or "this is my life" Cameron softy soap type program?
Gordo got the "this is my life" soft soap rub from his mate Piers Morgan on ITV last time.
If the broadcasters were serious about debates, they should have collectively sponsored debates in each constituency so that voters could have access to all of the candidates for whom they could vote - that is where debates are really needed. None of this other nonsense.
Have you never heard of hustings? I do agree however all these debates are absurd, no matter what the format. We are not electing a president.
But if they were sponsored by the broadcasters, they would have more potency
And it is where we should be looking. Holding our MPs and potential MPs to account - voting for the best person to represent us.
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Is this the first time we have had a General Election where 2 of the party leaders aren't actually standing for election to Westminster?
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
So in these debates - how are questions about areas of devolved responsibility treated?
Only the relevant national party can have anything relevant to say about devolved issues.
However, the national parties can speak about English isssues because they will have a vote on them even though they don't affect their constituents.
So on Scottish health issues only SNP will have a view but on English health issues the Scottish and Welsh independence parties have a vote and thus will be expected to have a view.
The Westminster health votes do, to a greater or lesser degree but sometimes very directly, affect the devolved administrations through the budgetary allocations and the Barnett formula. There are very rarely any purely English votes, and it's worrying that so many are trying to claim the opposite.
So in these debates - how are questions about areas of devolved responsibility treated?
Only the relevant national party can have anything relevant to say about devolved issues.
However, the national parties can speak about English isssues because they will have a vote on them even though they don't affect their constituents.
So on Scottish health issues only SNP will have a view but on English health issues the Scottish and Welsh independence parties have a vote and thus will be expected to have a view.
The Westminster health votes do, to a greater or lesser degree but sometimes very directly, affect the devolved administrations through the budgetary allocations and the Barnett formula. There are very rarely any purely English votes, and it's worrying that so many are trying to claim the opposite.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
So in these debates - how are questions about areas of devolved responsibility treated?
Only the relevant national party can have anything relevant to say about devolved issues.
However, the national parties can speak about English isssues because they will have a vote on them even though they don't affect their constituents.
So on Scottish health issues only SNP will have a view but on English health issues the Scottish and Welsh independence parties have a vote and thus will be expected to have a view.
Also, some or all of the Unionist parties are making a big thing of health in Scotland (and Wales from what I see on PB) in the campaigning for this election. It ill behoves them to complain if the SNP and PC return the compliment (especially after the SNP has been far better behaved in terms of parliamentary votes).
Impossible situation all round, but that's the Blairite devolution settlement for you.
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Maybe he will deputise Justine...
Honestly he should call in sick and send Hattie or Jim Murphy. There is no way it doesn't end in disaster for him.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Is this the first time we have had a General Election where 2 of the party leaders aren't actually standing for election to Westminster?
Not if you go back to the time that being in the Lords was unremarkable for a Prime Minister.
And it's probably not unusual more recently than that either. It's just that the debates have turned the spotlight on the also-ran parties and we've noticed for the first time.
"30 April: BBC Question Time programme with David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, presented by David Dimbleby"
This needs to be blocked in court. You can't have three major parties being given TV coverage without the other three major parties getting the same amount of time.
At least the first one is outside the Short Campaign so it can proceed (but is broken too tbh) but the 30th April needs to be blocked.
On thread- the Betfair volume on individual seats is minimal- frequently not more than a £20 bet having been placed. By contrast over £650,000 matched on Betfair's most seats market. I dont know what size bets are available with the traditional bookmakers on individual seats but probably not very high- so if you have a strong view on the outcome betting on most seats probably the easiest way of getting a substantial bet on.
Isn't the value bet Miliband to be PM after the election at 6/4- rather than Labour most seats at 2/1 as will still win where Conservatives win most seats but unable to form a Government which seems a likely outcome.
"30 April: BBC Question Time programme with David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, presented by David Dimbleby"
This needs to be blocked in court. You can't have three major parties being given TV coverage without the other three major parties getting the same amount of time.
At least the first one is outside the Short Campaign so it can proceed (but is broken too tbh) but the 30th April needs to be blocked.
Got to say, ballsy and impressive negotiating from CCHQ. I wouldn't have been brave enough to do what they did. Indeed, I advocated accepting what would have been a much worse option on the basis that the broadcasters wouldn't blink. Not only did they blink but rolled over and had their tummy tickled.
The key debate will be the 5-way, which has most potential to shift the polls given that there'll be two empty nets and also that Miliband is by far the most senior figure there and needs to appear as such.
He might be - but Farage will not want to be outshone. And I think I know who would be likely to come off best in front of the cameras. And it isn't Ed.
Quite. Which is why I think the 5-way has the most potential to shift votes.
Also worth noting that of the five, only Labour aspires to government and so while the rest can critique the flaws of capitalism and so on, only Labour has to come up with a programme that works in the real world, which means that all the other parties can throw in populist ideas and Miliband is going to have to explain why he doesn't go along with them (this is true to an extent in the 7-way too, but it's the left-of-centre voters who'll be crucial in determining whether Labour stays above 30%).
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Is this the first time we have had a General Election where 2 of the party leaders aren't actually standing for election to Westminster?
No - in 2010, three of them didn't (although as Pearson was a peer, he didn't have to as he's guaranteed a seat in Westminster for life).
"30 April: BBC Question Time programme with David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, presented by David Dimbleby"
This needs to be blocked in court. You can't have three major parties being given TV coverage without the other three major parties getting the same amount of time.
At least the first one is outside the Short Campaign so it can proceed (but is broken too tbh) but the 30th April needs to be blocked.
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Is this the first time we have had a General Election where 2 of the party leaders aren't actually standing for election to Westminster?
No - in 2010, three of them didn't (although as Pearson was a peer, he didn't have to as he's guaranteed a seat in Westminster for life).
Fair enough
It probably looks worse this time because of the higher profile being given to the small parties
Got to say, ballsy and impressive negotiating from CCHQ. I wouldn't have been brave enough to do what they did. Indeed, I advocated accepting what would have been a much worse option on the basis that the broadcasters wouldn't blink. Not only did they blink but rolled over and had their tummy tickled.
The key debate will be the 5-way, which has most potential to shift the polls given that there'll be two empty nets and also that Miliband is by far the most senior figure there and needs to appear as such.
He might be - but Farage will not want to be outshone. And I think I know who would be likely to come off best in front of the cameras. And it isn't Ed.
Quite. Which is why I think the 5-way has the most potential to shift votes.
Also worth noting that of the five, only Labour aspires to government and so while the rest can critique the flaws of capitalism and so on, only Labour has to come up with a programme that works in the real world, which means that all the other parties can throw in populist ideas and Miliband is going to have to explain why he doesn't go along with them (this is true to an extent in the 7-way too, but it's the left-of-centre voters who'll be crucial in determining whether Labour stays above 30%).
You seem to think that Ed will just stick to real world, deliverable policies....so far he has spent a hell of a lot of time banging on things like "resetting markets" and good vs bad capitalists, neither are which are really based in reality.
If it was so easy just to "reset" a market with no negative side effects, you would think it would be done on a regular basis around the world. The reality is for all the faults of it, the market based system it is the most efficient system that man has come up with.
The only alternative in the power sector is government nationalization, which is even more pie in the sky than thinking he can flip a switch and reset the market.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
Cameron is being forced to do a debate he doesn't want to do, Miliband is doing a debate which can only go badly for him, I'd say both sides have had to compromise.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
And if he gets duffed up by Natalie Bennett?
LOL....that is about as likely as me voting for Natalie Bennett in the GE....If it was Caroline Lucas, there might be a chance that she scores some hits.
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
Clegg Miliband, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
WHAT?!
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Is this the first time we have had a General Election where 2 of the party leaders aren't actually standing for election to Westminster?
Not if you go back to the time that being in the Lords was unremarkable for a Prime Minister.
And it's probably not unusual more recently than that either. It's just that the debates have turned the spotlight on the also-ran parties and we've noticed for the first time.
Since devolution, it's normal for the Plaid and SNP leaders not to contest Westminster seats. In fact, I don't think either has since the Assembly and Parliament came into place. Before then, it'd depend on which parties you count. If you're excluding embryonic parties that later became significant, I think you'd have to go back to 1895 when Rosebery and Salisbury led the two main parties of the day.
The bottom line of the debate shenanigans debates..
Dave was too scared to debate with Farage.
And that`s why he ducked out of the head to head with Ed Miliband.WOW
There was never a serious likelihood of that happening. Ever.
It was a Labour spin tactic that has failed to produce that 'confrontation' - a meeting they never actually wanted to happen.
Bit silly of Cowardly Cameron to say he wanted a head to Ed debate then before Chickening out
Cowardly or not, Cameron knows how to negotiate and get what he wants.
Meanwhile Ed has struck out.
We will see.
The 5 way debate gives Ed more airtime than Cowardly Cameron.
Lets see how that works out.
Calling Cameron cowardly after outbluffing everyone in the debates negotiations is an interesting viewpoint but not one I'd share.
He's trying to build a meme - especially with the repeated capitalisation. However nobody is copying it despite him repeating it ad nauseum. Which is sad - in much the same way as spotting a cat that's been repeatedly run over is 'sad'.
In contrast, interesting and articulate contributors including SeanT and Mr Eagles (and a few others( have coined words and phrases on PB which have spread outside the site and seen much wider usage.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
And if he gets duffed up by Natalie Bennett?
Well that's pretty unlikely. If Caroline Lucas was the Green representative then Ed would be in serious trouble, but Bennett is pretty useless.
Ed is going to be duffed up by Nicola Sturgeon doing yet more damage to the prospects of his party in Scotland. I really don't see an upside to him debating people he doesn't want to debate simply because the person he does want to debate is not there. No doubt there will be a crack or two about absent friends but after that it is all downhill.
Can anyone, anyone at all, imagine Mandy letting this happen?
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
And if he gets duffed up by Natalie Bennett?
Well that's pretty unlikely. If Caroline Lucas was the Green representative then Ed would be in serious trouble, but Bennett is pretty useless.
I think she has had a crash course in media presentation. She did quite well on the recent QT.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
And if he gets duffed up by Natalie Bennett?
LOL....that is about as likely as me voting for Natalie Bennett in the GE....If it was Caroline Lucas, there might be a chance that she scores some hits.
And therein lies the point: Bennett starts with much lower expectations than Miliband. When she's not trying to remember any part of her own manifesto, she's a lot more credible. If she has any sense - and that's a point very much open for debate - she'll leave Green policy alone entirely and instead try to act as the voice for the angry left instead: shout the problems, not her solutions.
The proof of the pudding will be in the number of viewers. My guess is it will be half of what there was last time and the majority of them will watch the 7 way farce. The Dumb & Dumber show will attract ordinary viewing numbers for Sky as will the BBC stitch up. The TV companies, despite the inevitable hyping will realise it wasn't worth their effort and it will be just another demonstration of the desperate state of current affairs media in this country.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
More a bad day for Ed Miliband. I cannot understand why he agreed to the opposition debate other than a misguided opinion that he will be good at it. He will be under attack by everyone and not least the SNP which will no doubt result in RIP labour in Scotland
You never know, Miliband might raise above it all and look Prime Ministerial while the kiddies shout and scream? The thing is opinion of Miliband is so low, he can't go much lower can he whatever happens?
And if he gets duffed up by Natalie Bennett?
Well that's pretty unlikely. If Caroline Lucas was the Green representative then Ed would be in serious trouble, but Bennett is pretty useless.
I suspect Bennett is undergoing a heck of a lot of media training since her radio disaster. I imagine she will be better prepared for it after having had such a calamity a few weeks ago.
I must say that I think her Australian heritage will count against her - don't we have enough mouthy politicians of our own without importing more?!
@stephenkb: Whoever in Labour agreed to let Ed Miliband join the also-rans debate: do Labour a favour, skip work on Monday. http://t.co/H8cAOsIDbq
"Labour strategists, who feared debates wouldn't happen at all, are optimistic that the Labour leader will be able to transform his ratings in the debates."
We kept hearing that from Team Gordo...if only the public get to know him, they will change their mind. Maybe with Ed, after 4 years of terrible personal ratings, it will be different.
One factor that the is difficult for the betting markets to factor in is the postal vote impact.Effectively there are two different elections-the postal one around mid April and the polling station one on May 7th.So the official campaign duration of 37 days is split in two halves. There is good reason to suppose that postal votes will increase as a proportion of total votes cast(more convenient for voters a safer option for the parties) It is not inconceivable that given a turnout of around 66% a third of electors wont vote, a third will vote by post and a third at polling stations.Given that postal votes tend to be returned almost immediately around half the votes in the GE could be determined by around 17-20th April. The implication is that the parties have to shift opinion in the space of around three weeks from now to influence the postal voters-a tall order.So a debate Aptil 30th may be only relevant to third of the electorate.
Ed is going to be duffed up by Nicola Sturgeon doing yet more damage to the prospects of his party in Scotland. I really don't see an upside to him debating people he doesn't want to debate simply because the person he does want to debate is not there. No doubt there will be a crack or two about absent friends but after that it is all downhill.
Can anyone, anyone at all, imagine Mandy letting this happen?
I doubt there will even be a quip at Dave and Nick's expense because this is specifically billed as a "challengers" debate for opposition parties. The parties of government are not supposed to be there.
Comments
Let`s see what the viewing figures are.
"Blow me thats an incredible victory by Cameron.
I continually underestimate this guy."
Like some of us on here underestimate the craven sycophancy of Cameron's disciples. You and Flightpath being the most embarrassing.
OFCOM were quite clear on that, whereas the Lib Dems are.
UKIP are only a major party in England and Wales.
The Lib Dems are a GB wide major party.
I may have underestimated his strategic genius.
Remember the leaked plan was for this to be a 4 person Challengers Debate (ie without Miliband). Miliband obviously asked to take part so I'm sure Clegg could have done the same.
As Clegg has said no it's now being called an "Opposition Parties" debate but that is just a bit of branding.
It helps Cameron massively that Clegg has opted not to take part - as if Clegg was there it would look as if Cameron was ducking it - as Cameron would be the only person missing - with all the associated bad publicity.
But with Clegg not there as well it now gets branded an "Opposition Parties" debate which then completely takes the focus off Cameron not being there.
Finally Miiband's presence helps Farage a bit as it makes the 16 April debate a bigger event. But Clegg still does much better than Farage - as Clegg is at the final 30 April event (and Farage isn't) which will subliminally makes people think Clegg counts much more than Farage.
Bloody hell Downing St showed some nerve. This talk of being cowardly is just sour grapes.
@montie: No10 was determined to stop all debates.This was not what it wanted.Presidential debates now set to be fixed part of parliamentary elections
'Quite outrageous' is closer to the mark. The great pity is that the Conservatives won't ever grow the balls to fix this and privatise the BBC. Then they can revel openly in their left of centre mindset paid for enthusiastically only by those who wish to subscribe.
Meanwhile Ed has struck out.
Just X-referencing back to my earlier post - could the thinking be that Clegg and Farage are both in 2 programmes so they are being treated equally?
ie Clegg could NOT have opted to be in the 16 April debate?
Even though Clegg still clearly wins by being in the final programme.
But is Farage a 'major party leader'? Lets get real shall we? And of course this is not Question Time. They will be appearing separately and there is no 'panel' as such.
What might be fun if you are the sort of person who likes to keep his ferrets in his trousers is the 5 way debate by so called opposition leaders. Since the LDs are in government, will this include them?
On a practical note, all the debates/interviews will be before the PVs go out (20th-ish) except the last. A 7-leader debate will be perfectly manageable if people behave reasonably - I've seen 10-leader debates go well. They force people to talk about their own policies more than attacking others, since you don't have time to launch 6 attacks and you don't want 6 people retaliating. Not such a bad thing.
Ask people at PCTs SHA's and the new NHS Commissioning board, regions or local offices.
Look and learn what a conflict of interest mess the 2012 NHSHSCA has produced
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/62285000/gif/_62285615_nhs_structure_2notitle.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19674838&h=251&w=624&tbnid=URahPAIsYfKS9M:&zoom=1&docid=kmGuhn_ch2vFUM&ei=_pINVf-BHYPLaK3jgcgD&tbm=isch&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=4336&page=1&start=0&ndsp=15&ved=0CCEQrQMwAA
I can see this messy set of events seeing people just give up on the idea and going back to proper campaigning!
It is what it is
Haters gonna hate...
Perhaps Labour are planning on keeping him hidden other than for this 4 things!
What great judgement!
The 5 way debate gives Ed more airtime than Cowardly Cameron.
Lets see how that works out.
He has no allies on that panel.
This is what I like to see in a leader... someone willing to take on vested interests.
I count Clegg, Farage, Bennet, Leanne Wood and Sturgeon.
I do agree however all these debates are absurd, no matter what the format. We are not electing a president.
The debates are already a joke and that I expect is what Cameron wanted to achieve. It speaks to Crosby's political acumen but not to the integrity of the Tory Party or the Prime Minister. All in all another bad day for politics
Gordo got the "this is my life" soft soap rub from his mate Piers Morgan on ITV last time.
And it is where we should be looking. Holding our MPs and potential MPs to account - voting for the best person to represent us.
Why the hell would Ed take part in such a farcical debate? Why put himself on the same level as those minor parties?!? What the hell is Lucy Powell doing. Crosby has absolutely run rings around her.
Impossible situation all round, but that's the Blairite devolution settlement for you.
And it's probably not unusual more recently than that either. It's just that the debates have turned the spotlight on the also-ran parties and we've noticed for the first time.
This needs to be blocked in court. You can't have three major parties being given TV coverage without the other three major parties getting the same amount of time.
At least the first one is outside the Short Campaign so it can proceed (but is broken too tbh) but the 30th April needs to be blocked.
http://www.andrewjenkins.co.uk/#!methodology/c1hd0
This one has UKIP winning 17 seats ( last forecast on 5th March)...
Isn't the value bet Miliband to be PM after the election at 6/4- rather than Labour most seats at 2/1 as will still win where Conservatives win most seats but unable to form a Government which seems a likely outcome.
Also worth noting that of the five, only Labour aspires to government and so while the rest can critique the flaws of capitalism and so on, only Labour has to come up with a programme that works in the real world, which means that all the other parties can throw in populist ideas and Miliband is going to have to explain why he doesn't go along with them (this is true to an extent in the 7-way too, but it's the left-of-centre voters who'll be crucial in determining whether Labour stays above 30%).
It probably looks worse this time because of the higher profile being given to the small parties
If it was so easy just to "reset" a market with no negative side effects, you would think it would be done on a regular basis around the world. The reality is for all the faults of it, the market based system it is the most efficient system that man has come up with.
The only alternative in the power sector is government nationalization, which is even more pie in the sky than thinking he can flip a switch and reset the market.
In contrast, interesting and articulate contributors including SeanT and Mr Eagles (and a few others( have coined words and phrases on PB which have spread outside the site and seen much wider usage.
Can anyone, anyone at all, imagine Mandy letting this happen?
I must say that I think her Australian heritage will count against her - don't we have enough mouthy politicians of our own without importing more?!
We kept hearing that from Team Gordo...if only the public get to know him, they will change their mind. Maybe with Ed, after 4 years of terrible personal ratings, it will be different.
There is good reason to suppose that postal votes will increase as a proportion of total votes cast(more convenient for voters a safer option for the parties)
It is not inconceivable that given a turnout of around 66% a third of electors wont vote, a third
will vote by post and a third at polling stations.Given that postal votes tend to be returned almost immediately around half the votes in the GE could be determined by around 17-20th April.
The implication is that the parties have to shift opinion in the space of around three weeks from now to influence the postal voters-a tall order.So a debate Aptil 30th may be only relevant to third of the electorate.
The Paxman interviews are in five days time.